Errikos, the last thing I'd want to do is invite you to recall any of the cerebral ghastliness perpetrated by any of the despicable bunch of neo-Hegelian so-called 'philosophers'. (I label them "neo-Hegelian" to include both Hegel and his student Marx, whereas these days the main bunch of philosophical/political imbeciles and troublemakers tend to be labelled as neo-Marxian or even "meta-Marxian". Whatever.) I say let's just ignore them and their absurdities - most especially in the context at hand.

You've highlighted a very pertinent point that I must confess I'd not really taken into account adequately above: the difference between background and concert music and the likely consequences for composers. I'm finding it very difficult to get a handle on that topic, vis-à-vis for example, whether an accomplished concert composer might or might not have more difficulty composing background music, and why. The complication for my understanding here is coloured by the fact that several big name Russian concert composers leapt into the nascent Russian film business and found plenty of work; but, arguably - judging from a few examples to be found in the West today (e.g. King Lear, "Korol Lir", composer: Dmitri Shostakovitch) - didn't do terribly well at it.

Macker: Concert composers working with film is a topic for a big discussion and opinions will vary wildly. On principle, a composer approaches concert and incidental composition very differently. We are talking movements versus cues here. Even allowing for the big narrative arcs and minor thematic development there is just no comparison. The approach to the material itself and the disparity in complexity remain unbridgeable. The closest similarity could be made with the forms of the symphonic poem and opera, of course. Even these comparisons are superficial, as film music - as beautiful and technically superb as it can be and has been, is at heart and soul background and effect music. Little if any dialectics at all. Where this argument only appears to be inadequate is the abundance of so much beautiful incidental music in existence, and so much bad serious music, at the same time. However, this is not a matter of pleasant listening alone, but one of sophistication primarily. Most people would mistake the 'Main Titles' (1'-3' of music?) for the whole score in a discussion such as this one. Well, of course, the 'Main Titles' contain all the inspiration and themes of the movie, more often than not, much like an opera overture. They can be wonderful (The Magnificent Seven, Citizen Kane, Star Wars etc.) But what happens after that? We get to the cues of course, which last for 90'! How good are they really? Yes, we get to the love theme or the heroic climax, but these are another couple of minutes or so, except when they repeat. What about all the rest? By its very nature, for most of the time the soundtrack is rather unassuming, even bare, so as to not vie for our attention which should be fully focused on whatever dialogue is being spoken at the time. And this kind of music is by far the biggest chunk of a soundtrack, and it should be unobtrusive, playing only on our subconscious.

To finally get to your point, I don't believe the great concert composers took film music as seriously as they did their other works, for the aforementioned reasons. They knew their music would be subservient to the film which also has its own soundtrack (dialogue, street noise, explosions etc.). It's not like ballet or opera where music competes with no other sound. As with every rule there are exceptions of course, Prokofiev's Nevsky and Herrmann's Piano concerto from Hangover Square are the first that come to mind. I do concur with one of my teachers who said that there is justice in the music world. Concert composers' film music is not as good as some of the dedicated film composers' or their own concert music, while film composers' concert works, well..........

Maybe Korngold, Rota and a few others can boast in both genres, but then again, exceptions and not really repertory composers.

There was a golden age composer I once read about whose name escapes me at present, who used to throw a party to ritually burn his latest film score. So at least one composer took the money and didn't care much for the music.

"You all danced with the Zevil..." - Errikos

You've outdone yourself with this post Errikos. It is a maniacal yet intelligent rant that is bracing and restorative. I surmise you must be feeling better these days.

Concerning the state of film music I haven't heard a lot of it lately as I mainly watch old movies. Some concert composers have done good film scores, like Vaughn Williams with the music that he later turned into his Seventh Symphony, the "Antarctica," or Shostakovich's "Hamlet" score. But in general they haven't done that well when venturing into film scoring. I remember Stravinski derisively called it "wallpaper" but that was probably because he was pissed off as a result of getting rejected for a job by a producer. It seems that film music is held back not by the aesthetic nature of the medium, but by the commercialism of theatrical films.

Theoretically film and music together could be just as powerful a medium as opera, which of course is essentially a combination of theater with music. But the commercial aspect dominates and dictates how it is used: an example, a somewhat old film that I only recently noticed, was "The Lion in Winter" which has one of John Barry's best music scores. If you listen to the beautifully recorded soundtrack album it is rich, brilliantly orchestrated, simple but intensely powerful music. If you then watch the film it was written for - it is almost NON-EXISTENT! They left out entirely or truncated severely almost all of the music! Just think if this sort of thing had been done to a great opera by Verdi or Puccini, simply because the producers thought their audiences might get a little bored here or there, or needed something "punchier" than the aria already composed. This happens all the time with film scoring, even if the composer is serious about creating something meaningful. The greatest film scores - such as Herrmann's "Vertigo" - are a different form of music than almost any concert music, but are focused creations that are aesthetically integrated into the cinematic scenes as fundamentally as any opera music that is expressive of the story, characters and themes. These film scores are notably rare, because films in which a composer is free to do exactly what he wants, and all of what he does is actually used, are almost never made. Especially now with the ultra-commercialism of every aspect of a film.

I basically think that only with completely independent production, which fortunately is more possible today than ever with advances in technology, can the potential of film music truly be attained in purely artistic works.

Errikos, a very pertinent, eloquent and exquisitely concise exposition; its clarity and conciseness have helped me to consider the matter much further. You're a gifted teacher.

mh-7635, That vignette tells a very powerful and illuminating story. My hat is off to that honest composer, whoever he is or was.

