In many academic circles, composers of film music are looked upon as hacks and accused of regressing music to the late Romantic Era. It is true; some film composers are not worth looking into, but is this true of all? Do they lack the very element we have been seeking to understand—innovation?
John Williams is, naturally, the first film composer that leaps to mind. I have heard colleagues disparage his music, saying "it all sounds the same." A poor argument indeed, considering most great composers (I am thinking particularly of Mozart) have their own sound. I imagine a great deal of these opinions, mostly from graduate composition students (in my experience), have been steeped in the knowledge that John Williams is making more money being consonant than they ever will being "true to themselves." As the stereotype goes, any musician who makes money must not be much of a musician. (Hmm, that sentence was much more alliterative than I expected.)
So the question remains, has John Williams, or any other film composer, contributed to the evolution of music? I suspect that it has but in unexpected ways.
It does not seem to come down to music as entertainment is inferior to music as pure art. No, because then opera, incidental play music, indeed a great deal of music, would be swept down the drain as well. The dichotomy seems to be more along the lines of esoteric music versus exoteric music—id est music requiring more obscure knowledge to appreciate, versus music that the common person can enjoy. Suffice it to say, I do not ascribe to the notion that esoteric music is superior, only that esoteric knowledge increases appreciation of music. E.g., Anyone, even the layman, can enjoy Mozart; however, increased knowledge of Mozart, his music (and music in general) only increases that appreciation. I am picking on Mozart because his is one of the few names with which most non-musicians are familiar, the poster child (prodigy) for classical music, if you will.
I am of the opinion that well-written film and television music is keeping the art music tradition alive in popular culture. Suffice it to say, when the Second Viennese School abandoned the tonal tradition, they lost classical (in this sense, "art music") its audience. Thus we see the rise of jazz and popular music not long after. Most people today care little for classical music, but frequently love the soundtracks to Star Wars, Spiderman, and Lord of the Rings, little knowing that these soundtracks grow quite naturally out of the loam of the classical tradition. Of course, modern film music is not simply a reiteration of music written in the late 19th century. No, it is now flavored with the textures and sounds made available the development of art music that has remained largely hidden from the public eye. Atonal and dodecaphonic organization often come into play in movie scores now, whereas they could not have when the film industry was in its infancy.
I have avoided going into specific analyses of various film/TV scores, even though I know everyone would find it absolutely riveting. But I can think of a number of examples, just from having listened to movie soundtracks so frequently.
The interaction between tradition and innovation is still nagging at me somewhat. I think the influence of tradition is obvious, but the nature of innovation seems nebulous. I cannot say that what film composers are doing will change the course of musical development (how I would normally think of innovation), but I do hear a blending of new and old ideas, certainly in the plethora of timbres and ethnic instruments widely used in film and television.
I'm sure there are other interesting sources, but one that I have just recently become aware of is Bear McCreary's blog. McCreary is the composer for Battlestar Galactica and Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles. In his blog, he actually follows up newly aired episodes of Battlestar with remarkably detailed analysis of what the music is doing in relation to the drama on screen. You can find it at http://bearmccreary.com/blog/
Your brevity in introducing film music in the context of the evolution of music, must be commended. I'm sure we've all considered this music in some shape or form as the class has evolved, to include so much more than the stereotypical "American innovator’. And at first I thought, 'no ways!'. For the exact reasons that you so eloquently state, that they are predictable and often cliché in their regression to Romanticism. With the exception of a handful of composers, surely this genre of music could not hold a candle to the contributions of composers such as the "American Five" (Ives, Becker, Cowell, Rieggers, Ruggers). But as we slowly work our way through these great men of American music, I realize,"yes ways!".
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a cacophony of composers who delved into this area of composition and honestly, why wouldn't they? As television became a prominent figure in American homes (from the silent movies in the early 1920’s to the home tv sets from the 1940’s) and entertainment took on a role of distraction from the harsh realities of war and depression, so began the development of a new genre.
