# TC Top Recommended Film Scores: Discussion



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

So, I posted this thread in the movies section, but I guess I'll put it here because more people will see it.

Have we ever done a list on TC Top Recommended Film Scores? If so, I can't find it anywhere.

If not, I think it would be a really cool idea, does anyone have thoughts on it?


Also, we could a top recommended movies in general, if people are interested.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

The Film Scores is a great idea, I would participate. The greatest movies seems superfluous since there are special sites devoted to movies with tons of lists of recommended movies in each subcategory. It could possibly be about movies related to music or something like that.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Miklós Rózsa's score for Ben Hur is terrific. (The movie is only so-so, other than the famous chariot scene, but an interesting artifact of its time.) Selections have been played at various concerts, and it was even made into a choral suite for Christmas.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

On a side note, I have been watching a lot of old horror movies lately, and was interested to see how often Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake was used as a main title and over the end credits. Most notable, perhaps, is the 1931 Dracula, and the lesser known The Mummy (1932). It was also used for the much lower budget "old dark house" mystery Secret of the Blue Room (1933). It must have been a favorite of the producer at Universal Pictures.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

It could be interesting to compare the three different groups:

1. Classical music composers who also composed film scores (e.g. Arnold, Prokofiev, Shostakovich)
2. Film score composers who also composed classical music (e.g. Rota, Rozsa, Williams)
3. Film score composers who (almost) did not compose classical music (e.g. Horner, Shore, Zimmer)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> not only Ben Hur, but also Ivanhoe, Spellbound, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Providence, Quo Vadis etc. Great composer. And the movie is not that bad, especially when compared what the stuff that Hollywood produces today (superhero movies etc)


Since I don't think I can delete a post, I will do a pre-reply (which should confuse some readers.) I would add The Thief of Bagdad. (For a restored issue of the original silent version, Carl Davis brilliantly adapted Rimsky Korsakov music.)


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> Miklós Rózsa's score for Ben Hur is terrific. (The movie is only so-so, other than the famous chariot scene, but an interesting artifact of its time.) Selections have been played at various concerts, and it was even made into a choral suite for Christmas.


not only Ben Hur, but also Ivanhoe, Spellbound, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Providence, Quo Vadis etc. Great composer. And the movie is not that bad, especially when compared what the stuff that Hollywood produces today (superhero movies etc)


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Listen to this treasure - soundtrack to Metropolis - an amazing movie for its time




This is the time of Fritz Lang and Berthold Brecht. It is a pity what WW2 destroyed.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> On a side note, I have been watching a lot of old horror movies lately, and was interested to see how often Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake was used as a main title and over the end credits. Most notable, perhaps, is the 1931 Dracula, and the lesser known The Mummy (1932). It was also used for the much lower budget "old dark house" mystery Secret of the Blue Room (1933). It must have been a favorite of the producer at Universal Pictures.


I just found these ancient horror movies on youtube
HÄXAN (1922)




L'inferno (1911)





I haven't seen them, but they look reallly insteresting both visually and musically.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

So we could have a nomination round where everyone would nominate up to 20 works, and then a voting round.

Or, 

We could have one round where everyone ranks up to 25 scores, and I could just compile them into one list.

I think the second option would be easier, but in the past the first one worked too.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I just found these ancient horror movies on youtube
> HÄXAN (1922)
> 
> 
> ...


HAXAN is a bizarre movie, with some highly memorable scenes. The effects are remarkable for the time it was made. It was reissued with narration in 1968 as Witchcraft Through the Ages. I have the Criterion release on DVD. Offhand, I don't recall there being a musical score, but it is certainly a suitable film for the Halloween season.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Anyone have other thoughts on the list?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Anyone have other thoughts on the list?


i guess it is up to you. You should first decide how big you want the list to be, ie 100 or 50 best movie scores, then decide how many selections you want to compete and the about the organization (voting or raking).


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> It could be interesting to compare the three different groups:
> 
> 1. Classical music composers who also composed film scores (e.g. Arnold, Prokofiev, Shostakovich)
> 2. Film score composers who also composed classical music (e.g. Rota, Rozsa, Williams)
> 3. Film score composers who (almost) did not compose classical music (e.g. Horner, Shore, Zimmer)


Maybe add a fourth group: film score composers who actually don't know how to compose but record and pass on melodic fragments to their team of trained, uncredited composers who flesh out those fragments and actually write the music (e.g. Zimmer, Elfman, etc.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I think it's premature to decide how big the selection list has to be. Might be best to just let it grow on a daily basis, and Tchaikov6 will know when it's time to put on the brakes.

Of course, I favor voting rounds over list ranking. I know that I'm not going to submit a list of 20 movie scores at one time; I can hardly think of 20 movie scores except for the ones I could hardly tolerate.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> I think it's premature to decide how big the selection list has to be. Might be best to just let it grow on a daily basis, and Tchaikov6 will know when it's time to put on the brakes.
> 
> Of course, I favor voting rounds over list ranking. I know that I'm not going to submit a list of 20 movie scores at one time; I can hardly think of 20 movie scores except for the ones I could hardly tolerate.


So are you proposing everyone nominates ten or twenty scores, and the top 50 go into the voting round?


----------



## severance68 (Mar 12, 2016)

I like this idea very much. Between the Golden Age composers and the guys who started their careers around mid-century (Goldsmith, Williams, Bernstein, et al.), there are so many great scores to choose from. Off the top of my head I would include:

King Kong - Max Steiner
The Informer - Steiner
The Charge Of the Light Brigade - Steiner

Captain Blood - Korngold
The Adventures of Robin Hood - Korngold
The Sea Hawk - Korngold

The Rains Came - Alfred Newman
The Mark of Zorro - Newman
Captain From Castile - Newman

All the Miklos Rozsa scores mentioned earlier

Sweet Smell of Success - Elmer Bernstein
The Magnificent Seven - Bernstein

In Harm's Way - Jerry Goldsmith
The Sand Pebbles - Goldsmith
Patton - Goldsmith


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

If people have a list of works they want to nominate, you can message them to me.

Include the full title of the movie, and who wrote it.

Rank the films as well, like this:

(Most highly ranked) _____- 25



(Lowest ranked)_____0


I can create a deadline later, but if people want to start, I'd love to get a head start in organizing the list.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> So are you proposing everyone nominates ten or twenty scores, and the top 50 go into the voting round?


