How do you judge the quality of a score?

[Quintus 5,399]

Once again, I'm keen to understand the little nuances of people here, so please be a love and vote. Which option is nearest to your way of thinking?

[Luke Skywalker 1,815]

the second option.

BUt having in mind that if the music works on its own it already works well in the movie...

I mean, for me a score to be great has to fit the movie like a glove and its isolated listen be an amazing experience for the ears...

[Quintus 5,399]

the second option.

BUt having in mind that if the music works on its own it already works well in the movie...

To an extent, but a lot of bad films have really good scores. One thing is certain, some people enjoy certain film scores without ever seeing the movies they accompany.

I didn't put an option for "both" because most would certainly have chosen it. I'm interested in the fundamental prerequisites listeners look for in any score.

[Josh500 1,616]

You should have added a 3rd option: "For me, they're equally important..."

[King Mark 3,632]

I listen to film music as music .

[Quintus 5,399]

You posted too soon Josh

[Joe Brausam 216]

For me its based completely on the musical qualities of it and how it works as a stand alone listening experience. The vast majority of the scores I own and love are from films that I've never seen before and are just blind buys based on my interest in a composer or on the samples. For my very favorite scores I'll purchase the movie after having learned the score to see how it all fits. Very often I'm dissapointed in the film itself, but I continue to love the music.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,071]

When I've seen it in the final product it services...and listened to it on album. It's not an either or for me.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I love hearing great scores in films themselves, and it's an emotional experience I personally find few things can come close to, media-wise, and I think it's the only way to really judge a score.

However... I'm more and more finding movies a means to an end to get a good score. There's quite a few scores I have which I have no interest in seeing the film accompanying it at all, or which I've seen or have no intention revisiting. Usually, when I hear about a forthcoming film, my primary thought is 'I wonder what the score will be like?'

But the actual quality of a score must be judged in the film itself, as that's the reason it was created, which I think people lose track of sometimes.

[Josh500 1,616]

Suppose you have really, really great and listenable music... but it doesn't fit the movie at all!

Or you have really hard-to-listen-through "difficult" music... but it fits the movie like a glove, because it's just that kind of film.

No, film music has to work great for the movie it was written for, BESIDES being listenable outside the movie. THEN it's great.

Thankfully, JW usually fulfills both conditions.

[Joe Brausam 216]

I recognize the need for it to work in the film as a primary objective beyond all else, but I've never seen the harm in enjoying on its own and being completely ignorant of the material it is meant to accompany.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It shouldn't need to work outside the film. That's just a plus and yes, is a hallmark of great composers. But it's by no means a caveat that should be met.

It's like saying 'This Ford Engine is a marvel of engineering and propels my car with great precision, but I don't think it'll be great unless I can cook grits on it.'

[Ollie 1,069]

Option #2

I could care less about the film when I'm listening to the music. I look for quality within the music, I don't care if it's atonal or dissonent. If it's well written music I can listen to it, no matter the style.

If I want to associate it with the film, I'll put in the DVD and experience that way.

[Luke Skywalker 1,815]

the second option.

BUt having in mind that if the music works on its own it already works well in the movie...

To an extent, but a lot of bad films have really good scores.

That was not a fact (the sentence from me that you quoted), it was just who i rate the great scores.

Anyway with fiting the movie like a glove i didnt mean that if the movie is crap the score has to fit that crapeness.

If fact scores that are so good that help a bad movie are highly rated by me

[Quintus 5,399]

But the actual quality of a score must be judged in the film itself, as that's the reason it was created, which I think people lose track of sometimes.

Lets face it, if JW released a new work called "Music in the vein of Star Wars", it would be enough for pretty much anybody here to take notice, which is a good thing for his fans, but not something without derivative side effects.

Since the medium of film itself is solely responsible for this particular offshoot of fandom, I often find it regretful that some have lost sight of the reason for a score's being in the first place. This outlook on the art is ultimately damaging, imo.

[Ollie 1,069]

I don't, because some people only associate the music with the quality of the film, thus ignoring or pushing aside some great music because the film itself sucked.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,071]

Which is why I judge film music based on how it sounds to me AND how well it LIFTS the film.

