 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody's using sensible musical criteria.
If it's a classically constructed score with an Overture, Prelude, maybe an Intermezzo, and a Finale, or Epilogue, then it has classical development.
And most scores do, even in the era of Goldsmith etc., and still most today, fit this broad shape. If a score can be ordered at random, then it probably isn't a true score, or very good even.
If the composer is skillful, there'll be development of themes, and progressions throughout the film, maybe gradual movement towards a resolution of chordal structure, maybe moving in and out of dissonances etc.. Do we want to waste this?
That means you can't just have a complicated twist of a theme, maybe an inversion, maybe a major or minor change or the like, without first introducing and stating the theme itself. The original 'Spartacus' LP was a nonsense in terms of shape and development, just chaos.
The transitions or juxtapositions of quick/slow. loud/quiet, complicated/simple etc.. that people in the pop industry think make good contrasts don't fit a film score necessarily, if the film itself isn't built like that. It's a journey.
There's no answer to this, but it's not just up to taste.
I absolutely endorse this, probably because my primary reference of listening is classical music as well, and I agree that many of the earlier soundtrack releases were obviously intended as promotional tie ins and were put together with contemporary pop music sensibilities that sacrifice musical development in favor of a collection of musical trinkets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREFER 'gynecological'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
