# The difference between film music and concert hall music



## dcoscina (Jun 21, 2014)

I wrote a suite for orchestra a few years back for a composition competition that was derived from a ballet I've been been working on for (embarrassed) ten years now. It was conceived as a ballet score so it did have very specific meanings to the music thereby being more programmatic and not absolute music. 

A few people remarked that it sounded like film music even though it was a very active piece (I think I have like one tied whole note in the whole 5 minute piece) with a lot of counterpoint, motives and thematic imitation etc. I was curious what made it sound like a film score...

So it got me to thinking what defines a film score sound compared to a concert work, especially in these times when so many current composer have clearly been inspired by seminal works of Williams, Herrmann, Goldsmith, Barry, etc etc.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jun 21, 2014)

dcoscina @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> A few people remarked that it sounded like film music ....



I am sure there are people out there who would listen to Mozart's 40th, and say that it sounded like film music.. and I am sure there are others who would listen to TDK soundtrack, and say it sounded like concert hall music. Yes - believe it or not - there are plenty of people who have no clue as to what the hell they are talking about. Now, if JW told you this, or if Mozart told you this, or maybe your very well-informed and talented professor, that's a different story.



> So it got me to thinking what defines a film score sound compared to a concert work,



Form.

Cheers.


----------



## mathis (Jun 21, 2014)

Yes, Form. That's the difference.


----------



## iaink (Jun 21, 2014)

Do you have a recording or mock-up?


----------



## JohnG (Jun 21, 2014)

One difference is -- ten years / ten months / ten weeks to work.

I agree about form, though, more than ever. It's rare to bump into a score that wasn't conceived scene by scene, as if by people who haven't even watched the rest of the film. Dozens of source cues muddling things up, sometimes bizarrely.

Some guys don't seem to be able to find the flat keys!


----------



## Guy Bacos (Jun 21, 2014)

There are many differences, I think it's more than "form", but one of the differences is that a film composer is constantly part of a team, working for others, and his social skills are just as important as the quality of his music, if not more, as for concert hall music, the composer works more independently, at least during the composition process.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 22, 2014)

‘Form’ has got nothing to do with it, in my opinion. Three reasons: 
(1) most people (incl. many musicians) don’t have a clue as to what musical form *really* is and what its musical implications are, and are thus quite incapable of recognizing its presence or absence.
(2) you can still differentiate between concert music and film music after listening only for, say, 20 or 30 seconds and during that time no musical form (apart from “the form of musical logic”) has any chance of making itself feel present.
(3) music can adhere very rigidly to some form or other, and still be 100% filmic.

So, no, form isn’t it, I believe.

I think by far the biggest difference is: ambiguity. Ambiguity of musical purpose and ambiguity of meaning.
Film music, for obvious reasons, is constantly pointing outside of itself, always referring to something extra-musical and it does that in a very unambiguous way. And it has to, because otherwise it would loose its power (and raison d’être) as supportive, illuminating and/or storytelling music. 
In contrast, concert music is mostly oriented inwardly, and focused almost exclusively on its own abstract musical organism. (Even when being descriptive, as it is in symphonic poems or ballets, concert music ― the good variety, I mean ― will never sacrifice the logic and requirements of its own musical aesthetic in favour of its descriptive goals.)

Listening to film music, you usually know instantly, and very precisely, which response the composer is aiming for in his audience. Triumph, sadness, tension, anticipation, wide-screen epicness, romance, danger, joy, agression, resolve, tenderness, adventurous excitement, … it’s these type of responses that film music is constantly in the process of triggering in its audience and in order to do that effectively, it has to rely on centuries of musical-semantic conventions and clichés. And again: it has to, if it hopes to succeed.
And it is precisely because of this that I think that most orchestral film music is instantly recognizeable as such, and impossible to mistake for concert music. And it is also the reason why most lovers of film music limit their appreciation of concert music to those pieces which have a similar sort of semantic unambiguity.

David, when people say your music sounds a bit like film music, I have a strong hunch that they say that because, somehow, the music draws them outside of the music. Even if you didn’t intend anything of the sort, I suppose your music paints a picture in the mind of the listener, or it leads him/her towards feeling a specific emotion, or it is in some way descriptive of some non-musical element. Whatever it is, there must be certain unambiguous connotations in your music which distract from the abstract musical content. And whenever music does that, it becomes, to some extent, filmic.

A few years ago, I wrote a few paragraphs on this very subject. Reading it back today, I would love to revise several parts of it (some drastically so, in fact), but most of it still stands, I believe.