No. I'm suggesting that each member select a small number of scores each day, and you eventually decide on the total of entries based on the slowing down of selections as the days go by. But you're going in a totally different direction, so never mind.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> No. I'm suggesting that each member select a small number of scores each day, and you eventually decide on the total of entries based on the slowing down of selections as the days go by. But you're going in a totally different direction, so never mind.


Oh, yeah, that makes sense. I just think it would be simpler to have basic nominating and voting... I think the results will generally be the same.


----------



## Steve Mc (Jun 14, 2018)

Great thread idea Tchaikov6. Will be sending you my nomination list.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

If it were up to me, I would operate this like most TC Top Recommended lists have been in the past. That is to say, voters rank a number (i.e. 10) of entries from most favorite to least favorite -- after a week or so points are tallied, giving 10 (or more if lists are longer) to the most favorite work, 9 to the next most favorite and so on; the top 10 film scores constitute positions 1-10 on the list. This process then repeats for positions 11-20 (until there is not enough participation for the list to continue).

Obviously this is aimed at being a more long-term approach, and you are free to do whatever you want.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

I love film music, I’m happy to join in whatever is decided. :lol:

Isn’t there already a film score thread somewhere?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Portamento said:


> If it were up to me, I would operate this like most TC Top Recommended lists have been in the past. That is to say, voters rank a number (i.e. 10) of entries from most favorite to least favorite -- after a week or so points are tallied, giving 10 (or more if lists are longer) to the most favorite work, 9 to the next most favorite and so on; the top 10 film scores constitute positions 1-10 on the list. This process then repeats for positions 11-20 (until there is not enough participation for the list to continue).
> 
> Obviously this is aimed at being a more long-term approach, and you are free to do whatever you want.


That is a good idea, but as you said, that takes a while, and I'm not sure I have the time to keep that running for a couple months or so... Also, I was thinking of making it into a countdown (I would post a couple of scores a day, let discussion run or something, and then post some others the next day). That way it would not be as time consuming (only thirty minutes or so a day), and the same results would happen.

But in terms of what would be most accurate, that would probably work the best.

In fact, I guess it is not assumed that I would run the list. If you or someone else wanted to run it (I just don't think I could, sorry), I think it's a fantastic idea.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

severance68 said:


> The Rains Came - Alfred Newman


I do not know this score. Has it been released on CD? I would also another of my favorite Newman scores: How the West Was Won. (And for Bernstein, I would add To Kill a Mockingbird.)

Edit: And let me add Jerome Moross' The Big Country. (Moross also wrote concert music, although I am not as familiar with that.)


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Morricone with _The Mission_ and _Cinema Paradiso_. Gorgeous tunes with some very spiritual writing. _The Mission_ is particularly striking because of the use of native music and its instruments.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Portamento said:


> If it were up to me, I would operate this like most TC Top Recommended lists have been in the past. That is to say, voters rank a number (i.e. 10) of entries from most favorite to least favorite -- after a week or so points are tallied, giving 10 (or more if lists are longer) to the most favorite work, 9 to the next most favorite and so on; the top 10 film scores constitute positions 1-10 on the list. This process then repeats for positions 11-20 (until there is not enough participation for the list to continue).
> 
> Obviously this is aimed at being a more long-term approach, and you are free to do whatever you want.





Tchaikov6 said:


> That is a good idea, but as you said, that takes a while, and I'm not sure I have the time to keep that running for a couple months or so... Also, I was thinking of making it into a countdown (I would post a couple of scores a day, let discussion run or something, and then post some others the next day). That way it would not be as time consuming (only thirty minutes or so a day), and the same results would happen.
> 
> But in terms of what would be most accurate, that would probably work the best.
> 
> In fact, I guess it is not assumed that I would run the list. If you or someone else wanted to run it (I just don't think I could, sorry), I think it's a fantastic idea.


I think a TC recommended list of films scores is a good idea. Though I'm not sure how much I could personally contribute as I don't watch a lot of movies. I think we should build the list as before, 10 pieces at a time. To have a good list takes times.

As Portamento suggests is my preference. I compiled the Piano Trios list, which was a total of 125 pieces. It takes a lot of time, but not a lot of time each day. I'd say it takes about 30 minutes once a week. The list I compiled lasted from September to March. That's a commitment of duration not time each day.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> I think a TC recommended list of films scores is a good idea. Though I'm not sure how much I could personally contribute as I don't watch a lot of movies. I think we should build the list as before, 10 pieces at a time. To have a good list takes times.
> 
> As Portamento suggests is my preference. I compiled the Piano Trios list, which was a total of 125 pieces. It takes a lot of time, but not a lot of time each day. I'd say it takes about 30 minutes once a week. The list I compiled lasted from September to March. That's a commitment of duration not time each day.


Yes, I can definitely do thirty minutes once a week. 
So, I'll put in the process I think most people are leaning towards right now, if in a week or so people are still okay with this way, I think I'll go ahead and start the list.

How the process works.
The basic procedure involves a two-stage process that builds up the list 10 works at a time.

Nomination round:
Each participant can nominate up to 15 works, without ranking them. At the end of the nomination round, the works that receive the most nominations go forward to the voting round. The number of works going forward will vary depending on the spread of nominations; the aim will be for the voting round to include about 15 works, preferably no fewer than 12 and no more than 18.

Voting round:
Each participant votes for their 10 favorites from the list of most-nominated works. These favorites must be ranked in order of preference from 1st to 10th. Voters can vote for fewer than 10 if they wish.
At the end of the voting round, votes are counted as follows: the bottom-placed work in each voter's ballot receives 1 point, the next-highest receives 2 points, and so on up to a possible 10 points for the first-placed work if the voter has voted for the full 10 allowed. The 10 works with the greatest points totals are enshrined in the final list, in the order indicated by their points totals.
Any of the nominated works that fails to be enshrined by the voting round will have to be nominated again in the next nomination round.

Please note that while it's permissible for a participant to nominate or vote for only a single work, such a participant will have a much smaller impact on the final outcome than those who nominate 15 works and/or vote for 10 works.

When your post has been "liked" you'll know that your nomination and vote has been tallied. This will make it more difficult to double count, or miss a vote etc.

You do not have to include all the information behind the piece you're recommending, but it would be nice if at least one person does. So if one person could nominate a piece in the format:
Composer's last name, film score. This way I don't have to look up all that information myself. The final list will havethis information.

This was copied and pasted from the piano trios list, because I believe it is the same procedure that portamento and senza sordino were talking about. If anyone has any other thoughts, feel free to share, thank you!