William, you inspired me to search for the Soviet "Hamlet". (I'm a big fan of Shakespeare, having read all his works - except "The Merry Wives of Windsor".) I found a fairly recently posted restored version, which I've now watched all through. Shostakovitch did much better in that than in "King Lear". Also, I found it interesting that Prokofiev, after he'd reconstructed some of his most successful film scores to make them concert pieces, said it took far more time and trouble doing that than composing the original film scores.

What has my curiosity now is the difference between the two main 'styles' or 'modes' of musicianship:- accompanist and soloist. In short, one would expect a musician who is accomplished mainly as an accompanist could be excellent not only as an orchestral player but also - given the training and talent - as an incidental music composer. On the other hand, one would expect that the accomplished soloist type of musician is best suited to become - again, given the training and talent - a concert composer. It's perhaps too simplistic conceptually to have much relevance to real life, but for me it's a clue.

Now at the risk of delving too far into traditional dialectics (as understood and used in ancient Chinese wisdom), the difference between 'leader' and 'follower" is far more paradoxical and deeply nuanced than one might think at first. Here's a quote from Lao Tzu:-

A leader is best

When people barely know he exists,

Not so good when people obey and acclaim him,

Worst when they despise him.

"Fail to honour people,

They fail to honour you."

But of a good leader, who talks little,

When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,

They will all say, 'We did this ourselves'.

Isn't that last line the goal of incidental music composing? The incidental music gives the audience, without them being fully aware of it, support, guidance, nudges, steers and even lengthy narratives, in the domains of feelings, emotions and intuitive understanding - insofar as these strengthen, clarify or otherwise support the dialogue and action on screen as well as the intended plot and its 'lessons'. Then after the viewing, if the audience feels "yes I got it completely", but don't immediately feel any need to know who composed the score, then surely the incidental music composer has been, according to Lao Tzu, "a good leader". In my book that's a great art in its own right, but one that seems beyond so many film composers these days.

After Lao Tzu, a saying in Chinese wisdom was "to lead is to follow". If only Zimdroner and his acolytes would or even could learn that - but now I'm just dreaming.

Now this is called a soundtrack!

Goldsmith is very good. And as Christmas is close let me add this one, which is just beautiful ...

Macker,

Your reply is very intelligent and interesting, but I should refrain from futher comment!

William, thanks. Having read your unedited post I can understand how you feel about this forum and a few of its members. I can only say I do hope you won't disappear from here forever. This forum needs you and your works here - I know I do.

Personally, I'm no longer bothered by the intrinsically soulless and asinine side of social media, this site included. I cut my teeth and did ok on several big sites for several years - Twitter included - back in the early days. But I soon reached the inescapable conclusion that I far, far prefer reality; warts and all. I haven't bothered with any of them for many years now, except this one. I just can't be arsed to play the attention-whoring games - working for replies or likes or followers or whatever, is just not what I'm about. And then VSL aligned its forum format with all the others ....... ghaahh!! What happened to proudly catholic-conservative Vienna? ("catholic" with a small c refers to the deep-rooted everyday culture, not necessarily the formal church-going religion.)

What has always bothered me here is seeing a few toxic, pathogically dishonest and cunning individuals manipulating, gaslighting and preying on others for depraved, ultimately egotistical ends. I'm apt to go into battle with them - and in that, you and I seem to me similarly disposed. But unfortunately - as we both know - social media's moderation techniques don't seem able to cope with the realities of those situations; instead insisting everyone must remain steadfastly superficial, soulless, gullible, algebraically-minded, manipulable mechanoids - which of course tilts the pitch substantially in favour of the toxic predator minority!

What's to be done except "keep calm and carry on", as ever? I'll never surrender and I know you won't either. Pearls won't grow without those pieces of grit. And that's a service, not a sickness, LOL.

..

..

[Tip for moderators and anyone interested in real justice in social media conflicts:– ]

There is a systematic vulnerability that can be spotted, unravelled and analysed methodically in the behaviour of narcs when they react to overt and justified blaming by another. And oh man, do they REACT! Narcs NEVER accept blame! The usually highly energetic reaction pretty much always follows exactly the same format, which is its weakness. So much so indeed that some academics have studied it and given it the acronym: "DARVO", standing for "Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender".

When you're reasonably experienced in spotting the 'delightful' narc techniques of gaslighting, projection and cunningly inserted lies, and armed with an understanding of the simple DARVO framework, you'll be able to unravel and sort out interpersonal conflicts better than some high-priced lawyers currently can.

Here are a few of the academic papers on DARVO (sorry, I haven't linked them but they're easily found and are free, open access):-

• Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What is the influence on Perceived Perpetrator and and Victim Credibility? S Hersey & JJ Freyd, 2020.
• Perpetrator Responses to Victim Confrontation: DARVO and Victim Self-Blame. Hersey, Zurbriggen & Freyd, 2017.
• Defamation and DARVO. Hersey & Freyd, 2022.

This new forum has an ignore feature. If you don't get along with someone you can simply put him on your ignore list and you will not see his posts anymore. For this go to the users profile page and select to ignore him from the menu.

In controversial topics like this one it will always be unlikely that everyone agrees with your opinions, and it's OK to not always be on the same side, as long as you are respectful to each other.

This said we can't read every single post, so in case something is posted that is not ok feel free to use the "Report this post" button. We are then getting notified and will look into it.