I was fascinated to read that Cowell was a part of this new genre of music writing. I mean guys like Philip Glass, Ennio Morricone, Danny Elfman, Michael Nyman and Hans Zimmer are easily associated with film scores but I would never have guessed that Cowell shared the limelight in this regard.
Of course a distinction should be made between music that is actually composed for a specific movie and existing music which is edited and pasted into a movie (I don’t pretend to be “down” with the movie jargon).
Well, if we are going to open the floodgates then I would like to throw another composer/genre out there which I believe contributed greatly to American music and consequently music around the world….Fischer Tull and his compositions for symphonic bands. Tull wasn’t necessarily the innovator that Ives or Varese were, but the nature of the ensemble for which he wrote has to count for something innovative. And considering this is an “American Innovators” class, we cannot ignore the iconic value of the traditional wind ensemble (just count your blessing I didn’t say marching band!!).
Wow. I’m really glad someone has brought up the topic for film music. Enoch had pointed out that many academics view film music as trite, tonal, and regressive. And although this is definitely not true of many film composers, it remains the case that the main purpose of film music is to serve the story. It is almost safe to say that film music is never art for art’s sake because it is composed at the behest of the filmmakers involved.
ReplyDeleteI am big fan of the movie The Hours. Phillip Glass composed the Oscar-nominated score, and I remember hearing an interview with him (in the DVD extras; I know it’s sad!) about the purpose of his music within the project. If you’re familiar with Michael Cunningham’s novel, The Hours mirrors Virginia Wolff’s depression-laced novel Mrs. Dalloway and interweaves the stories of three women dealing with suicide: a modern reader, a 1950’s housewife, and Virginia Wolff immediately after a nervous breakdown. It’s a romantic comedy. No it’s not. Anyway, Phillip Glass illustrates how his music serves as a common thread among the three stories that helps the audience stay engaged with all three stories and understand how the three women are related. The music is in Glass’s minimalist style. This score many not necessarily be innovative in itself, but it is part of the minimalist school and definitely a far cry from the scores critics deem post-Romantic and stale.
This is not to say that all film music cannot be artistically groundbreaking. However, film composers take their bag of tricks and mold them to further the plot OR reflect the emotional content OR link scenes together OR enhance a car chase OR do whatever else is needed complement the story and make the film a more cohesive project. The music itself is not the main show, kids.
I’m writing this in order to bring up Varese’s perspective on music for film. Films were one of the ways that the composer came to know America before he moved to the United States, and he believed that musique concrete had a place in cinema. Varese’s philosophy on film music is the opposite of nearly every film composer of the past century. He believed that film should be used to enhance the music. Film was a way of coporealising music. It could expand the imagination of the listener and combine aural images with visual. According to Olivia Mattis, “Music and image would thus jointly express the manifold aspects of Varese’s desert.” (559). Like how I’m not plagiarizing? It was also a means of pursuing his quest for synesthesia.
In this same article, the author cites an interview between Edgar Varese and the journalist Georges Charbonnier that succinctly defines Varese’s perspective on the relationship between film and music.
Charbonnier: have you written for the cinema?
Varese: No. But I would like a film to be made on Déserts.
C: Do you wish that, with Déserts, the reverse process from the usual be done, namely that one would start from the score to construct a film?
V: Yes. Déserts was calculated for that purpose.
C. Should the images be abstract in character?
(And this is the part I love!)
V: Nothing is abstract. What do you call “abstract”?
C: Are you thinking of figurative images or not?
V. Everything is figurative.
C: Yes, everything is figurative. Everything is sign. Everything is image. I mean to say: is the succession of images intended to “tell a story”?
V. No. No. To tell nothing. Simply to suggest. Awaken the imagination. Eliminate all repose from the spectator
It’s an interesting perspective. If Varese were still alive, I highly doubt Michael Bay would call him up to compose the soundtrack of Transformers 2. However, what if all film was written with this inverted relationship: the visual enhancing the aural? Would the nature of Film music change, and would it be held in higher esteem?
Mattis, Olivia. “Varese’s Multimedia Conception of ‘Deserts.’” The Musical Quarterly. 557-83. 11 Feb. 2009