_


----------



## Jem7 (Jun 22, 2014)

Well, If you ask me what made any music to "film music", I would say it's written for a film. Not sound, not form, not anything. Film score means the music that written for a picutre.


----------



## Rv5 (Jun 22, 2014)

Just out of interest dcoscina, how was the piece presented? Was it performed in full in a concert hall setting or mock-up?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 22, 2014)

Film music is incomplete without the film. Concert music is designed to be listened to by itself.

D


----------



## AC986 (Jun 22, 2014)

Sometimes you get sort of music suites in a film like Pyscho and almost movements, like Korngold's Robin Hood. You don't necessarily need to see the film to understand the music.

You can split film music into different parts. Opening titles, cues and end titles. Opening titles are usually what people talk about the most and that's where the composer tends to set out his stall. Some great end titles that come to mind would be Thomas Newman's Shawshank Redemption.


----------



## chibear (Jun 22, 2014)

View from within the orchestra:

If they told you it sounds like film music, you didn't give the 1st violins enough melodies, not enough solos for the principal woodwinds, and wrote brass & percussion dynamics too loud for the sensibilities of those mentioned above. Sounds tongue-in-cheek, but was probably the case.


----------



## joed (Jun 22, 2014)

I agree with Daryl. Film music is a part of a whole, concert music is whole unto itself.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2014)

joed @ 22nd June 2014 said:


> I agree with Daryl. Film music is a part of a whole, concert music is whole unto itself.



While naturally this is mostly true, I don't think it is always true. Michael Nyman is an obvious rebuttal (though I admit his relationship with Peter Greenaway is very unusual). I don't think Philip Glass' music for, say, "The Hours," or "Notes on a Scandal" or even Richard Robbins' score for "Remains of the Day" is hopelessly subsumed in its function. 

I would add that I think it is less true now than it was, say, during the 1980s.

I know this is impossible to defend, but I'll have a go anyway! 

I think I am hearing some composer / director pairs aim for some cues being "stand-alone," or maybe defined better as less shackled to each step the scene takes, playing more the overall feeling. Maybe the idea is that music ought to be individuated from the film? Maybe the idea is that the tricks of film music have been so exhausted that they can distract audiences? Maybe the idea is that the music really is an independent character in the film, maybe a chorus in Greek tragedy that's sort of in it, sort of commenting, playing a number of roles.

One piece in a film that comes to mind is, "Define Dancing," from Wall-E. I have heard all kinds of rumours about this score's allegedly arduous production process, which normally would crush invention and spirit to some extent, but if it did, that's not reflected in this bit of music. It's still programmatic, but there is a freedom to it that feels less like film music and more like a "regular" piece.

Even more true is the score Nick Cave and Warren Ellis did for "The Assassination of Jesse James." I wonder, listening to it, whether parts of it were really scored to picture. (Probably there's some interview out there that would say, but I haven't seen it). Ditto Philip Glass' scores, at least the ones I know.

And Piet, I can't say that I agree that _all_ concert music lacks a programmatic element, though I take your point. Moreover, I think some film music, like that of Philip Glass (third mention, sorry), retains a good bit of its ambiguity. I don't feel the elbow digging in my ribs with those scores. They play past the scene and act in some less minute-by-minute way.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Film music: There is a script, written by an author, what tells a story. There are the pictures e.t.c. The composer has to work with this.

Concert music: A composer writes music, but for what reason? Isn't there also a story going on in his head? 

But at the end, a concert piece must be able to stand alone for itself while a film score doesn't need it. In film music there are no boundaries, Concert music has to be played live.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 22, 2014)

*John,*

I don’t think I ever said or even suggested that all concert music lacks a programmatic element ― I mentioned symphonic poems as an obvious example of concert music which clearly has a strong programmatic thread woven through its tapestry. (I could also have mentioned dozens of examples, like Beethoven’s Pastorale, Berlioz’ Symphonie Fantastique or Vivaldi’s Quattro Stagioni, where composers allow distinct extra-musical elements to resonate within the music.)
But I also said, and that was the important bit, that even in those cases, the composer will rarely sacrifice the music's abstract aesthetic, or deviate from its inner logic (which is again a purely musical consideration), in favour of the descriptive or programmatic element.
Even Richard Strauss, a _raconteur musical extra-ordinaire_ if ever there was one, will never, not even for a nano-second, sacrifice the abstract musical quality of his pieces, or ignore their instrinsic musical demands, or get sidetracked into cliché and passe-partout descriptive superficialities, for the sake of the narrative thread. Never.