----------



## Steve Mc (Jun 14, 2018)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Yes, that's it.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

This seems interesting. I don't know much about the genre but love to learn good film musics.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Let's do this.

I also plan to run the same subject as a game early next year, it could be interesting to compare the results.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

_"Nomination round:
Each participant can nominate up to 15 works, without ranking them. At the end of the nomination round, the works that receive the most nominations go forward to the voting round. The number of works going forward will vary depending on the spread of nominations; the aim will be for the voting round to include about 15 works, preferably no fewer than 12 and no more than 18."_

I am not sure if this is the ideal approach, because the well-known scores will get a lot of nominations and some less known will get only one nomination (think Trevor Jones and the Dark Crystal). But that does not mean that the work with less nomations is worse than the work with more nomations, it might just be better known. I would collect all the nomations, and then let people vote about them (give each composition a grade)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I am not sure if this is the ideal approach, because the well-known scores will get a lot of nominations and some less known will get only one nomination (think Trevor Jones and the Dark Crystal). But that does not mean that the work with less nomations is worse than the work with more nomations, it might just be better known. I would collect all the nomations, and then let people vote about them (give each composition a grade)


Every approach that reduces a large body of work to a few examples is going to be problematic. If this becomes a game of voting, or top 10, I probably won't participate (not that such a position would or should influence anyone else).


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Jacck said:


> _"Nomination round:
> Each participant can nominate up to 15 works, without ranking them. At the end of the nomination round, the works that receive the most nominations go forward to the voting round. The number of works going forward will vary depending on the spread of nominations; the aim will be for the voting round to include about 15 works, preferably no fewer than 12 and no more than 18."_
> 
> I am not sure if this is the ideal approach, because the well-known scores will get a lot of nominations and some less known will get only one nomination (think Trevor Jones and the Dark Crystal). But that does not mean that the work with less nomations is worse than the work with more nomations, it might just be better known. I would collect all the nomations, and then let people vote about them (give each composition a grade)


I'm not sure that this would work better than how the piano trios was conducted, but if other people would rather do that then we can try it.


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

Let's not forget Ennio Morricone and John Williams. The two made the soundtracks of most of the 'cult' movies.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I'm not sure that this would work better than how the piano trios was conducted, but if other people would rather do that then we can try it.


Look at the games in the Games section above. There is always a selection round where everybody can nominate 2-3 works a day
Game: works by composers from Asia/Africa/Oceania (nominations)
and the selection round ends when the desired number of compositions is reached (for example 200).
Then you could split the 200 works into 20 rounds á 10 works and always give a 1 week time for participants to grade each composition with a a score 1 to 10. 20 weeks is about 5 months. You would collect the votes once a week and post the round for a new week. 
That is just an idea. You can of course do it as you like. I am also not a specialist in these games. The game master here is Bulldog, he organized hundreds of games.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Jacck said:


> That is just an idea. You can of course do it as you like. I am also not a specialist in these games. The game master here is Bulldog, he organized hundreds of games.


That's true, but each of them was a game with not more than a couple of weeks for selections and voting. Concerning games or projects involving a few or more months/years, I have no insights or strong interest.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Look at the games in the Games section above. There is always a selection round where everybody can nominate 2-3 works a day
> Game: works by composers from Asia/Africa/Oceania (nominations)
> and the selection round ends when the desired number of compositions is reached (for example 200).
> Then you could split the 200 works into 20 rounds á 10 works and always give a 1 week time for participants to grade each composition with a a score 1 to 10. 20 weeks is about 5 months. You would collect the votes once a week and post the round for a new week.
> That is just an idea. You can of course do it as you like. I am also not a specialist in these games. The game master here is Bulldog, he organized hundreds of games.


It's a great idea, but I'm not sure that people would want to do it, and even if they wanted to I don't think it would be the most accurate. For shorter lists, as Bulldog says, this is completely appropiate. But for a long-term film list I think the style portamento and senza sordino recommended might work better. Thank you, though! These ideas are always suggested and welcome, and I feel bad for "shutting them down" in a way- if this way is more popular then by all means we can do it... I'd just rather do it the other way.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

When I compiled the piano trios list, I had a nomination round followed by a voting round, adding ten pieces to our list every two weeks. My nomination round was not ranked (week one). Which ever ten pieces garnered the most nominations went onto the voting round (week two). We voted on ten. 

Early in my days here about four years ago, the string quartet list was slightly different, there was a nomination round following by a voting round to add ten pieces each two weeks (like the list I compiled). But the nomination round was ranked (not like my list). Some members preferred this as it gave priority to which pieces to listen to. 

You'll have to talk to the person who compiled the string quartet list to find out how he organized that list. I used an excel spreadsheet. 

The piano trios list is 125 pieces long. The string quartet list is even longer at about 200 pieces. This takes months, most of a year. Others TC compiled lists have been shorter. Don't feel you need to make an enormous list. 50 film scores seems plenty to me, and that still takes about twenty weeks to compile (Ten pieces every two weeks). I could even see this list being as short as thirty. But I will leave that up to you. The results will be interesting.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> When I compiled the piano trios list, I had a nomination round followed by a voting round, adding ten pieces to our list every two weeks. My nomination round was not ranked (week one). Which ever ten pieces garnered the most nominations went onto the voting round (week two). We voted on ten.
> 
> Early in my days here about four years ago, the string quartet list was slightly different, there was a nomination round following by a voting round to add ten pieces each two weeks (like the list I compiled). But the nomination round was ranked (not like my list). Some members preferred this as it gave priority to which pieces to listen to.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I would like to do 50-100 works, but we can go as far as people want.

So the current questions-

How many works? (Currently: 50-100)
Is the method I posted earlier all right? If not, what would you prefer? (Currently: Yes, that's what I'll be doing).
Ranking nominations? (Currently:?)


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

I'd say 50 is a good starting point, and we can go further if interest/participation is still strong. As a gauge, my electronic works list was 50 pieces long (and that's probably a pretty niche genre). I prefer ranking nominations for the reason senza sordino listed above.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Ranking nominations is generally more informative, and helps other participants prioritize listening suggestions (very valuable once you get to more obscure repertoire). If you do 10 nominations a round, a typical weighting we used for past lists was

1 = 15 pts
2 = 14 pts
3 = 13 pts
...
10 = 6 pts


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I'm assuming musicals are out. It's music written for a film, but I'm assuming musicals are not included, just to be clear. What about rock and roll music written as a film score? Is this to be included? I can't think of any specific examples right now, but I know they exist. Are we to nominate music that sounds sort of classical? Does it have to be performed by an orchestra? I know some film music is now all done by computer. I'm just throwing out some questions to set the parameters. 

