# Isn't Movie Music Some of the Worst Music on the Planet?



## Owen David

I'm not dissing movie music - at its best it is wonderfully inspiring and cinema with music often achieves the highest summits in artistic experience.

But don't you think it has become, over the years, increasingly formulaic...just there to_ "do a job" _in a sort of minimal-engagement fashion._ "You want sad? I can do sad. You want triumphant? I can do triumphant!" _

I think this results from a number of factors: dumbing down of cinema itself with all the superhero franchises dominating so much, the overamplification in cinema theatres which guarantee an easily achieved emotional impact, and an increasingly "risk-averse" culture in the movie business.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I heard some pretty bad movie music going back to the golden age of Hollywood. There were always some great, some bad, and everything in-between. Is this Avengers' music any worse than Chaplin's? I think just different.


----------



## JAS

In my opinion, Hans Zimmer and his ubiquitous pack of hacks, producing page after page of musical wallpaper, are at the core of the problem with the once great art of scoring. (Most of these scores could be written for any film, as they have no individual character arising from a special connection to the film.) Of course, they are partly a symptom of other changes in movie making, particularly the increasing use of rapid edits that give no scene time to develop, and consequently no music. This problem is exacerbated by the tendency to make major changes all the way up to the time of release, which makes it impractical to have a score closely tied to a particular edit of a film. It probably does not help that few movies these days are worthy of better scores, although many composers have written fine scores for dreadful films. (I think in particular of Jerry Goldsmith.)


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> I heard some pretty bad movie music going back to the golden age of Hollywood. There were always some great, some bad, and everything in-between. Is this Avengers' music any worse than Chaplin's? I think just different.


A better Chaplin score is Limelight, but there is controversy as to how much he wrote, and how much was "written" by his "assistant," such as David Raksin (who studied composition under Schoenberg in LA). Apparently, Chaplin would hum a tune, and Raksin would transform it into a score, for which Chaplin was determined to accept the full credit.

But nothing in either of those clips approaches the awfulness of many modern compositions that claim the label of "classical." I don't think that I need to name names.


----------



## Joe B

I think movie music can be unique, stand on its own, and immensely engaging. But you bring up a good point about the 'formulaic' nature of a lot of the current scores used in many movies.

I am an avid movie viewer as well as music listener. I think the really formulaic stuff is used in most of the current action movies, using a Hans Zimmer approach to propelling the action on the screen. That isn't necessarily bad, but it is overdone in many movies and begins to all sound the same.

I don't know how it actually works for a film composer, but I would imagine it is very much like any other job. You get employed by the producers and director to bring a film to 'emotional' life. Some of this means writing music that is formulaic, whose sole purpose is to enhance what's going on in the film. However, like most jobs, the composer also must get some personal freedom to come up with musical 'themes' for different characters, locations, etc. in the film. I'm sure when George Lucas first heard Yoda's theme or Princess Leia's theme played by John Williams he was taken aback. And some of Howard Shore's themes must of thrilled Peter Jackson for the "Lord of the Rings" movies. I can imagine how scores by Goldsmith, Elmer Bernstein and others must of lit up the faces of directors.

Unfortunate or not, becoming a film composer means you are working for the purpose of the film. Formulaic writing is going to be a big part of that. I believe if you are going to look at how film music has changed over the years, you must, as the OP stated, see it in terms of the *"dumbing down of cinema itself..."*


----------



## millionrainbows

Owen David said:


> I'm not dissing movie music - at its best it is wonderfully inspiring and cinema with music often achieves the highest summits in artistic experience.
> 
> But don't you think it has become, over the years, increasingly formulaic...just there to_ "do a job" _in a sort of minimal-engagement fashion._ "You want sad? I can do sad. You want triumphant? I can do triumphant!" _
> 
> I think this results from a number of factors: dumbing down of cinema itself with all the superhero franchises dominating so much, the overamplification in cinema theatres which guarantee an easily achieved emotional impact, and an increasingly "risk-averse" culture in the movie business.


I think you're absolutely right. "Star Wars" and all those innocuous John Williams themes come to mind.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I think you're absolutely right. "Star Wars" and all those innocuous John Williams themes come to mind.


