Ben Heckel wrote:My question is this: how does bland, uninteresting music make a film better?
Ben Heckel wrote:Quit looking for quality, man! It’s part of the film.
Ben Heckel wrote:
The weird thing is, I can’t think of any other facet of filmmaking where it is actually considered to be acceptable to do a subpar job of your work. You never hear about directors telling the costume designers to not make the costumes quite so well, because it’ll distract from the actors’ performances.
I’ve never said that it’s acceptable to write bland, subpar, low-quality music for films. I’m just saying the standards for “par” and quality are different than those of “standalone” or concert music.
Film music is written to be supportive. Concert music is written to stand on its own. Film music is orchestrated to blend well with the rest of the mix, which includes but isn’t limited to actors’ voices and sound effects. Concert music is written to be heard by itself on a canvas of silence. Film music is written to enhance a story and reinforce (hopefully) existing emotions present on screen. Concert music can tell a story but doesn’t necessarily have to (if you’ve studied music in school, you’ve likely heard about “program” vs. “absolute” music). Many factors of film music are not determined by the composer, or at least are already outlined for him or her (such as form, pacing, and dynamics). In concert music, the composer does whatever he or she feels like.
We could also liken it to something you’ve probably already done. Think about if you’re writing a piece for a trio of piano, flute, and bassoon (or whatever). You want the parts to all be as good as possible, but the bottom line is, the piece itself needs to sound good. You can have the flute player just play their part. It might be amazing, or it might make no sense at all. Either way, the flute part was never meant to stand on its own as your piece. It’s part of a whole.
Or, if you’re writing a piece for a full symphony orchestra, ideally you write an interesting part for all of the performers so they can get into it and give a better performance. But what’s ultimately important is that the orchestration works and sounds “good” (“good” being defined as achieving your desired sound, whether it’s aesthetically pleasing or not). If you’re listening to a piece and it works great, does it matter if you have the brass play soli and they enter halfway through a phrase that sounds like the tutti you want?
Now, notice that I’m not saying the parts can stink. They have to be written and notated clearly, so there’s no question what you want. The parts have to be proficiently written and notated, or everything’s a mess. They have to fit well into the mix, and they have to effectively contribute to the entire piece. In other words, they have to be done well, but in context of what they actually are. You would write for solo flute differently than you would write for a trio or full orchestra.
I agree with you, that all music should be held to the same standard of quality. But, I’m saying that quality is defined differently in different types of music. You can’t effectively judge rap with jazz values, or country music with classical values. Nor can you assess film music with the same values as concert music. To do this actually denigrates film music more than holding it to a different set of standards!
Let me explain. To say film music is basically concert music written for film is to say that both all other audio in the film or the music itself is less important than they actually are. You’re saying that all other audio “gets in the way” of the music. Or, you’re saying that it’s acceptable for the most brilliant piece of “standalone” music ever (since you’re saying film and concert music should be held to the same standards) to be buried down in a mix with tons of dialogue and sounds effect slapped on top of it. Either way, this demonstrates neglect to one of the most crucial aspects of a film.
Alex Beard, composer
http://www.composeralex.com
http://www.myspace.com/composeralex