My preference, but I can be persuaded otherwise, is for music written specifically for a film performed by an orchestra. Electric guitars and a drum kit is allowed, but not a rock band. 

P.S. Saturday Night Fever?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

My main preference would be that the music has to be composed for the movie. For example, I would not like to see Visconti's Death in Venice on the list, as beautiful (and fitting) as Mahler's music is.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> It's a great idea, but I'm not sure that people would want to do it, and even if they wanted to I don't think it would be the most accurate. For shorter lists, as Bulldog says, this is completely appropiate. But for a long-term film list I think the style portamento and senza sordino recommended might work better. Thank you, though! These ideas are always suggested and welcome, and I feel bad for "shutting them down" in a way- if this way is more popular then by all means we can do it... I'd just rather do it the other way.


I cannot image a more accurated approach than the one I suggested. Everyone listens to every composition and gives it a rating. The compositions with the most consistently high ranking will win. Research in psychology and sociology is often done in this manner (ratings using scales).


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> I'm assuming musicals are out. It's music written for a film, but I'm assuming musicals are not included, just to be clear. What about rock and roll music written as a film score? Is this to be included? I can't think of any specific examples right now, but I know they exist. Are we to nominate music that sounds sort of classical? Does it have to be performed by an orchestra? I know some film music is now all done by computer. I'm just throwing out some questions to set the parameters.
> 
> My preference, but I can be persuaded otherwise, is for music written specifically for a film performed by an orchestra. Electric guitars and a drum kit is allowed, but not a rock band.
> 
> P.S. Saturday Night Fever?


Those are very good questions... right now I was thinking anything written for a film (except musicals, which could be its own list). For instance, randy Newman's toy story has both elements of classical and non-classical so I would want to include that. So that's my opinion...


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I cannot image a more accurated approach than the one I suggested. Everyone listens to every composition and gives it a rating. The compositions with the most consistently high ranking will win. Research in psychology and sociology is often done in this manner (ratings using scales).


Okay, that makes much more sense. I don't know what I thought you were suggesting, sorry. Still, since the other method is more popular I'll probably go with that.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> My main preference would be that the music has to be composed for the movie. For example, I would not like to see Visconti's Death in Venice on the list, as beautiful (and fitting) as Mahler's music is.


Yes, I definitely agree... Stuff like Fantasia and 2001: a space odyssey will not be permitted (although I love the score to both!)


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Yes, I agree. Fantasia and 2001 are ineligible. But what about Saturday Night Fever (Bee Gees) and Chariots of Fire (Vangelis)? 

Is it true that a film score can be different than the title track and songs in the movie? What exactly defines a film score? These are questions inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> Yes, I agree. Fantasia and 2001 are ineligible. But what about Saturday Night Fever (Bee Gees) and Chariots of Fire (Vangelis)?
> 
> Is it true that a film score can be different than the title track and songs in the movie? What exactly defines a film score? These are questions inquiring minds want to know.


I think Saturday Night Fever and Chariots of Fire should be allowed... I still think that anything written specifically for a movie can be considered the "score" to a film. As Wikipedia puts it, "A film score (also sometimes called background score, background music, film soundtrack, film music, or incidental music) is original music written specifically to accompany a film." "The majority of scores are orchestral works rooted in Western classical music, but many scores are also influenced by jazz, rock, pop, blues, new-age and ambient music, and a wide range of ethnic and world music styles."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> Yes, I agree. Fantasia and 2001 are ineligible. But what about Saturday Night Fever (Bee Gees) and Chariots of Fire (Vangelis)?
> 
> Is it true that a film score can be different than the title track and songs in the movie? What exactly defines a film score? These are questions inquiring minds want to know.


Perhaps they can broadly be considered film scores (although I think that is stretching it, especially for Saturday Night Fever), but I think it would harder to justify as being in the classical music section.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Yes, I definitely agree... Stuff like Fantasia and 2001: a space odyssey will not be permitted (although I love the score to both!)


But you could include the score that was originally written for the movie, by Alex North, recorded, and simply not used in the final product.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

JAS said:


> But you could include the score that was originally written for the movie, by Alex North, recorded, and simply not used in the final product.


Yes, I think you could use that.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

JAS said:


> Perhaps they can broadly be considered film scores (although I think that is stretching it, especially for Saturday Night Fever), but I think it would harder to justify as being in the classical music section.


Hmmmm... yeah, this is really tough. I guess since it's a "classical music forum" we might rule out Saturday Night Fever and Chariots of Fire... but I still think it would make a much more accurate list of what our top 50 film scores/soundtracks are.

If someone else than you and senza sordino supports the only 'orchestral' or 'classical' style music, then I'll go for it. Until then, I'd like to probably stay with anything is open.

I'm planning to start the list on Sunday, and right now I will be using the same procedure as senza sordino in the piano trio list.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Not only is Saturday Night Fever out of bounds because it isn't classical, it was not written for the movie either.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Not only is Saturday Night Fever out of bounds because it isn't classical, it was not written for the movie either.


Oh, I didn't know that... I'd never seen the movie or heard the soundtrack, just assumed what it was because of what the others said... so definitely not that. I guess a rule that will be added is that yes, only orchestral "classical" style film music will be allowed.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Hmmmm... yeah, this is really tough. I guess since it's a "classical music forum" we might rule out Saturday Night Fever and Chariots of Fire... but I still think it would make a much more accurate list of what our top 50 film scores/soundtracks are.
> 
> If someone else than you and senza sordino supports the only 'orchestral' or 'classical' style music, then I'll go for it. Until then, I'd like to probably stay with anything is open.
> 
> I'm planning to start the list on Sunday, and right now I will be using the same procedure as senza sordino in the piano trio list.





Bulldog said:


> Not only is Saturday Night Fever out of bounds because it isn't classical, it was not written for the movie either.


I read on wikipedia that the Bee Gees wrote the music specifically for the movie. But I'm not sure this should be eligible simply because it isn't classical. And it's more of a set of songs rather than a film score. Is there a difference between a soundtrack and a film score? Are the Bond songs eligible? The music for Chariots of Fire are not songs, this is more of a film score, just not classical. Do we allow Danny Elfman but not Vangelis? My personal opinion that we allow both. But no to Saturday Night Fever and the Bond Songs.

