# Serve or Heard?



## ryevick (Apr 18, 2021)

I'm curious as to the thoughts others have here regarding the role of the score. I'm re-watching The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) tonight and I'm occasionally noticing moments in the film that the score is very good IMHO, subtle but effective. I'm focusing on the visual, which that can be difficult if you've been involved with the score side of films.

I have a friend that does visual effects work for film, both practical and digital. As you probably have heard, the best visual effects are the ones you don't notice.

Do you see the role of the score as something that should remain effective but unnoticed or something that should grab your attention?


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 18, 2021)

ryevick said:


> I'm curious as to the thoughts others have here regarding the role of the score. I'm re-watching The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) tonight and I'm occasionally noticing moments in the film that the score is very good IMHO, subtle but effective. I'm focusing on the visual, which that can be difficult if you've been involved with the score side of films.
> 
> I have a friend that does visual effects work for film, both practical and digital. As you probably have heard, the best visual effects are the ones you don't notice.
> 
> Do you see the role of the score as something that should remain effective but unnoticed or something that should grab your attention?


It depends very much on the dramatic needs of the moment. I'd say the same thing about visual effects though as well. The best music at any moment is that which best serves the dramatic needs of the film. And the best visual effects at any moment are those that best serve the dramatic needs of the film. Often that's being subtle, but sometimes that's being a bit in your face, and the artists who know what they are doing have solid intuitions about which is needed when.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 18, 2021)

I'm pretty convinced that the whole notion of "it works best when you don't even notice it" was made up by lazy editors, producers etc.


----------



## ryevick (Apr 18, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> It depends very much on the dramatic needs of the moment. I'd say the same thing about visual effects though as well. The best music at any moment is that which best serves the dramatic needs of the film. And the best visual effects at any moment are those that best serve the dramatic needs of the film. Often that's being subtle, but sometimes that's being a bit in your face, and the artists who know what they are doing have solid intuitions about which is needed when.


I should clarify when I mentioned visual effects you don't notice, I mean visual effects that are not perceived as anything other than natural.

A good example of poor visual effects IMHO is Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace. It's just over-saturated with effects to the point you have to make an effort to stay with the scene.


----------



## ryevick (Apr 18, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I'm pretty convinced that the whole notion of "it works best when you don't even notice it" was made up by lazy editors, producers etc.


I respectfully disagree. The term bombastic comes to mind.


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 18, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> I'm pretty convinced that the whole notion of "it works best when you don't even notice it" was made up by lazy editors, producers etc.


For music, there's a long history of this discourse, dating back to the silent era. I mean that doesn't mean it wasn't made up by editors and producers. But it was usually in the context of insisting that music was there to serve the film not to be music for its own sake that would distract from the photodrama ("people didn't come to the film to hear the music"), and in that respect it has strong affinity's with numerous reforms of opera, which always seemed to start from the demand that music be the servant of the drama...



ryevick said:


> I should clarify when I mentioned visual effects you don't notice, I mean visual effects that are not perceived as anything other than natural.


Music isn't like photorealistic visual effects. The better audio analog to that would be sound effects. But even in that domain, there are degrees of stylization of photorealistic visual effects, just as there are when sound effects move towards sound design. At the extreme stylization moves towards animation in the visual realm or theatrical sets. In the audio realm sound design blurs into music. 

But accompanying music in classical film was never constructed to be the analogue of a photorealistic visual effect, even when those writing it understood that music would mostly go unheard in any conscious way. Noticing music in that context can be a bad thing (if it draws the audience out of the story) or a good thing (if our awareness of the music reinforces something important about the story). And I would say even bombast and spectacle can serve films well if the film is structured in a way that the story calls for it.


----------



## ryevick (Apr 18, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> And I would say even bombast and spectacle can serve films well if the film is structured in a way that the story calls for it.


You can of course create a film that is a spectacle of over-the-top, turgid, phrasing and a score to match... but I suppose I should say I'm referring to more "traditional" film stylings.


----------



## jbuhler (Apr 18, 2021)

Plenty of traditional films use spectacle effectively, a basic element of the structure. In general, I do not find your categories to be well thought out. I also think all your subsequent qualifications have lost the point of your original question. In a filmic context, music is an inherently stylized component, so the comparison to visual effects is a bad analogy if you are going to insist that visual effects not be considered where they too pass over into stylization. But music is often also understood to be generally unheard. There's even a very famous book about film music with the title Unheard Melodies. But generally unheard is not the same as always unheard, and most films have moments when the accompanying music asks to be heard more consciously. These moments are often moments of spectacle.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Apr 19, 2021)

jbuhler said:


> For music, there's a long history of this discourse, dating back to the silent era. I mean that doesn't mean it wasn't made up by editors and producers. But it was usually in the context of insisting that music was there to serve the film not to be music for its own sake that would distract from the photodrama ("people didn't come to the film to hear the music"), and in that respect it has strong affinity's with numerous reforms of opera, which always seemed to start from the demand that music be the servant of the drama...


I do get that, but music is music. If you don't want it in your scene, or it's distracting or doesn't support the image, but gets in the way, then don't use it. In today's media we have several options of filling up space, creating a supportive auditive backdrop or enhancing an atmosphere.

To me it's a mistaken approach to call for music in something, but then insist on it not being heard or noticed. To me, this is an issue with the creators' vision. You need to become clear about what you want. There's things that music can do and things it can't. If music isn't the right tool for the job, use something else. I personally think that a lot of times, there's too much useless music in today's films. But to purposely deplete a medium of it's potency in my eyes only leads to watering down of both the tool as well as the final product. And I think it totally shows, and the examples are numerous.

IMO let music be music. It does not mean that it has to be bombastic or anything. But let it do what it does. Unless it's not right.


----------



## ryevick (Apr 19, 2021)

You 


jbuhler said:


> Plenty of traditional films use spectacle effectively, a basic element of the structure. In general, I do not find your categories to be well thought out. I also think all your subsequent qualifications have lost the point of your original question. In a filmic context, music is an inherently stylized component, so the comparison to visual effects is a bad analogy if you are going to insist that visual effects not be considered where they too pass over into stylization. But music is often also understood to be generally unheard. There's even a very famous book about film music with the title Unheard Melodies. But generally unheard is not the same as always unheard, and most films have moments when the accompanying music asks to be heard more consciously. These moments are often moments of spectacle.


Well I pretty much disagree with nearly, everything you've said post your first reply. I'm not sure where you are pulling my list of categories from and if you think visuals effects is a poor analogy, I'd say you have limited experience working with digital effects artist, if any. It is the best analogy. The work of sound design and foley artist are rarely unnecessary distractions but even by it's very definition spectacle is a given. See nearly anything Jerry Bruckheimer has done for examples.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions though.


----------



## ryevick (Apr 19, 2021)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> To me it's a mistaken approach to call for music in something, but then insist on it not being heard or noticed.
> 
> IMO let music be music. It does not mean that it has to be bombastic or anything. But let it do what it does. Unless it's not right.


Not really what I meant but I could see how what I said could be taken this way.


----------



## Nate Johnson (Apr 25, 2021)

ryevick said:


> Do you see the role of the score as something that should remain effective but unnoticed or something that should grab your attention?


It can easily be justified both ways. Soooo many examples of both approaches ‘working.’ Both approaches can ‘serve’ a movie. Its all about context!


----------