As for the music of Philip Glass: when taken out of its cinematic context, yes, it has plenty of ambiguity, but the moment it is forced into its supportive role of film music, it can’t be any more ambiguous than the particular scene which it serves at any given time. Mind you, that also happens with the way Kubrick used to use music, or with Beethoven’s 7th in “The King’s Speech”. In fact, that is the fate (or is it doom?) of all music used in a supportive role: whatever ambiguity this music may have on its own, is inevitably narrowed down to the specific function or meaning it is allowed to have depending on the context it is used in.

Which brings me to *Daryl*'s remark. I don’t entirely agree with that. Well, I do for 99,9% of all film music (and the blander and more formulaïc the music, the more Daryl’s observation applies), but when film music gets really great on its own, musically outstanding I mean ― as it sometimes does in the hands of a tiny handful of composers ―, its dependency on the film for which it was written, to lend it value, structure and meaning, becomes completely unimportant and irrelevant, in my opinion. In most cases, I find its connection with a film even a hindrance and annoying distraction.
Listen, for example, to Williams’ “Superman” or Waxman’s “Objective Burma!” away from the fillm, and you’re listening to two magnificent tone poems of astounding musical invention. True masterpieces of musical composition. And the music for “Jaws 1 & 2” can, in my opinion, be easily transported to the concert hall, with only the slightest of modifications, and function there as a work of rare abstract musical power (and magically descriptive as well at the same time, for those who like that sort of thing). 
But listen to this music as part of the film, and all you hear is its most superficial and musically least interesting layer: that of “serving the film”.
In all these cases, the music, when used as intended, is paradoxically reduced to being less than what it is, precisely because of the context it was written for. 

And, returning to the concert hall: the very same thing applies to “Petrushka” and “The Sacre”, to name just two favourite examples: use this music the way it was written to be used (as programmatic ballet music), and you corner the music in a spot where it is unable, or at least seriously hindered, to show its full worth. It’s only when listened to on its own ― undistracted by moving bodies, suggestively tight garments, colourful sets, noisy feet and arty-farty interferences of self-important directors ― that one is able to fully enjoy the abstract musical greatness of this music.

_


----------



## muk (Jun 22, 2014)

Piet, if I understood correctly, your point is that music used in conjunction with another medium - be it a movie, or a ballet - looses some of it's ambiguity and is 'unable, or at least seriously hindered, to show its full worth'.
I wonder what you make of opera then, or an artsong. Does the stageplay hinder opera music to show it's full worth? And does the text of an artsong?


----------



## re-peat (Jun 22, 2014)

Yes. In my opinion, *anything* that distracts from the abstract musical content of great music ― be it a ridiculous film like Superman, or a church service (as is the case with Bach’s B-Minor Mass), or loud, attention-seeking staging (opera) ―, stands in the way of enjoying that music to the full (as pure music). 
I’m not saying that these elements can’t have entertaining / spiritual / artistic value and meaning on their own, and even authentic profundity, and will as such contribute enormously to the impact of the _complete_ work as envisaged by its creators, but the more present and powerful that these non-musical elements are, the more they will obviously blur our focus on the music itself, and in some cases even damage the music for as long as it is present.

Text is different, because spoken or sung text has, next to its meaning, a unique musical quality as well, and it’s very much a composer’s decision, and only a composer’s, as to how this particular quality will be used in the composition. But yeah, even here can all too gripping or distracting a textual meaning (or even the simple fact that it is delivered by a fat, sweaty or unattractive singer in an ugly dress), stand in the way of the music being fully appreciated.

When music gets so good that I know I owe it my full attention, that's what I want to give it: my full attention.

_


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2014)

Alex North's perspective and that of JW and JG is, to use North's word, that film music is functional music. 

North and others had a belief that each cue should be approached like an individual piece so that it stood on its own and could have a life outside the theatre.

Whether something sounds like "film music" is really in the domain of the composer as some do write in such a way that the music sounds like it's for a film. But a small group of other film composers, usually those who think of themselves as composers first, do manage to create works for film that can stand independently.

Listen to The Foraging or Night Terrors as examples:
www.alexnorth2001.com


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> North and others had a belief that each cue should be approached like an individual piece so that it stood on its own and could have a life outside the theatre.



Peter, don't get me wrong, I love melodies and pieces what work perfectly without pictures, but there is this difference...!

Film music isn't concert music! 

With our new technique we can do things in our studios what you can't do when an orchestra is playing live, Yes, no?

o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2014)

No film music isn't per se, concert music, but it is licensable music that can create money on the back end.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Mon Jun 23 said:


> No film music isn't per se, concert music, but it is licensable music that can create money on the back end.



Also, again true, but another issue. La la la, Money Money Money.... .


----------