Perhaps I'm debating for no reason because Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees) and A View to a Kill (Bond song performed by Duran Duran) aren't going to make the top fifty list anyway. I'm sure we can come up with a better list of music. (Hermann, Korngold, Jarre, Bernstein etc)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There's a really good movie by Bergman named _The Magic Flute_. I looked it up and the score's by somebody named Mozart. Does that qualify? :angel:


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> I read on wikipedia that the Bee Gees wrote the music specifically for the movie. But I'm not sure this should be eligible simply because it isn't classical. And it's more of a set of songs rather than a film score. Is there a difference between a soundtrack and a film score? Are the Bond songs eligible? The music for Chariots of Fire are not songs, this is more of a film score, just not classical. Do we allow Danny Elfman but not Vangelis? My personal opinion that we allow both. But no to Saturday Night Fever and the Bond Songs.
> 
> Perhaps I'm debating for no reason because Stayin' Alive (Bee Gees) and A View to a Kill (Bond song performed by Duran Duran) aren't going to make the top fifty list anyway. I'm sure we can come up with a better list of music. (Hermann, Korngold, Jarre, Bernstein etc)


Yeah, honestly I think for right now I won't put in restrictions and if someone does nominate something like that we can discuss the merits of it being nominated.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> There's a really good movie by Bergman named _The Magic Flute_. I looked it up and the score's by somebody named Mozart. Does that qualify? :angel:


Unfortunately, no. I wish it did.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

So, my first question after starting.

Should we break up movie series, like Star Wars, Harry Potter, and in this case Lord of the Rings?

The entire Lord of the Rings series has been nominated, so what are people's thoughts on the eligibility of that?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I don't know the answer to your question about serials and sequels. 

What if I only nominate ten film scores? I'd like to participate but my knowledge is a bit limited. Are my rankings 15 to 6, or 10 to 1?


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Tchaikov6 said:


> So, my first question after starting.
> 
> Should we break up movie series, like Star Wars, Harry Potter, and in this case Lord of the Rings?
> 
> The entire Lord of the Rings series has been nominated, so what are people's thoughts on the eligibility of that?


I think this should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

As indicated by my vote, I strongly believe the Lord of the Rings should be one entry. Like Wagner for his Ring Cycle, Howard Shore composed dozens of leitmotifs for the characters and locations which are meant to be recalled and developed throughout the entirety of the 11-hour epic. Isolating the movies really does a disservice to the score's long-term world-building and emotional impact. For example, there are many powerful moments in the score of Return of the King (the collapse of Sauron, the crowning of the king, the last goodbye, etc.) that, because of the leitmotifs, wouldn't have been nearly as meaningful without the 7 hours of setup.

I'm less sure about Star Wars (the original trilogy) since the films were not exactly conceived as a unit, hence the scores were not either. I also couldn't really distinguish the 3 scores in my head, so I don't have much of a clue as to how Williams developed and referenced themes. If there are strong enough thematic connections between the scores, excluding things like the simple reuse of the opening and closing credits music, then I wouldn't be against grouping them as such. But this is coming from someone who probably won't vote for them.

The Harry Potter films should really be broken up though considering how many different composers the franchise had and how each one basically eschewed all of the prior composers' work, save for the main theme.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

senza sordino said:


> I don't know the answer to your question about serials and sequels.
> 
> What if I only nominate ten film scores? I'd like to participate but my knowledge is a bit limited. Are my rankings 15 to 6, or 10 to 1?


What have we done in the past? I would think it would be 10-1.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Trout said:


> I think this should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> As indicated by my vote, I strongly believe the Lord of the Rings should be one entry. Like Wagner for his Ring Cycle, Howard Shore composed dozens of leitmotifs for the characters and locations which are meant to be recalled and developed throughout the entirety of the 11-hour epic. Isolating the movies really does a disservice to the score's long-term world-building and emotional impact. For example, there are many powerful moments in the score of Return of the King (the collapse of Sauron, the crowning of the king, the last goodbye, etc.) that, because of the leitmotifs, wouldn't have been nearly as meaningful without the 7 hours of setup.
> 
> ...


Okay, the Lord of the Rings will be one score from now on (since that has definitely convinced me).

All right, I think at this point Star Wars will be film by film. Harry Potter I would agree as well.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Tchaikov6 said:


> What have we done in the past? I would think it would be 10-1.


15 to 6 is better. A movie score placed at #14 is not twice as 'valuable' as one placed at #15. To phrase it differently, a score that shows up at #15 spot in two lists should be rewarded far better than one that shows up at #14 in one list.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Okay, the Lord of the Rings will be one score from now on (since that has definitely convinced me).


I don't agree with this. Your thread, your rules, but I appreciate the three scores differently.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2018)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Yes, I definitely agree... Stuff like Fantasia and 2001: a space odyssey will not be permitted (although I love the score to both!)





JAS said:


> But you could include the score that was originally written for the movie, by Alex North, recorded, and simply not used in the final product.


Alex North wrote a score for _Fantasia_? Wow - that must have raised an eyebrow with Walt.

"No, you see Alex, this is about animating images to accompany the classics - you know, Bach, Beethoven..."

"Are you saying my scores aren't classical?"

Aside from that silliness, I might vote. There is a thread where I can recall offering a dozen movies - though I belong to the school that scores are difficult to evaluate without the visual context, and rarely buy soundtracks.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> 15 to 6 is better. A movie score placed at #14 is not twice as 'valuable' as one placed at #15. To phrase it differently, a score that shows up at #15 spot in two lists should be rewarded far better than one that shows up at #14 in one list.


Okay, we'll go with 15-6.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Art Rock said:


> I don't agree with this. Your thread, your rules, but I appreciate the three scores differently.


Yeah, I'm sorry that I'm making a lot of rules that people don't like... It's just that other people do like them, and I don't want to change the rules for a third time. So, yeah, sorry, we're staying with the whole series as one.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Alex North wrote a score for _Fantasia_? Wow - that must have raised an eyebrow with Walt.
> 
> "No, you see Alex, this is about animating images to accompany the classics - you know, Bach, Beethoven..."
> 
> ...


No, he wrote the score to 2001: A Space Odyssey, not Fantasia. That would have been crazy, I agree.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2018)

Tchaikov6 said:


> No, he wrote the score to 2001: A Space Odyssey, not Fantasia. That would have been crazy, I agree.


Well, yes, I was (I thought obviously) joking. No one would think that anyone had written an original score for _Fantasia_.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Well, yes, I was (I thought obviously) joking. No one would think that anyone had written an original score for _Fantasia_.


