Those are very interesting ideas Errikos and weslldeckers - what I often think about the quality (or lack of it) of film music is that it seems to be "optional." In other words, a musician can provide a score that is a great piece of music, or a lousy piece of garbage and - amazingly enough - either one of them may work for the film. This principle is what the Zimmerites are using to get away with semi-musical sludge as opposed to actual music scores. But on the other hand, a good composer can write something beautiful musically that is irritating and distracting from the film. And all this is why it is remarkable how Herrmann and a few others did both - writing good (sometimes great) music that was also absolutely perfect for what the film needed.
I must say I somewhat disagree with the principle behind this original article however. Essentially the author is stating that film music is not as good as Beethoven. In a way, that is a stupid thing to say. Because it is mixing up many different contexts into an aesthetic mishmash. One should ask the question - is ANY film music as good as the concert music written at the same time. If that question is asked, I would answer - some film music is BETTER than much of the concert music written in the 20th century. EVerybody compares Joe Blow film composer to Stravinsky. What about Bernard Herrmann or Jerry Goldsmith to any of the thousands of music professors imitating Berg, Webern, Ligeti, Schoenberg, etc. ad infinitum to the boredom and ear-splitting nausea of their enslaved audiences who gradually decided - over the course of about 20 years - they HATE concert music. WHY do they hate it? Did you ever ask that question? Is it because it is all peerless masterpieces? Or could it be as mediocre in general as the favorite whipping boy of the musical snobs - film music?