John Williams is a fine composer who has written many wonderful scores. The original Star Wars was intentionally a kind of homage to the golden age of film, particularly Korngold. (And, obviously, Holst's The Planets was used as a temp track, which often becomes embedded into a score, much to the consternation of the composer.) I would rather listen to hours of Williams over 10 minutes of anything by Brian Ferneyhough or John Cage. (Oops. I named names.)


----------



## JAS

Joe B said:


> Unfortunate or not, becoming a film composer means you are working for the purpose of the film. Formulaic writing is going to be a big part of that. I believe if you are going to look at how film music has changed over the years, you must, as the OP stated, see it in terms of the *"dumbing down of cinema itself..."*


*

There have always been bad films, of course, but now there is such a rarity of good ones as compensation. Part of it is the blockbuster effect, and part of it is the lack of creativity or a willingness of producers to try anything that doesn't already have a proven fan base. And I do not know if it is a cause or a symptom of the problem that modern "stars" are such bland cutouts with pretty faces. and not much character. Oh, for a Jimmy Stewart or Betty Davis. Someone like Charles Laughton would have no chance today. (Some of them can at least act, but Cate Blanchett is hardly a substitute for Katherine Hepburn, and George Clooney is hardly Cary Grant.)*


----------



## Bulldog

There's poor music in every category. I can't see a good reason to single out film music.


----------



## Owen David

That could be a thread in itself: "Fine scores for dreadful movies".


----------



## Owen David

True but I think there's been a big decline in film music quality in the last 20 years, say.


----------



## Owen David

There used to be a lot more originality...thinking of the Zither on _Third Man_, the wonderful concoction of pop-Latin-classical on _The Good the Bad and Ugly._ All those film noirs had fantastic jazz accompaniments. Then you'd get the really big "cinemascope" numbers like Dr Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia. John Williams certainly had his moments but he may well have led the slide into the formulaic, as he took on so many commissions.

One interesting thing about movie music which always intrigues is how readily people are prepared to tolerate atonality or dissonance in a film score whereas they wouldn't give it time of day as listening material. But again, I feel movie music is _less _experimental now.


----------



## pianozach

Yeah, well.

For the past several months I've been studying up on film scores . . . actually doing more reading about them than listening to them

Getting the background on film scores, and the composers, directors, films is a real eye opener. The care, the planning, the sweat these composers put into their films scores is quite something. From themes, to choice of instruments, all usually under a time crunch.

My first film score: *Around the World in 80 Days* by *Victor Young*. I must have been 8. Mom had a diverse and eclectic collection of records. So I loved the Young soundtrack, but didn't like the soundtrack from *Picnic* by *George Duning*. The Academy nominated it for Best Film Score, one of 5 nominations.

George Dunning went on to score a few episodes of the original Star Trek, and over a dozen films.

Victor Young, on the other hand won an Academy Award for Around the World, after 20 or so nominations. In 1940 he received 4 nominations. And did the same the following year.


----------



## Owen David

pianozach said:


> Yeah, well.
> 
> For the past several months I've been studying up on film scores . . . actually doing more reading about them than listening to them
> 
> Getting the background on film scores, and the composers, directors, films is a real eye opener. The care, the planning, the sweat these composers put into their films scores is quite something. From themes, to choice of instruments, all usually under a time crunch.
> 
> My first film score: *Around the World in 80 Days* by *Victor Young*. I must have been 8. Mom had a diverse and eclectic collection of records. So I loved the Young soundtrack, but didn't like the soundtrack from *Picnic* by *George Duning*. The Academy nominated it for Best Film Score, one of 5 nominations.
> 
> George Dunning went on to score a few episodes of the original Star Trek, and over a dozen films.
> 
> Victor Young, on the other hand won an Academy Award for Around the World, after 20 or so nominations. In 1940 he received 4 nominations. And did the same the following year.


Thanks. Will look up those scores!


