Timoty wrote:"Zimmer monster" is a reference to the fact that Hans Zimmer doesn't actually score films, he merely writes a soundtrack of music
I think that I understand the difference, although there probably are several perspectives on the definition of a what qualifies as a "film score" . . . If a "film score" equates to a symphony where there is a higher-level organization and structure, then it makes sense, where for example, although it might not be a symphony, if the music for "The Nutcracker" ballet is like a film score, then I understand the concept and the difference . . .
If a film score exists at the same level of importance as dialogue, acting, cinematography, foley work, costuming, set design, lighting, make-up, and so forth, then it is consistent with the way I define everything . . .
But here in the sound isolation studio, the most important rule is that
music is not incidental, and the way it works currently with respect to the legal aspects is that the only people in the entertainment business who have their act together are the folks who compose, perform, and publish songs, which makes sense when you understand the rules . . .
The easiest way to understand the rules is to observe that you can rent a motion picture and a console-specific game, where the basic rule is some of the author's rights end for these things with the first sale, where "first sale" has a specific definition . . .
For example, I can purchase a copy of motion picture ("first sale") and then rent it, where I get to keep all the rental income, but this is
not the way it works with songs and computer software (where computer software is treated as if it were a song, which is very different from the way console-specific games are treated) unless the folks who own the rights to the songs explicitly grant rental rights and so forth, with the exceptions being public libraries and schools . . .
The way I discovered this useful bit of information is that when I started doing radio plays I did a bit of research and learned that spoken word with incidental music is treated the same way as motion pictures and console-specific games, where someone can purchase a copy but then rent it and keep all the rental income without having to pay the author, composer, voice actors, and so forth a penny . . .
So, I did a bit of research on what distinguishes a "song" from "incidental music", and my perspective is that it mostly is a matter of determining whether the overall entity is sufficiently different without the music . . .
In other words, if it works just as well with or without the "music", then the "music" probably is "incidental", but if removing the "music" changes everything, then the "music" is not "incidental", but defining everything this way allows too much wiggle room, hence is a bit too fuzzy, so in addition to having an abundance of music I also include the correct symbol for the notice of copyright for "phonorecords embodying a sound recording", which is a "P" enclosed in a circle:
There are subscription music services, but they have to make specific agreements and pay royalties, which is
not the case with copies of motion pictures and console-specific games, although there are exceptions for motion pictures, where for example you cannot buy a CD of a motion picture and then broadcast it on television without having an agreement with the folks who own the rights, and so forth, hence the motion picture folks had at least a few moments of clarity in their thinking sometime in the distant past with respect to the long run . . .
And there is a way to record a song without explicit permission, at least in the US, but you have to follow elaborate rules and provide regular accounting reports, as well as make regular royalty payments based on accurately kept books and so forth, which makes getting permission the best strategy most of the time, although there are services that make it easier with respect to getting permission and doing the accounting, reporting, and making royalty payments . . .
From a related perspective, if the director and producer are the ones who control the "film score", then I probably would
not call it a "film score", which is based on the general rule that directors direct; producers produce; actors and actresses act; composers compose; and so forth and so on . . .
Using an absurd example, if Alfred Hitchcock hired Amadeus Mozart to do the "film score" for a movie but Hitchcock told Mozart exactly what to do in great detail, then I am not so certain that in this scenario one could call Mozart a "film scorer" or whatever, although (a) Mozart in this scenario probably could have a bit of FUN and actually do a proper film score and (b) Hitchcock certainly had sufficient sense not to interfere with a composer like Mozart, but so what . . .
So what! In other words, my perspective is that if the music (which includes singing, songs, themes, and everything else that can be specified with music notation) is not so important, structured, and designed as the screenplay, then I would
not call it a "film score", but regardless if I were doing the music I would call it a "song" or a set of "songs", unless it was a work for hire and I either (a) got paid or (b) got a personally autographed pair of Christina Aguilera's underpants, which is fabulous . . .
Fabulous! P. S. I watched "Inception" last week, and it is memorable motion picture, but if all I had to do to get a personally autographed pair of Christina Aguilera's underpants was to hum a few bars of any of the music, my dream would continue to be just a dream . . .
In contrast, consider the Alfred Hitchcock motion picture "Rebecca" (1940) with music by Franz Waxman . . .
"Rebecca" (Alfred Hitchcock) -- Opening Sequence -- YouTube movieThe opening sequence is a personal favorite, and while the dialogue and voice-over by Joan Fontaine are stellar, the music makes it magical, as does the cinematography, lighting, fog, miniature sets, and so forth, and if this is what everyone is calling a "film score", then I agree, for sure . . .
For sure!