[Quintus 5,399]

I don't, because some people only associate the music with the quality of the film, thus ignoring or pushing aside some great music because the film itself sucked.

Like you said, that's true for some, but those people are normally not lovers of film music in the first place. In fact it is those very people which film music is actually aimed at.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's like ALIEN or PLANET OF THE APES, two scores which people often point to as hard to listen to. They may be outside the film (I don't believe so myself) but they're damn effective in the film. Both add a lot of texture to the harsh worlds the films present and in many ways are inseparable, yet there would be few people on here who would vote for them over STAR WARS.

[Quintus 5,399]

And I would deeply respect them for saying so.

[MissPadmé 17]

Option 1. this is ALL filmmusic should be.

[Luke Skywalker 1,815]

It's like ALIEN or PLANET OF THE APES, two scores which people often point to as hard to listen to. They may be outside the film (I don't believe so myself) but they're damn effective in the film. Both add a lot of texture to the harsh worlds the films present and in many ways are inseparable, yet there would be few people on here who would vote for them over STAR WARS.

Because STAR WARS fits the movie as good as Alien or Apes... yet still you have the bonus of a magnificent listening experience when isolated

I like to listen to the Goldsmith' intended version of ALIEN very much, anyway

[Quintus 5,399]

STAR WARS fits the movie as good as Alien or Apes... yet still you have the bonus of a magnificent listening experience when isolated

Which is all it ever will and should be. A bonus.

[Luke Skywalker 1,815]

STAR WARS fits the movie as good as Alien or Apes... yet still you have the bonus of a magnificent listening experience when isolated

Which is all it ever will and should be. A bonus.

And for me that bonus is what differenciates a score from good to excellent.

[Quintus 5,399]

As I've said on more than one occasion, I consider Terminator 2 to be an "excellent" score, but I'll be damned if I want to hear it outside of the movie.

[Wojo 2,453]

Terminator 2 is a rough listen outside of the movie. Terminator 1 is much better.

[Quintus 5,399]

On the contrary, I find the brilliance of the original to be downright impossible, outside of the movie.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Which is why I judge film music based on how it sounds to me AND how well it LIFTS the film.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Terminator 2 is a rough listen outside of the movie. Terminator 1 is much better.

I agree. I love listening to the first one, but the second one - outside of the film - just doesn't work for me. Although I'd love to have the opening cue on the album.

[Wojo 2,453]

On the contrary, I like the Love Scene/By the Window music, how the tender love theme punctuates through the harsher music. That's the only track I listen to much anymore. Both Terminator scores are good video game background music, like for Unreal Tourney or something.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Without the film there is no film music.

A score, not just film, but for TV and video games, should only be judged based on whether it achieves its purpose in said media. There are good scores to bad films, but I don't think it's as common as some people here think.

The film and its music really go hand-in-hand. I believe the music is responsible for 50% of the emotional impact.

[Wojo 2,453]

The film and its music really go hand-in-hand. I believe the music is responsible for 50% of the emotional impact.

What if you're blind?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Then you shouldn't be "watching" films.

[Morlock 11]

A blend between the two, though closer to the first. I don't feel like I can really judge the score without the film, and I often can't connect to a score without seeing the film. I've seen the films that go with just about every one of the scores I love, and a good deal of the ones I like and listen to every now and then. I haven't touched most of my Victor Young cds since I've bought them, having nothing to do with the quality of the scores. I listened to them once, and they just didn't connect.

[Datameister 2,099]

I voted for the second option, but iIf it's a movie I like, the emotional impact of the music can be strengthened for me...and the opposite is also true. Naturally, a film composer's job is to satisfy the first criterion; satisfying the second one is good to strive for, but not entirely necessary from his/her point of view. But as a listener, I derive the bulk of my enjoyment from how much the score itself appeals to my tastes, I think. If I'm wrong about that, my brain has really tricked itself pretty well.

[Luke Skywalker 1,815]

You can also differenciate a good composer from an excelent one. The latter writes his work with the isolated musical experience in his mind, as well as the fitting of the film.

[ChuckM 1]

Both are equally important, but I'm more likely to forgive a failure in the first option than the second.

[Joe Brausam 216]

You can also differenciate a good composer from an excelent one. The latter writes his work with the isolated musical experience in his mind, as well as the fitting of the film.

