A Review of FSM

(Seriously)

The following was an email I received from Taras Stasiuk regarding a sample copy of FSM I sent him. I thought it was unusual to get a review of our magazine (which usually reviews everything ELSE), and with his permission, here it is!

As always, you can subscribe here on the site -- and do it now because not only are the subscription rates going up (from $29.95 to $36.95 U.S.), but I have FREE copies of a Shostakovich Film Music Album sampler CD from Universal Classics (formerly PolyGram Classics) which I will give away to anyone who subscribes NOW. Do it! Offer to subscribe at 1998 rates, and get a free CD sampler, expires at the end of this week. Similarly, renew your subscription now and get a free sampler CD. -Lukas K.

Cool! I got the first issue in my subscription to FSM Tuesday. I figure it's about time I reviewed the sample issue.

FILM SCORE MONTHLY - DECEMBER 1998

my entirely subjective and badly-organised review

COVER: I'm not really a visual arts kind of person, so not much to say. It's a nice cover, but a bit too busy for my taste. Not only is the action depicted distracting, but the colours make the left-hand side a bit difficult to read. I notice when comparing the price to my March 1999 that the price has gone up from 10 cents a page to 12. By the way, how many issues does my subscription entail? The site implies 12, but I read somewhere (on the insert card, maybe) that FSM only publishes 10 issues a year. Am I paying $5.25 an per issue or only $4.38?

[It's 10 issues a year. We cheat twice a year with double issues to stay on schedule. -LK]

CONTENTS: I like the layout. Simple, efficient, sensible.

ADVERTISEMENTS: comprise 3.5 pages out of 48, or 7%. This leaves 44.5 pages - at $5 an ish, 11cents+ per page. I'll be honest with you: I didn't really take my time, weigh the pros and cons, and decide that FSM was a good investment. I decided that I liked getting the magazine, and I wanted to support your efforts, so I signed up for a year. In order to present a fair review, and make the right decision next year, I have to evaluate the magazine not only in terms of Is It Good, but Is It Worth The Money.

NEWS: Wow, but there's a lot of it. Six pages, by my count, more than 10% of the magazine. Unfortunately, very little of it is of use to me, since I only keep track of about a dozen or so composers. I might look into some of the other projects, but there are loads of names and projects that I just have no interest in. This is not to suggest you discontinue the News section - far from it, since the news that does interest me does so very much. I'm merely pointing out what I see as a necessary drawback to the News section: In offering something for everyone, it must perforce present to everyone much information of no personal value.

EDITORIAL: As a recent (about 5 years) film music fan, this provides a useful sense of perspective, one which I notice some voices on the website seem to lack (to your obvious chagrin). One thing that drew me immediately to your site and magazine was the approach: Over and above all else, you're fans. This may mean an occasional casual presentation, but the overall energy more than makes up for that. Somebody suggested to me privately that using your site and magazine to sell CDs makes you unobjective and aggressively mercantile. I think this person's views are not widely held. When I see you guys put out a CD, you praise it to the heavens - but not because you want to make a budle off it! You love this score. You want other people to have this score. Without the fan approach this would never work, but it does. You don't need to review your own CDs in FSM because all of us already know you love them. Otherwise, you wouldn't release 'em. If you have a loyal following, it's because you respond to the needs of your fellow fans, and you operate at the same level. This tone is the best thing about your magazine.

MAIL BAG: Another thing that makes your website stand out is that you value logical, well-presented discussion. Most sites contain such a lack of brains and a corruption of English grammar as to be unbearable. Every so often something like this finds its way onto your site - primarily on the Message Board, but once in a while it shows up in a daily article. In the latter case I usually assume you have chosen the best of the dissenters and have presented it in the interest of fairness. I cannot fault this policy, even though the downside of it is that you then have a piece of drek on your site. I'm glad to see, however, that all the letters in the magazine are good. Remember that every issue of FSM is an indelible reflection of you - don't let someone else bring you down. If you receive tonnes of mail, all of it disagreeing with you about one point, but all of it badly-written, do not put it in the magazine. Mention you received differing opinions, maybe put the least worst on the site, but the line should be drawn at the magazine: If you can't write, you don't get in, period.

NOW PLAYING: has me confused. What are the criteria that must be met for something to appear in this box?

[Whatever appears in newspaper ads for movies I type into that box for the month - that's all. -LK]

ARTICLES: Not much to say about these, interestingly enough. The ones I like the best are the ones whose topics interested me in the first place - again, I accept something for everyone means less overall for me. In general, the quality is good: Nothing I have a problem with, but nothing outstanding, either.

REVIEWS: Over and above all else, this is what I was most curious about regarding your magazine. And what do I get? Piles upon piles of reviews! I was surprised by how many non-score CDs were reviewed; count me among the score snobs. (Although I love the overall Heat CD, and In Dreams and Phoenix also have their songs well-integrated.) There are two reasons to read a review: 1. To find out if something will appeal to you, a buyer's guide, and 2. To compare someone else's opinion with your own. Having a half-dozen or so reviewers makes both a bit of fun - after a while, I expect I'll know how to interpret most of you. As expected, the fan approach serves the reviews section very well, particularly for #1.

The Ronin review was a disappointment, since much of it is verbatim on the site. Also, a bit too much time is spent discussing the movie instead of the score - as opposed to discussing how the two work together. Given, however, that these are the two easiest pitfalls to fall into as far as this section is concerned, I was mildly surprised it didn't happen more often. Now I have a couple of questions. How is the order in which the reviews are presented determined? Is there even a pattern? If not, please remedy this. If there is a pattern, please pick one less obscure.

[There's no pattern. We just run them as they seem to fit and flow. -LK]

The reviews seem to focus mainly on the music as heard on CD - is this the policy? I think it should be, in this section. (And unlike some other reviewers, I don't think bad pop songs should count against a score. Take Starship Troopers: 30 minutes of score, 1 execrable song at the end. The song does not 'replace' any score - only 30 minutes would have been presented even if the song had been dropped. And most score fans will not listen to the song anyway. So any discussion of the song's merits is effectively meaningless.)

The biggest question I have, though, is How are the stars assigned? Is it done by the reviewer, or does he write the review and everybody votes on the rating? I'm asking because I've noticed some apparent disparity between reviews and ratings. For example, the only drawback presented regarding American History X is theoretical, while Elizabeth "never really generates enough of an emotional connection to capture the listener's attention," and yet they both get three stars. Based on the reviews, I would have expected more and less, respectively - and given the proportion of praise to pan in the Portrait Of Terror review, I am unable to understand it garnering a Below Average rating.

[The reviewer assigns the rating. Sometimes I mess with it if I think the rating is bizarre and will disrupt whatever integrity the rating system has left... yes, I think most things get over-rated, literally.]

Overall, Film Score Monthly is what I expected: Simple and nifty. Once I've read a few more issues and gotten a feel for it, I'll let you know how my opinion has changed.

This review didn't turn out at all like I anticipated. Nevertheless, I hope you managed to find it useful, somehow.

Thanks! Sign up now!

MailBag@filmscoremonthly.com