# Difference between score and underscore, or mean the same thing.



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

I plead ignorance here, I'd like to be clear on this. Seems if there are 2 words for this, there might be a subtle difference. I thought underscore, by extension of today's TV market was "lighter" background music, such as in reality shows. As for score, it's the old fashion definition, the entire music production of a film. I seem to have heard in my experience that underscore is quieter background music. This is why I say, maybe by extension it means this, even though technically they mean the same thing.

Help the ignorants here.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> I plead ignorance here, I'd like to be clear on this. Seems if there are 2 words for this, there might be a subtle difference. I thought underscore, by extension of today's TV market was lighter background music, such as in reality shows. As for score, it's the old fashion definition, the entire music production of a film. I seem to have heard in my experience that underscore is quieter background music. This is why I say, maybe by extension it means this, even though technically they mean the same thing.
> 
> Help the ignorants here.



http://musicians.about.com/od/qz/g/underscore.htm


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Yes Jay, I know, I read all these definitions.  But this is why I said: by extension.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Yes Jay, I know, I read all these definitions.  But this is why I said: by extension.



In America, for all practical purposes, as I told you in another thread, traditionally a "score" is comprised of a Main Title (or song), End Credits (or song), and Underscore, so the terms are used interchangeably. 

Nowadays, however, some "scores" are simply a collection of songs or/and underscore

It has NOTHING to do with how prominent or memorable the music is.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Once more Jay, I know technically and by definition you are right, but that's not what I'm talking about.


----------



## doctornine (Jan 14, 2013)

In Library / Production Music terms, underscore refers to a version of your piece with the dominant melodic elements removed.

It's usual trimmed down to percussion and rhythmic elements maybe some pads, but no melody.

Doesn't mean lighter background music


----------



## Leosc (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy, you're basically there. "Score" is the generalized term for the entire suite of music in the film (although some prefer to distinguish between "Soundtrack" - e.g. Inception - and the more classical definition of a "Score" - e.g. Lord of the Rings). 
Underscoring is a distinct form of composing for a picture. To quote my term paper (glad I don't have to think over again!): 


Functional Music: [...]
Picture-parallel music (Underscoring), which serves to intensify the emotion and feelings on screen. The difference between the two is that underscoring doubles the picture, whilst paraphrasing tints it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Once more Jay, I know technically and by definition you are right, but that's not what I'm talking about.



There is nothing but a "common usage" definition and I have now given it to you several times, but apparently it is not the answer you want so I will now leave it to others.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

doctornine @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> In Library / Production Music terms, underscore refers to a version of your piece with the dominant melodic elements removed.
> 
> It's usual trimmed down to percussion and rhythmic elements maybe some pads, but no melody.
> 
> Doesn't mean lighter background music



Ah, ok, that's interesting. 

Oh, when I say "lighter", I meant something similar to what you're saying, not lighter as in the Nutcracker.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy, underscore is music that in one way or another supports what's going on in the picture. There are several common functions - and at one point in college at Berklee I actually had a list - but I imagine you understand them. Quieter or lighter background music is only one function, for example underscore can be loud and busy in the foreground, gluing...I dunno, a montage together.

Score also includes songs; source music (i.e. music that emanates from the scene, like if there's a band playing, someone turns on the radio, etc.); theme music and end titles...and there are probably other things I'm not thinking of. 

There is obviously some crossover. Source scoring, for example, where the music in the scene supports what's going on in the scene. Or songs can function as underscore.

But underscore is generally understood to be a specific component of a score.


----------



## doctornine (Jan 14, 2013)

oh, and generally speaking, the underscore needs to be the same length as the main version.

It's pretty common Library practice to deliver an underscore along with the usual edits, for each track. 

Boy, can it be a laborious job at times :wink:


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Leosc @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Guy, you're basically there. "Score" is the generalized term for the entire suite of music in the film (although some prefer to distinguish between "Soundtrack" - e.g. Inception - and the more classical definition of a "Score" - e.g. Lord of the Rings).
> Underscoring is a distinct form of composing for a picture. To quote my term paper (glad I don't have to think over again!):
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, making more and more sense now. Thanks.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

So, in "Reality Shows", the work the composer does, is it, score or underscore? Or both? Or does the question makes no sense and I should stop asking stupid questions?


----------



## Leosc (Jan 14, 2013)

Technically: Both. If Underscoring is his main (or only) method of composing, it's usually just called an Underscore though, if you wish to make that distinction.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Is it also possible, because until the last few decades, it was a single composer who did everything, compose the entire score and sometimes orchestrated it himself, so it was a score, like a symphony is a score. But in more recent times, composers started hiring more and more sub composers or ghost writers, and gave them the sections of the movie where the music was more in the background, during conversation, as opposed to themes standing out, and this was more referred to underscoring. Is this possible?