Well someone can be a great composer too but have a terrible time getting his/her music to fit the film they are writing for. It just means that the composer is not adept at writing music for this genre.

[Delorean90 42]

The second option.

IMO, the goals of helping the film and making quality music are both separate and intertwined, and sometimes I may get anal about the wording: film score vs. film music. The job of scoring the film, enhancing it and making a real contribution, is the primary stated goal of the film composer, yes, but he or she is much more likely to be successful in doing that by writing excellent music. The medium of film scoring is music, and this should not be forgotten. I would not want to draw a picture with pencil and treat it like I was using a brush and watercolors. Nor should film music be treated as merely emotional sound design.

Would we really and truly be fans of and discussing film music/score if composers consistently focused only on the film and not on the quality of the music? I'd love to hear the reasoning of someone who thinks so.

Of course the best answer is both, but whether the film is good or bad, but if I'm picking one criteria or the other, I'm picking the latter--if the film's bad, then at least I get something out of it.

It shouldn't need to work outside the film. That's just a plus and yes, is a hallmark of great composers. But it's by no means a caveat that should be met.

It's like saying 'This Ford Engine is a marvel of engineering and propels my car with great precision, but I don't think it'll be great unless I can cook grits on it.'

On the contrary, I think it is a caveat that should be met, but not necessarily one that must be met--not to avoid dragging the film down, anyway. And that isn't a very good analogy now, is it? Who would even think of cooking grits on an engine? It's not something that would even cross your mind (or shouldn't, anyway). However, in the case of film scoring, the whole point is that you are using music to enhance the film. These composers make a living off of writing music to do this, and I don't think it is at all unreasonable or unrealistic to expect them to write music that is good. If you can't write good music, then why are you in a business that demands the writing of music? If you can't make good food, then don't become a chef. If you can't write good music, don't be a composer, whether it is for the concert hall, the stage, or the movie theater.

This is to some degree a generalization, and there can be exceptions where the score can be not terribly musically interesting or enjoyable, but I think these should be carefully considered and appropriate to the type of film being scored and what its goals are.

[Wojo 2,453]

Who would even think of cooking grits on an engine? It's not something that would even cross your mind (or shouldn't, anyway).

Cosmo Kramer.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I buy music which is a good listening experience, not how it works on film. I judge a score based on how it works in film. Fiedel's Terminator scores are awesome scores, especially T2, but I will not buy or listen to them outside the film.

[Wojo 2,453]

I listen to scores far more often than I watch movies. So option #2 appeals to me. But composers don't write scores to sell on CD anymore than filmmakers (used to) make movies just to sell on DVD. So naturally option #1 has merit, too, because a score isn't a score without a movie, it's just instrumental music. So I just won't vote.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Both are equally important, but I'm more likely to forgive a failure in the first option than the second.

Really? You can forgive a composer for not doing his/her job but can't forgive him/her for not entertaining you?

Would we really and truly be fans of and discussing film music/score if composers consistently focused only on the film and not on the quality of the music? I'd love to hear the reasoning of someone who thinks so.

Zimmer is the first composer to my knowledge that makes it a goal for his music to stand alone away from the film. I highly doubt most composers are thinking about making good listening music while composing for a film. Yes, John Williams likes to make the best listening experience for his listeners, but he's not thinking about that while he's writing the music. He's thinking about that while compiling the album from the music he already wrote for the film.

[Datameister 2,099]

Both are equally important, but I'm more likely to forgive a failure in the first option than the second.

Really? You can forgive a composer for not doing his/her job but can't forgive him/her for not entertaining you?

By "forgive" I think he meant not allow it to negatively impact his enjoyment of the music, in which case the statement makes perfect sense. You don't enjoy music because the composer did his/her job; you enjoy music because it entertains you.

[Romão 2,276]

I buy a cd to listen to the music. I couldn't care less how well it works in the context of the movie unless I'm actually watching the movie. Now, when listening to a score cd, I care only about the music. I haven't even watched maybe 80% of the movies the scores I own were written for.

[Trent B 337]

I voted option 2. All though a lot of times when watching a film I will try to pay attention to the music (as best as I can) and see how it is and how it flows in the film.