I prove once again how awful I am at picking up on humor on the internet.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

I would suggest splitting Film scores for series such as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. 

If the purpose of the list is to produce a helpful guide to beginners, then lumping all of the scores together isn't exactly helpful for a beginner. Maybe there's not quite so much distinction these days, but the cost of a CD for one movie and a Box set to encompass a series of movies could be a unhelpful.

I agree that some film scores could be seen as a whole across the series, but they can also be crushingly repetitive.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

AlexD said:


> I would suggest splitting Film scores for series such as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
> 
> If the purpose of the list is to produce a helpful guide to beginners, then lumping all of the scores together isn't exactly helpful for a beginner. Maybe there's not quite so much distinction these days, but the cost of a CD for one movie and a Box set to encompass a series of movies could be a unhelpful.


How is lumping the Lord of the Rings together unhelpful? If anything, the reverse is unhelpful. If the Return of the King is recommended before Fellowship, then how is the listener supposed to contextualize the development of all the different themes if they listen in that "recommended order?"

The price is really not an issue, even for those looking for CDs. I found a 3-CD set of the Lord of the Rings soundtrack on Amazon for under $30. And all of the music is readily available on hust about any streaming service like Youtube and Spotify.

From my understanding, Star Wars wouldn't suffer nearly as much if split apart. Williams, according to Wikipedia, scored each movie individually and seemed to try to not rely too much on previous material, rather compose a new set of themes for each movie.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

AlexD said:


> I would suggest splitting Film scores for series such as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
> 
> If the purpose of the list is to produce a helpful guide to beginners, then lumping all of the scores together isn't exactly helpful for a beginner. Maybe there's not quite so much distinction these days, but the cost of a CD for one movie and a Box set to encompass a series of movies could be a unhelpful.
> 
> I agree that some film scores could be seen as a whole across the series, but they can also be crushingly repetitive.


I think it has been pretty much unanimously agreed that the Star Wars films should be split up, so there's not much discussing to do with that.

However, as I said in the nominating thread, my idea for Lord of the Rings was to have people personally nominate based on their tastes- one score or all together. Nominating for one score would put one over the other, while nominating for the whole thing would just get it more points. I don't think we will have to worry about any of the scores not making the first voting round- however, my plan is to present two separate lists- one where Lord of the Rings is split up, and one where it isn't- I will give a week between nominating and voting where people can vote for one list over the other- since there seem to be pretty split opinions right now. After that week, whichever list gets the most votes will be the voting list. 
Anyone have thoughts on that?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Based on a recent poll Do you consider film music to be classical music?, it seems that the time has come, and TalkClassical could use a Most Recommended Film Scores list.









Should we start a nomination thread? The rules would be "like for the list of most recommended operas".

Eligible would be film scores that follow the guideline of the OP of the aforementioned discussion thread and poll.

My opinion on the LOTR question is that it should be considered one work, just like The Ring cycle. The composer was hired once and it was the intention of both the composer and the filmmakers to have the project be essentially a 12-hour 3-part film, filmed as one production and released in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Star Wars, Star Trek, or Harry Potter on the other hand were not homogenous projects. They should instead be viewed as "traditions" of commissions from the same composer or various composers.

The voting would aim at establishing the TOP 200. My personal excel chart of favourite scores by year tells me it's a very appropriate number.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

This project has been dormant for the past two years; reading through all the postings provides the reasons for the inactivity.

For the project to work, it needs a manager who is generally avaiable every day and makes definitive decisions ( doesn't bend in the wind). Put another way, a manger is needed who is dedicated to the entirety of the project and has an autocratic approach. I've seen plenty of games/projects go poorly or end prematurely when the initiator's enthusiasm faded over time. 

Keep in mind that there's an opera project active at the moment that has very little participation or momentum. What would make this film music project more popular among TC members?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> This project has been dormant for the past two years; reading through all the postings provides the reasons for the inactivity.
> 
> For the project to work, it needs a manager who is generally avaiable every day and makes definitive decisions ( doesn't bend in the wind). Put another way, a manger is needed who is dedicated to the entirety of the project and has an autocratic approach. I've seen plenty of games/projects go poorly or end prematurely when the initiator's enthusiasm faded over time.
> 
> Keep in mind that there's an opera project active at the moment that has very little participation or momentum. What would make this film music project more popular among TC members?


One only needs to look at the 4 day young, 12-pages long thread with 70 votes. The neweness of it all would definitely bring some attention, whereas operas already have recommended lists, and also feature on the main list of recommended works, so are less motivating.

I intend to be the manager myself. I tend to have at least one long evening I could spare each week, and I am invested in promoting this genre of music. I have already studied and adapted the rules post of Granate's 2020 project and have a starting post thought-through. I have experience with compiling ranked lists based on forum votes, from other forums. Additionally, for the duration of the nomination and voting process I would not participate in any controversial discussion threads concerning film music.

I would start in the second half of August, when I will have two months of a more relaxed schedule.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Keep in mind that there's an opera project active at the moment that has very little participation or momentum. What would make this film music project more popular among TC members?


I don't think many TC members are very familiar with film music (or opera, for that matter). Anyways, discussions over what constitutes "classical" music would run the project into the ground.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> This project has been dormant for the past two years; reading through all the postings provides the reasons for the inactivity.
> 
> For the project to work, it needs a manager who is generally avaiable every day and makes definitive decisions ( doesn't bend in the wind). Put another way, a manger is needed who is dedicated to the entirety of the project and has an autocratic approach. I've seen plenty of games/projects go poorly or end prematurely when the initiator's enthusiasm faded over time.


oh **** you don't mean me????:lol:

but yeah, i was a bad host.

just to clarify, however, there _is_ a list that was produced, which you can find here. People will claim it was due to lack of management that the project failed, but I also think it was due to lack of interest/knowledge in the topic in general.

if i was running this all over again, however, I would recommend that you strictly allow only one score per film (aka Star Wars and LOTR would be separate). It gets messy and people get mad at you if you try to enact special rules/polls.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'd be fancied to find a better film score than *Titanic.* I don't know as many _older_ scores, but just by the sound of Horner's craft here it seems impossible. For serving the purposes of a film the best anyone could do, it is cue music at its most pure.