----------



## Guest

Owen David said:


> I'm not dissing movie music - at its best it is wonderfully inspiring and cinema with music often achieves the highest summits in artistic experience.
> 
> But don't you think it has become, over the years, increasingly formulaic...just there to_ "do a job" _in a sort of minimal-engagement fashion._ "You want sad? I can do sad. You want triumphant? I can do triumphant!" _
> 
> I think this results from a number of factors: dumbing down of cinema itself with all the superhero franchises dominating so much, the overamplification in cinema theatres which guarantee an easily achieved emotional impact, and an increasingly "risk-averse" culture in the movie business.


I have read this view expressed many times. Certainly film music is not what it was when in the hands of masters like Herrmann, Bernstein, Rozsa, Korngold, Steiner, Newman, North, Tiomkin et al....not to mention the composers like Prokofiev who provided excellent scores for film - stand-alone works which transcended the moving image. Those days are gone, but so is the era of fine film - very largely.

"Superhero franchises": you raise an interesting point. Quite recently I watched a U-Tube discussion with Stephen Fry on a panel with a couple of well-known intellectuals (but cannot remember specifically who these were, since I watch so many of these things). In that discussion Fry talked about cinema, specifically action/superhero cinema and during the conversation he expressed surprise that adults - particularly adult males - felt the need to go to the cinema to watch unmitigated garbage like this. I completely agree. *Cinema has been dumbed down*; that's not to say there were not poor films during the 'golden age' and afterwards; there most certainly were. But today the 'bread and circuses' element is alive and well, with people ingesting the most mind-numbing trash - which cannot be good for generations of people, who are being patronized and seduced with 'soft' pornography and powerful cultural messaging. I taught this at high school level.

A lot of film music is now computer-generated and anodyne, to match the films it accompanies. Your last paragraph nails many of the issues which have driven more demanding movie audiences from cinemas in their droves. Television has also had an impact, as it did right from the start. Back in the 50s we got huge screens, epic films and walls of music in an attempt to compete with television. Apart from a few 70mm masterpieces, it was largely unsuccessful as, by then, a great many creative artists from the 'golden era' of film had migrated to television.

Today, most of the exciting 'film-making' occurs digitally on television; cinema has had to grow louder and more boisterous to garner attention. Like, "hey; over here - come and look at my special FX"!! Actors are virtue signalling and coarsening themselves and the public space and it took somebody like Ricky Gervais to burst that bubble a few short years ago. Just recently Robert Downy Jnr. appeared on the "Graham Norton Show" promoting some mindless film he'd just made. He talked about it with the other actors on the couch (from equally egregious films) and I remember thinking, "this is embarrassing for you; such a fine actor and you're taking this rubbish seriously. Has it come to this?" And I also remember thinking, and still do, "we have to take lectures from you people: I don't think so"!!!

I will stand up for one singularly original film music composer: John Williams. Listen to his score for "Catch Me if You Can" and compare that to "Star Wars" (just to name two). They don't sound at all alike. Yet Williams was still derivative in these "Star Wars" years: listen to this.






Williams has gone on to become a very fine composer indeed and deservedly recognized.


----------



## MAS

Christabel said:


> I have read this view expressed many times. Certainly film music is not what it was when in the hands of masters like Herrmann, Bernstein, Rozsa, Korngold, Steiner, Newman, North, Tiomkin et al....not to mention the composers like Prokofiev who provided excellent scores for film - stand-alone works which transcended the moving image. Those days are gone, but so is the era of fine film - very largely.
> 
> "Superhero franchises": you raise an interesting point. Quite recently I watched a U-Tube discussion with Stephen Fry on a panel with a couple of well-known intellectuals (but cannot remember specifically who these were, since I watch so many of these things). In that discussion Fry talked about cinema, specifically action/superhero cinema and during the conversation he expressed surprise that adults - particularly adult males - felt the need to go to the cinema to watch unmitigated garbage like this. I completely agree. *Cinema has been dumbed down*; that's not to say there were not poor films during the 'golden age' and afterwards; there most certainly were. But today the 'bread and circuses' element is alive and well, with people ingesting the most mind-numbing trash - which cannot be good for generations of people, who are being patronized and seduced with 'soft' pornography and powerful cultural messaging. I taught this at high school level.
> 
> A lot of film music is now computer-generated and anodyne, to match the films it accompanies. Your last paragraph nails many of the issues which have driven more demanding movie audiences from cinemas in their droves. Television has also had an impact, as it did right from the start. Back in the 50s we got huge screens, epic films and walls of music in an attempt to compete with television. Apart from a few 70mm masterpieces, it was largely unsuccessful as, by then, a great many creative artists from the 'golden era' of film had migrated to television.
> 
> Today, most of the exciting 'film-making' occurs digitally on television; cinema has had to grow louder and more boisterous to garner attention. Like, "hey; over here - come and look at my special FX"!! Actors are virtue signalling and coarsening themselves and the public space and it took somebody like Ricky Gervais to burst that bubble a few short years ago. Just recently Robert Downy Jnr. appeared on the "Graham Norton Show" promoting some mindless film he'd just made. He talked about it with the other actors on the couch (from equally egregious films) and I remember thinking, "this is embarrassing for you; such a fine actor and you're taking this rubbish seriously. Has it come to this?" And I also remember thinking, and still do, "we have to take lectures from you people: I don't think so"!!!
> 
> I will stand up for one singularly original film music composer: John Williams. Listen to his score for "Catch Me if You Can" and compare that to "Star Wars" (just to name two). They don't sound at all alike. Yet Williams was still derivative in these "Star Wars" years: listen to this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Williams has gone on to become a very fine composer indeed and deservedly recognized.


Williams also scored *Memoirs of a Geisha*.


----------



## Guest

There have always been cheaper, lower quality films with serviceable scores. It is not a modern thing. It's just that our recollection of the films of the past (with which we make these comparisons) is imperfect. How about the 'quota quickies', for example?



> These are low-cost British films made by American distributors in order to satisfy the quota requirements of the Cinematograph Films Act 1927.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Quota_quickies

I wonder how many of these movies had formulaic scores.


----------



## Guest

And, by contrast, since this thread seems to include the idea that 'cinema is being dumbed down', I wonder whether this is based on a proper survey of cinema output, or just on a knee-jerk reaction to what takes priority in cinemas. Here's just one list of rated movies from 2019.

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/best-films-2019

I've seen about half a dozen. (_Ad Astra, The Favourite, Knives Out, The Irishman, The Farewell, Booksmart, Marriage Story_) Most of the rest I've not even heard of, and the chances of seeing them at my local cinema (only one to choose from within 50 miles) are slim.

As for their scores...well, the top 10 don't use any household-name composers. In fact, three of them don't credit a composer at all. So, I would suggest that it's difficult to make any statement about the current state of film music unless you're going to confine yourself just to what the top Box Office composers are doing.

BTW - if the AFI has a similar list, I can't find it. I can only find their top ten which has interesting differences. Only 6 of their top ten appears somewhere in the BFI top 50!


----------



## pianozach

I'll chime in again. 

Some film scores are great music, and others are not. I'm pretty sure you could say the same about Symphonies, Concertos, or String Quartets. The first one that comes to mind is Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto. It's not bad, it's simply not great.

Or how about the 1915 version of Sibelius 5? Shostakovich's 2nd symphony? Richard Kastle's 8th piano concerto?

But I digress. I just wanted to mention some great and/or favorite original film scores.

Victor Young - Around the World in 80 Days
Morricone - The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Max Steiner - Gone With the Wind
Maurice Jarre - Lawrence Of Arabia
Maurice Jarre - Doctor Zhivago
Bernard Herrmann - Psycho
Bernard Herrmann - Vertigo
Vangelis - Blade Runner
Jerry Goldsmith - Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Lord of the Rings
Elmer Bernstein The Magnificent Seven
George Martin- Yellow Submarine 

there's also a lot of compilation scores I like.


----------



## adriesba

One of my pet peeves with film music or music for any kind of video is the overused slow, soft strings and piano for sad scenes. So many of such scores sound the same with no character. It's become such a cliche that I simply can't take anything seriously when it is accompanied like that.


----------

