 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the question is misleading, as the question of whether "music stands on its own" is one each listener has to answer for himself. There is no defined technical or artistic divide between music that can stand on its own and music that cannot stand on its own. It's in the type of the beholder.
Most film music, and I mean most film music today and most film music in the past, is not particularly interesting to listen to on its own. But that is for the simple reason that the music isn't particularly interesting to begin with. I can't think of a film score that is magnificent in the movie but uninteresting when listened to on its own.
But true, there is a lot of film music that ranges from serviceable to okay and "pushes the right buttons", but does not go beyond that. Some people may still like a film score that pushes the right buttons, if they like the movie well enough. I would generally say, a person who loves a movie is more likely to also love the film score of the movie. Even if the same person might not have noticed the same music otherwise. But even then the music "stands on its own" for that listener. (And of course, many people love movies without paying much attention to film scores.)
In a forum like this, you will find many people here listen to film scores to movies they have not even seen, so in those cases obviously the music stands firmly on its own.
So while all film music is written to support a movie, some film scores are better at accomplishing this than others, and those who accomplish it in the best possible way are usually also interesting on their own.
While it's often said that music is a "Universal language", that is only partially true, or at least the statement needs to be fine-tuned. All music is received within a context. So while music may be a "universal language", its appreciation has to be actually learned, and its reception depends on the context, just like one would learn a language. That's why children usually learn very simple children's songs first. Some of Chinese opera sounds completely foreign if you are not at all familiar with it.
So as I see it, at the essence of the question is: can music serve a purpose, yet be uninteresting to listen to. There, the answer is obviously yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its function has changed since the Golden and Silver Ages. For those weaned on highly melodic and harmonic styles, modern scoring might not have the same appeal as a stand-alone listening experience. Ask most working composers and they will tell you they'd love to write something thematic but that isn't what is called for largely. These composers have bills to pay just like any of us so they do what the bosses dictate.
Luckily for those who do enjoy highly melodic or development scores, there is a tremendous body of work spanning over 50 years available. And we can thank labels like Intrada, Tadlow, Tribute etc for continuing to release new recordings/performances of these classic scores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO you can't call it music if it doesn't stand on its own. More and more, composers are an extension of the sound f/x department, doing less service to the story and more to images, not so much creating music as creating ambiance.
There is little else I can think of that hasn't been said already in this thread.
But the larger question is not if it can stand on its own but if it can even be considered music. Would you consider Cage's 4'33 music? Some would. Most wouldn't.
It depends on how you define MUSIC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO you can't call it music if it doesn't stand on its own. More and more, composers are an extension of the sound f/x department, doing less service to the story and more to images, not so much creating music as creating ambiance.
There is little else I can think of that hasn't been said already in this thread.
But the larger question is not if it can stand on its own but if it can even be considered music. Would you consider Cage's 4'33 music? Some would. Most wouldn't.
It depends on how you define MUSIC.
Most people I have encountered would consider Cage's 4'33" music. At least those who knows the piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some movies just won't allow for a score that can stand on its own (All The President's Men comes to mind).
Other films provide fertile ground for a composer to be expressive -- as when the films have extended sequences with little dialog (which allow for more melodic scoring) and / or exotic or unusual settings which call on a composer to do something more imaginative.
In the case of the latter, at least some of music in those types of movies should stand on its own (and it is very disappointing and a missed opportunity when the music does not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMO you can't call it music if it doesn't stand on its own. More and more, composers are an extension of the sound f/x department, doing less service to the story and more to images, not so much creating music as creating ambiance.
There is little else I can think of that hasn't been said already in this thread.
But the larger question is not if it can stand on its own but if it can even be considered music. Would you consider Cage's 4'33 music? Some would. Most wouldn't.
It depends on how you define MUSIC.
Most people I have encountered would consider Cage's 4'33" music. At least those who knows the piece.
I had a friend in music school who used to joke that it was his ringtone (he kept his phone on silent).
From an academic perspective, yes Cage's experiment fits the basic definition of music. But to the layperson, it is likely just silence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