I think contemporary fans in general would expect a "great score" to be 'complex' like big contemporary works, but they're missing it. The classic approach fleshed out right here.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> I'd be fancied to find a better film score than *Titanic.* I don't know as many _older_ scores,


You make it sound as though *Titanic *was ancient.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

What I meant is, I don't know a lot of classic era scores, so I'd be fancied to find something as powerful and effective as the above in the classic era. The love theme at 1:24 is perfection.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> What I meant is, I don't know a lot of classic era scores, so I'd be fancied to find something as powerful and effective as the above in the classic era. The love theme at 1:24 is perfection.


Did you like the film itself? I didn't like the film, so passed on the score.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Everyone overhypes that film because of subconsciously the music. Nothing really great in the film itself; the best compliment any film composer could get to have a film rated so high just because people aren't noticing it's the music doing it.

One of the biggest oversights in film history.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

...well I certainly don't think Titanic is the best ever, not even close for me and major issues with plagiarism stain Horner's reputation to my mind, although I do enjoy his work during a film, conveying so often, the right moods.

I do know that Horner was reputed to have made many millions from the soundtrack sales. I think he opted for shares in the movie too which boosted his income considerably iirc, but I could be mistaken on that. I do know that the producers saw dollar signs in their eyes when they first heard the title song.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> Everyone overhypes that film because of subconsciously the music. Nothing really great in the film itself; the best compliment any film composer could get to have a film rated so high just because people aren't noticing it's the music doing it.
> 
> One of the biggest oversights in film history.


If the film is 'overhyped' (hype is bad enough, isn't it?) then it's because of the grandness of the whole project. The score was, IMO, a relatively minor player compared to things like the construction of the boat!


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> If the score is 'overhyped' (hype is bad enough, isn't it?) then it's because of the grandness of the whole vision.


Fixed.



MacLeod said:


> The score was, IMO, a relatively minor player compared to things like the construction of the boat!


The construction of an easily sinkable ship can't be that great. All boat engineers could reconstruct the Titanic given enough time. Could all composers write a terrific score given enough time?



mikeh375 said:


> ...well I certainly don't think Titanic is the best ever, not even close for me


I might agree with everything after this statement, but I would fail to hear why Titanic is not objectively a great work of music, if your argument is plagiarism then Beethoven plagiarized Ode to Joy from Mozart: case and point, plagiarism doesn't really take into consideration 'form.'

If someone were to tell me John Williams writes excellent music, I would tell them he doesn't have the _form_ to be considered that great, not because he partly 'steals' tidbits of sound. It's the content of the music itself. With Titanic admittedly, not every great form of art is necessarily suited for every connoisseur.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Fixed.......................
> 
> I might agree with everything after this statement, but I would fail to hear why Titanic is not objectively a great work of music, if your argument is plagiarism then Beethoven plagiarized Ode to Joy from Mozart: case and point, plagiarism doesn't really take into consideration 'form.'
> 
> If someone were to tell me John Williams writes excellent music, I would tell them he doesn't have the _form_ to be considered that great, not because he partly 'steals' tidbits of sound. It's the content of the music itself. With Titanic admittedly, not every great form of art is necessarily suited for every connoisseur.


Ethereality, I'm not looking to discuss objective and subjective semantics because that's pointless, you like it, I don't..simple right? (I do think the song is well done mind). Besides my mention of plagiarism refers to his work as a whole, with many instances having been cited. See these recent posts here..post 693 and following on next page, post 707.

https://www.talkclassical.com/60008-john-williams-worthy-addition-47.html#post1887935

Plagiarism is much more overt in Horner's work, far beyond the innocent use of common stock materials and coincidences one finds in tonality.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> Besides my mention of plagiarism refers to his work as a whole, with many instances having been cited. See these recent posts here..post 693 and following on next page, post 707.
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/60008-john-williams-worthy-addition-47.html#post1887935
> 
> Plagiarism is much more overt in Horner's work, far beyond the innocent use of common stock materials and coincidences one finds in tonality.


I read that educated post of yours. In fact, I've heard one of the melodies in Titanic from an earlier piece too. But the emphasis within the form is entirely different, that if you were viewing in a different role than yours of a critic and connoisseur, like the irreplaceable role of a lawyer, you might start worrying about the well-being a living composer who may have influenced Horner's adoption of their ideas. But since your role is like mine of an art critic, we might refrain from passing judgments on what is plagiary or not, as we might completely misinterpret the conscious intention of an inventor making own his grand statement, like those who see a few familiar oak trees in a forest without recognizing they're in a totally different forest.



mikeh375 said:


> Ethereality, I'm not looking to discuss objective and subjective semantics because that's pointless, you like it, I don't..simple right? (I do think the song is well done mind).


I suppose if you actually were interested, it might warrant further conversation. Fair enough. I can understand when I'm categorically out of place.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> I read that educated post of yours. In fact, I've heard one of the melodies in Titanic from an earlier piece too. But the emphasis within the form is entirely different, that if you were viewing in a different role than yours of a critic and connoisseur, like the irreplaceable role of a lawyer, you might start worrying about the well-being of any living composers who took part in influencing Horner to steal ideas. But since your role is like mine of an art critic, we must refrain from passing judgments on what is plagiary or not, because that might completely misinterpret the conscious intention of the composer, who invented one grand statement in structure, but all some people can hear are the trees in the forest without recognizing they're in a forest.


I'm a composer by trade so I take the view that copyright is sacrosanct. The 'Troy' example is quite disgraceful and he was rightly sued. His intentions were pretty obvious to me and others. Even given the circumstances he had to work in for Troy, that sort of almost verbatim ripping off is bad form and leaves a bad taste.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2020)

Ethereality said:


> Fixed.


I don't understand what you've 'fixed' (yes, I saw the word you replaced).



Ethereality said:


> The construction of an easily sinkable ship can't be that great. All boat engineers could reconstruct the Titanic given enough time. Could all composers write a terrific score given enough time?


I was referring to James Cameron's reconstruction of the ship, but since this was the most expensive film ever made at the time, much about the production was vast. (Except the story, which seemed to me at the time, and to some critics at the time, trivial.)



Ethereality said:


> I might agree with everything after this statement, but I would fail to hear why Titanic is not objectively a great work of music, [etc]


_Titanic _seems to me to be a good example of the problem (though I seem to plough a lone furrow on this one) of identifying a score as 'great', regardless of the quality of the movie it accompanies. Yes, it won 11 Oscars (including for Best Score), and made a mint at the box office, so it was both hugely popular and received mainstream critical acclaim (if we take Oscars at face value), but it nevertheless attracted some criticism for a number of different aspects. It was not _universally _acclaimed, so it is reasonable to say that there remains a fair degree of subjectivity about the 'greatness' of the film. Here's one amusing quote from Wikipedia.