----------



## Rob (Jan 14, 2013)

doctornine @ 14th January 2013 said:


> In Library / Production Music terms, underscore refers to a version of your piece with the dominant melodic elements removed.
> 
> It's usual trimmed down to percussion and rhythmic elements maybe some pads, but no melody.
> 
> Doesn't mean lighter background music



this seems to me the most concise definition of underscore... I have always thought that the "melody" in underscore is the picture, so the music doesn't have to have prominent melodic elements in it...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Is it also possible, because until the last few decades, it was a single composer who did everything, compose the entire score and sometimes orchestrated it himself, so it was a score like a symphony is a score. But in more recent times, composers started hiring more and more sub composers or ghost writers, and gave them the sections of the movie where the music was more in the background, during conversation, as opposed to themes standing out, and this was more referred to underscoring. Is this possible?



Guy, you seem to want "underscore" to mean "more in the background" than "score." It does not, It never has.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Is it also possible, because until the last few decades, it was a single composer who did everything, compose the entire score and sometimes orchestrated it himself, so it was a score like a symphony is a score. But in more recent times, composers started hiring more and more sub composers or ghost writers, and gave them the sections of the movie where the music was more in the background, during conversation, as opposed to themes standing out, and this was more referred to underscoring. Is this possible?
> ...



Jay, I have a hard head, and thanks for your comment. But I'm also interested with what others have to say.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy, what I posted really is the answer to your question! Underscore really is what I'm saying it is!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks for the enlightenment on the subject Nick.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2013)

So John William's Raiders of the Lost Arc theme is an underscore?, and so is the soft pad music under the dialog in Lost? (Raiders seems more like an overscore to me.) 
The effort and thought that goes into these two different "underscores" is vastly different, so you'd think there would be a distinction between the two in terms of terminology.

And they should get paid differently too. 

Which, is maybe why nobody wants to make a distinction?

@Jay - Glad to know that our language is fixed in stone. :wink: Guy may be inventing an important new English word right here in this thread. So don't kill it so fast. Ya dig? Groovy huh? WTF, recently we've been adding a skadoodle (oops that wasn't in my Mac dictionary but all the other new ones already are so they need no correction) of new words to the English language building up a pile of verbal bling. 

L8R dude.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2013)

This is an Ascap cue sheet. Note the column titled "usage."

http://www.ascap.com/~/media/Files/Pdf/ ... eSheet.pdf


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2013)

Alright Nick (Ed in Chief), while on the subject of definitions, what's a "liner note"? Where can I find this on my mp3 downloads? 
(Pro'lly sum'm ya'd find on an old album ya gonna tell me?)

Then what the heck is an "mp3 album?" And how come it ain't got no liner notes?

Xplain to me, 'cause we all know these terms are fixed in stone,... so I must be confused.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 14, 2013)

Beats me.

But you seem to be making a point? I don't quite follow what you're saying!

Of course language evolves, and when it comes to the music industry - whatever's left of it! - a lot of business practices have been lagging reality by years since the dawn of the digital revolution.

However, that doesn't mean the opposite - that every word changes. Underscore is still underscore. (If that's what you're saying.)


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> But you seem to be making a point? I don't quite follow what you're saying!


Naw, didn't mean to hijack the thread. Just wondering myself why we don't draw a distinction as it would seem to me to make sense to...assuming there's an industry left to worry about.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled program... o[])


----------



## Leosc (Jan 14, 2013)

synergy543 @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> So John William's Raiders of the Lost Arc theme is an underscore?, and so is the soft pad music under the dialog in Lost? (Raiders seems more like an overscore to me.)



Of course you're right in that distinction. The Raiders of the Lost Arc theme is leitmotivic, and as such almost scene-independent. Underscoring (such as your second example) on the other hand is, as said, largely dependent on the scene and only intensifies what's already on display.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 14, 2013)

As a composer and sound designer I look at the underscore as, well, underscoring a moment in a production. It might have an obvious melody, it might not, it's purpose is to accent or accentuate some moment in the story arc.

The score, at least to me, is the total package, songs (where applicable) main title, end title, incidentals, and of course, underscores.

Now please keep in mind that I work mostly in live theatre, so these definitions may not fit music for film completely.

To give an example - I wrote a score for a production of "The Tempest". It included a main theme, additional themes for some of the characters, scene change music, curtain call music, and some additional pieces that were for specific scenes.

So when Caliban entered we played Caliban's theme. When Prospero was stealing the stage we played Prospero's theme, which also served as the main theme for the show. Every time Ariel entered, or performed magic, we had a short snippet to accent those moments. During certain scenes we played ominous music that was, in some cases tied to Caliban, and in other cases was just music. There was also a theme for the young lovers that was dark and dreary in the first act, and much lighter in the fifth.

Does that help?


