 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently read James Southall’s Thoughts on the Noughties – A Decade of Devolution where he argues that film scoring has changed for the worse during the last twenty-five years. According to Southall, at least some of the blame for why film scoring has changed can be put upon Hans Zimmer’s surface-level scoring. It is clear that Southall laments the relative lack of deep and intelligent film scores nowadays compared to the seventies and eighties.
Though I agree that many blockbuster film scores today are different and sometimes a bit less exciting than they used to be, Southall unfortunately doesn’t explain exactly what deep and intelligent film music actually is. Therefore I’m left with the question, what makes a score good or deep or intelligent?
So, what makes a score deep and intelligent? Is it having many themes and motifs, good orchestration, making the music evolve and progress, having the music go against the picture or is it something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Thor. Always saving the day with a link!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A score that's higher than the other team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes a score good? Whether I like the music or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I come out of the movie and I can't get a melody or theme out of my head. Being memorable to the point where I can hum many of the themes after only listening to them a couple of times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
OF course the first element is for a score to work in a film, although I rarely have encountered a score that doesn't work in a film..
So, after that we go to:
a score that shows that the composer has a deep understanding and sophisticated knowledge of harmony, counterpoint and melody and uses these tools to his advantage and the film's of course.
By the way, sophistication does not mean complexity.
Very simple music can be sophisticated too (contrary to simplistic music which uses very basic harmony, non-existent counterpoint and uninspired melodies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