> filmmaker Robert Altman called it "the most dreadful piece of work I've ever seen in my entire life".[139


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1997_film)#Critical_reception


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> I'm a composer by trade so I take the view that copyright is sacrosanct. The 'Troy' example is quite disgraceful and he was rightly sued. His intentions were pretty obvious to me and others. Even given the circumstances he had to work in for Troy, that sort of almost verbatim ripping off is bad form and leaves a bad taste.


Thanks. It's good to know too, as I'm not extensively read in film scores nor knew all of the works he stole from. But I have responded in the past that a distress over mild copying can often miss the point when creating a new and more revolutionary structure.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> Thanks. It's good to know too, as I'm not extensively read in film scores nor knew all of the works he stole from. *But I have responded in the past that a distress over mild copying can often miss the point when creating a new and more revolutionary structure.*


Yes, I'd say there is truth in that. Media music in particular, is almost always constrained by stylistic briefs that often reference well known work (temp tracks). It's a good measure and test of the composer's creativity and invention to see how close they can get in spirit and emotion to the temp track without blatantly stealing from it.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I forgot if you said you were fan of John Williams, but this argument is in defense of him as well: while imo the score for Titanic surpasses his own approach, I think we place a little too much weight on originality in the 20th and 21st centuries, and look where it has gotten us in Classical. Most of the greatest works these days (and I mean actually good ones) simply improve on past concepts that haven't been tied up yet. Initially modeling music after Beethoven's symphonies can be a great idea to lead to new avenues, as he and the majority of his contemporaries modeled them after Mozart and Haydn, and you only have so many limited options within the craft of music. I can find no fault with the Titanic score, I think it makes for a great modern symphony/synth-phony, despite being made up of tracks for film cues. It has good form and memorable moments, nevertheless it made that movie. As MacLeod points out, it may not be the best film in the world--I don't think it is whatsoever without the context of the _music_ subconsciously driving the audience. Horner at other times takes cues directly from past composers, and I don't think he should've been penalized if he credited them, but he didn't. If he had credited them, rebuilding their cues into something (and crediting them) should be perfectly fine in the constraints of this modern hollywood mess. I think the problem mostly stems from the fact that myself and others don't know loads of film scores besides the popular ones, I think I've heard, idk, a couple 100 film scores. I'd like to find one as good as Titanic, as for the position Horner became quite successful and fitting at, he seemed pretty inspired writing that one.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> I forgot if you said you were fan of John Williams, but this argument is in defense of him as well: while imo the score for Titanic surpasses his own approach, I think we place a little too much weight on originality in the 20th and 21st centuries, and look where it has gotten us in Classical. Most of the greatest works these days (and I mean actually good ones) simply improve on past concepts that haven't been tied up yet. Initially modeling music after Beethoven's symphonies can be a great idea to lead to new avenues, as he and the majority of his contemporaries modeled them after Mozart and Haydn, and you only have so many limited options within the craft of music. I can find no fault with the Titanic score, I think it makes for a great modern symphony/synth-phony, despite being made up of tracks for film cues. It has good form and memorable moments, nevertheless it made that movie. As MacLeod points out, it may not be the best film in the world--I don't think it is whatsoever without the context of the _music_ subconsciously driving the audience. Horner at other times takes cues directly from past composers, and I don't think he should've been penalized if he credited them, but he didn't. If he had credited them, rebuilding their cues into something (and crediting them) should be perfectly fine in the constraints of this modern hollywood mess. I think the problem mostly stems from the fact that myself and others don't know loads of film scores besides the popular ones, I think I've heard, idk, a couple 100 film scores. I'd like to find one as good as Titanic, as for the position Horner became quite successful and fitting at, he seemed pretty inspired writing that one.


Depending on one's view, the stagnating of certain types of movie scores into expected tropes and styles is either a problem or not. For me, I find it irritating at times that the overuse of established musical memes has descended into cliche (and to me, parody), at the expense of creativity and originality. This levelling out of creativity does make sense from an entertainment and business perspective though because the efficacy of the formulas (musical and dramatic), have a proven dollar track record.

Having written music for media and the concert hall myself, my take on what constitutes writing a symphony is - all things musical considered - a very different paradigm to what it takes to write a cue which is why I am sceptical when so called symphonies are 'born' out of film scores.

Horner's reputation is on the whole, very good and deservedly so, but no composer would want to be known for constantly taking others music even if they credited the fact. Any competent musician could do that so there has to be personality i.e originality, a manner, a way of seeing, writing and hearing that's unique. A good composer should naturally have that without resort to blatant/overt thievery, even working within the strict parameters of the dreaded temp track and the movie's genre
(unless they are pressed to get very close to another's work of course).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

mikeh375 said:


> why I am sceptical when so called symphonies are 'born' out of film scores.


Skeptical is an interesting term to use, but I guess this answered my first sentence above.



mikeh375 said:


> Depending on one's view, the stagnating of certain types of movie scores into expected tropes and styles is either a problem or not. For me, I find it irritating at times that the overuse of established musical memes has descended into cliche (and to me, parody), at the expense of creativity and originality. This levelling out of creativity does make sense from an entertainment and business perspective though because the efficacy of the formulas (musical and dramatic), have a proven dollar track record.


Yes, aside from the topic of Horner, if you're inventing a new work and care rely on the _harmonic_ theories of others and established compositional importances of the masses to restructure your own vision from, you may also consider using pre-existing compositional models or archetypes to build your vision off of: that is, essentially refocus your creativity into actually meaningful outlets, for the most significant growth. This is philosophy. The boundary on this depends on the sensitivity of those involved, yes, but also the _respect _we pay to those also involved. What's better than an idealist of musical evolution? What is more respectful of art? Creativity focused into the wrong areas is useless. It should be decided by the importance and intensity of its impact, else we're all bound to wallow in more deranged and detached complexes of art: why can't we have the best art in every generation? The answer lies in the fact that the majority doesn't pay their due respect and research into those putting in the work.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I haven't read the entire thread and am unsure the point here but we had a poll on film music just in the past year or two that took nominations from anyone/everyone and allegedly listed the top 25 or 50 or so. As I recall a bunch of Star Wars movies were at the top.

I recall this specifically because one of my nominees, All That Jazz, was excluded from consideration because the powers that be said it was a musical.


----------