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2013)

Leosc @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> synergy543 @ Mon Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > So John William's Raiders of the Lost Arc theme is an underscore?, and so is the soft pad music under the dialog in Lost? (Raiders seems more like an overscore to me.)
> ...


Orwell, so one would think. However, the authorities have reminded us regarding the proper newspeak...(just to underscore the point). :roll: 

And I'll remind you, that this is no longer 1984! Let alone 1884, when "leitmotif" was already in common use before they even had an "underscore". 
Ya punk-ass homies are so "oldskook. :lol: 

Silly words.


----------



## Leosc (Jan 14, 2013)

Sorry - in all seriousness -, synergy543. I sometimes can't halt my Germanness.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Well thanks guys. Everybody said it a bit differently, but basically meaning the same thing, and it also confirms to me that they are not synonymous of each other, at least not in 2013.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Well thanks guys. Everybody said it a bit differently, but basically meaning the same thing, and it also confirms to me that they are not synonymous of each other, at least not in 2013.



How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A score can consist of, as Nick showed you on the cue sheet: Main Title, End Title, background performances, source music and whatever songs.

But in Los Angeles, even in 2013, when you are nominated for Best Score for the Academy Award, they are talking about the underscore as the Main and End Titles may well have been, indeed nowadays probably were, a song written by song writers. who are nominated and receive a different award and people who contribute source music do not share in the award. So if i e Thomas Neman, who only did the underscore, wins the Academy Award for Best Score, the terms are synonymous.

Occasionally there are "scores " like The Graduate which are songs used as if they were underscore that win, but it is quite rare.

Anyway in the Los Angeles film composer community, even in 2013, the terms score and underscore are used interchangeably, as I have told you and Nick has told you. 

It may well be different for stage, libraries etc. but in the film and TV world, it is as it has always beenAnd most importantly, either way, it has NOTHING to do whether it is just pads played softly in the background, or "Raiders Of The Lost Ark". If it is under picture and is not a song or source music, it is underscore whether it is prominent , melodic, and mixed loudly, or barely audible and it pays at the same rate.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

Jay, you are the only one here who insists they mean exactly the same thing. Read what everybody says. You seem to not digest that fact. In my view and others, there is a difference. I hate to say this Jay, but tough if you don't like it, because you are starting to get annoying keep on coming back to me, insisting I am wrong. You've stated your opinion (several times now), I heard it loud and clear, now I will believe what I want. I hope that's fine with you.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> now I will believe what I want.



that is usually what it comes down to with you, so fine.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 14, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon Jan 14 said:
> 
> 
> > now I will believe what I want.
> ...



Your last comment Jay is out of line


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 14, 2013)

I will make one final attempt to be clear.

I did not say "they mean exactly the same thing." I said, the terms are used pretty much interchangeably.

If I talk to a guy like John Frizzell or Reinhold Heil or once in a blue moon Al Silvestri ( and unlike most here I actually DO talk to guys like that) and I ask, "What are you and Johnny (Klimek) working on he will say "we are scoring a new film for so and so."

Is he writing songs? No. they are not songwriters. Is he writing source material? Probably not, that will mist likely be licensed.

What he will be writing is underscore and maybe, if there are not songs, a Main Title and an End Title. 

And yet he will say, "We are scoring" which means doing the score, which as you can see will almost entirely be underscore. And I guarantee you, he will call their cues that are not the Main Title, End Title, or source mixed prominently and the ones that are not, melodic or not, underscore or just score.

Once again, outside the film community it may be different.

Anyway, that is as clear as I can make it so now as you say you will believe what you choose to believe.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> If I talk to a guy like John Frizzell or Reinhold Heil or once in a blue moon Al Silvestri ( and *unlike most here I actually DO talk to guys like that*) and I ask, "What are you and Johnny (Klimek) working on he will say "we are *scoring* a new film for so and so."


Famous guys said it themselves (so that MUST be the final word).

They are "scoring" a film. Not "underscoring" a film. Or did they say that?

You're makin yourself as clear as the confusing use of the terms score and underscore. Common useage aside, the choice of terminology is very poor. But that's all semantics. Its about the music right?


----------



## Kejero (Jan 15, 2013)

It doesn't really matter if one or more people think, feel or are convinced that there is a difference between the two terms, if in practice you'll always have to clarify what exactly you're talking about using different terminology. Because as Jay said:



EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> the terms are used pretty much interchangeably.



And that's the very reason why this whole discussion is kind of pointless


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 15, 2013)

Oh, and for those who missed this in the other thread, from http://musicians.about.com/od/qz/g/underscore.htm

_"Definition:
An underscore is the music composed to play "under" a scene in a TV show or movie. Essentially the background music, the underscore is usually an original composition created specifically for the project. Some underscores are designed to fill space in a movie/TV show in a way that viewer might not really even consciously notice it, while other underscores are used to set the mood of a scene.