[Jeshopk 8]

Once you are listening to a score on CD, then the movie really has nothing to do with it other than a vague suggestion of a program. When I am watching a movie, the first option, when listening to a CD, the second option.

That said, when I am watching a movie, I find really simple and repetetive or trendy music to be very distracting and unfitting most of the time. When something has a 1 or 2 measure hook with drums and bass for instance, it really pops out and makes you want to dance when you should feel tense. I find that the music that usually works best for a film utilizes dramatic techniques rather than dance groove techniques. And film music which is constructed with dramatic techniques usually sounds good to me on CD as well.

How good the music sounds on its own does have some bearing on how well it works in the film, if the kind of music you like on CD is very dramatic in nature.

[Delorean90 42]

Zimmer is the first composer to my knowledge that makes it a goal for his music to stand alone away from the film. I highly doubt most composers are thinking about making good listening music while composing for a film. Yes, John Williams likes to make the best listening experience for his listeners, but he's not thinking about that while he's writing the music. He's thinking about that while compiling the album from the music he already wrote for the film.

You've said this before--has he literally made the comment in (an) interview(s)? I find it ironic that you consider him the first composer (that you know of) to make it a goal for his music to stand on its own away from the film when he is generally considered a lesser composer who produces lesser music--generally. I wouldn't agree with that (the inferiority) 100%, but I certainly don't find his music to be as simultaneously entertaining and compelling as many of his predecessors. As to your statement of him being the first (or one of the first) film composer to focus on making the music stand alone apart from the film, I find this a tough statement to analyze. At least the Golden Age composers may not have been so focused on the enjoyment of the music on an album, but I would imagine all of the best film composers have been just as much interested in writing good music as they were in helping the film.

On another note, can anyone who voted for option #1 give me a clear explanation as to how a film score consisting of crappy music really helps to enhance a film?

[indy4 155]

On another note, can anyone who voted for option #1 give me a clear explanation as to how a film score consisting of crappy music really helps to enhance a film?

I don't think that's the only way to go Option 1. Some scores are perfectly fine, they're just unlistenable, such as Planet of the Apes and Images (the latter to a lesser extent). I wouldn't say either of them is a crappy music; on the contrary, they are both marvelously unique pieces of work from both composers. But that doesn't mean it's a pleasure to listen to them when seperated from the film. Having said that, I voted Option 2.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You've said this before--has he literally made the comment in (an) interview(s)? I find it ironic that you consider him the first composer (that you know of) to make it a goal for his music to stand on its own away from the film when he is generally considered a lesser composer who produces lesser music--generally.

I believe there is a quote from Bruce Fowler where he pretty much explains it. Ah, found it:

The tune is everything. This is Hans Zimmer's view. The music must be able to stand on its own, not merely accompany the picture, but to be its partner, offering a path to the inner most feelings of the characters.

I wouldn't agree with that (the inferiority) 100%, but I certainly don't find his music to be as simultaneously entertaining and compelling as many of his predecessors. As to your statement of him being the first (or one of the first) film composer to focus on making the music stand alone apart from the film, I find this a tough statement to analyze. At least the Golden Age composers may not have been so focused on the enjoyment of the music on an album, but I would imagine all of the best film composers have been just as much interested in writing good music as they were in helping the film.

I mean there is no way to know for sure for every composer. Zimmer is just the only one that I know of that does so, as proven by the Fowler quote. But if I were writing music for a film, I probably would not be thinking about pleasing my fans and making listenable music. I'd be focused on accompanying the film, and if it happens to be listenable on its own, then good for me.

Film music, to me, is all about the emotion. It's why I always prefer a serious score over fun ones. That's why Munich, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan top my favorite JW scores instead of the usual Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or Superman. I want to feel something from it, and I'm usually re-experiencing the film in my head when I am listening to music. Although there is music that can be just as emotionally gripping without me thinking about the film, and it just connects with me.

Great scores can do both, affect me emotionally in the context of the film, and away from the film. But if you're going to judge a score, it should be based on how it works in the film.

On another note, can anyone who voted for option #1 give me a clear explanation as to how a film score consisting of crappy music really helps to enhance a film?

Like indy4 said, it can be effective music, just not entirely listenable. Alien and Planet Of The Apes are two popular ones that I don't find listenable on their own.