Underscores are also known simply as "scores."

Also Known As: Score"
_
All of which is what I said, no?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 15, 2013)

That definition (you chose to post) is just written by a user like you and me, Heather McDonald, taken from her personal website. The people who commented here have at least as much if not more experience than she does in the film industry. Yes, she defined it as the classical definition. 

I wish you would just drop it Jay. I believe the explanations of previous posters, which was about the current terminology of the words, past the groovy definition, and that's where it ends for me.


----------



## EthanStoller (Jan 15, 2013)

I have no horse in this race, but I just feel compelled to say that this battering of Jay's posts feels unnecessary. The guy can't win--if he offers an opinion based on his interactions with pros he gets accused of being a name-dropper; when he finds a definition he likes written by a less famous person, it's derided as having no credibility. Sheesh.


----------



## Consona (Jan 15, 2013)

Kejero @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jan 15 said:
> 
> 
> > the terms are used pretty much interchangeably.
> ...


Every discussion about terms is essentially pointless a priori. But we have internal calling for orientate ourselves in the world so it's inevitable to lead these pointless discussions. :D


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm sorry but this thread wasn't pointless at all, I thought the replies I got from doctornine, Leosc, Nick, Rob, wst3, and synergy543, made sense, and I am content with that. Jay keeps on coming back every 2 posts to want to say the opposite or whatever. Anyway, I hope I am free to believe what I want according to the replies I got.

And if you think it's pointless, why even bother posting anything?


----------



## Consona (Jan 15, 2013)

Comprehension of terms is subjective and is subject to change. I can take any term I know, think about it and find how I understand it. I can make this process 1 minute later to realize I can understand the very same term differently. And I don't possess any capacity to decide what result was closer to _truth_ or whatever you'd like to call it.

But still I think discussions about terms are ok. We need them.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 15, 2013)

This is not a case of one person defining a word likes he sees it, this is what you're saying, I'm not saying that at all. It's what I've noticed in today's usage of the term. And that's how new words are born, in the new context, market or habits in which they are used. Would you disagree with that? We could give tons of examples of that.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 15, 2013)

As previously mentioned, in library music, underscore usually means "remove the interesting bits", and as more and more library music is used on TV, over time I expect that directors will start to adopt this terminology for TV shows.

D


----------



## ysnyvz (Jan 15, 2013)

i think there is this discussion,because filmscore doesn't have sub-genres like electronic,jazz etc.
it's mostly about choices/styles of directors,producers and composers
in the past filmscore was mostly acoustic instruments,orchestras but today people use everything and even create their own instruments and sounds
though they all create mood/ambience for films,i think using only one definition for score or underscore is not enough today
underscore is not an official term,but a lot of people use it for ambient,non-melodic,sfx type scores


----------



## gamalataki (Jan 15, 2013)

Good lord!

If you work in the industry, you know what it means. If you don't, you can make up as many definitions as you want, because it doesn't matter.

Silliness.


----------



## Consona (Jan 15, 2013)

Guy Bacos @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> This is not a case of one person defining a word likes he sees it, this is what you're saying, I'm not saying that at all. It's what I've noticed in today's usage of the term. And that's how new words are born, in the new context, market or habits in which they are used. Would you disagree with that? We could give tons of examples of that.


It is not a problem of _today's usage_. It is a problem since the beginning of thinking. There is not even one clearly defined term in the history of mankind. :D



gamalataki @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> Good lord!
> 
> If you work in the industry, you know what it means. If you don't, you can make up as many definitions as you want, because it doesn't matter.
> 
> Silliness.


Guy Bacos works in the industry, yet he asked. So what?..


----------



## Leosc (Jan 15, 2013)

Consona @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> It is not a problem of _today's usage_. It is a problem since the beginning of thinking. There is not even one clearly defined term in the history of mankind. :D



There is - in mathematics, for one.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 15, 2013)

O

M

F

G

!


----------



## Consona (Jan 15, 2013)

Leosc @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> Consona @ Tue Jan 15 said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a problem of _today's usage_. It is a problem since the beginning of thinking. There is not even one clearly defined term in the history of mankind. :D
> ...


No. Even mathematics cannot escape regressus ad infinitum and unprovability of the three classic laws of thought.

Sorry for slight off-topic. Quitting thread now.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jan 15, 2013)

Never-the-less, it was an interesting discussion. 

Now I'm out. :D


----------



## Leosc (Jan 15, 2013)

Consona @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> Leosc @ Tue Jan 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Consona @ Tue Jan 15 said:
> ...



Before quitting this off-topic discussion as well:

The axiomatic approach of mathematics has nothing to do with its ability to clearly define problems within its field. Even Russell's antinomy is clearly defined.


----------

