Heads up, this is a blog post that is a bit different compared to other things I’ve written. I intend for this to explain more about my philosophy and “goals” for why I do what I do. So I hope this helps and that you find some camaraderie with me! I also hope you don’t think of this as too insufferable….or at least more than my normal stuff! 😉

Most people that know me, know that I love film scores. I indulge myself and hang out with film scores quite a bit, whether it’s through active (analytical) listening or to get inspired to compose (for fun).

To be clear, I don’t just like any film score, but specific ones, which tend to be symphonic and focused on themes (which most mainstream scores do). It gets even more particular when I look for film scores that utilize techniques I like from classical music (Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Barok); I tend to find a lot of expressive camaraderie with such moves. [Personal] Taste guides my enjoyment of this medium and makes it a very intensive hobby.

These “critical” qualities (vaguely so, it’s not that serious) combined with a score’s purpose of crafting a narrative in tandem with what an audience can see is what makes film score so intriguing to me. This is also what sets it apart from music written to be performed in a concert hall. It is its own thing. Film score has it all: intention, references to culture (Western, spy music, waltz, etc), planning , a focus on expression, and, through my taste in symphonic scores, a bit of a “dated” contour. Sounds a lot like my love of menswear huh? 

The relationship between my two passions often reveals truths to me, giving me insight in how I see aesthetics, themes (POV or character based approaches), and what it means for me to express what I want in the parameters I set for myself. And with the latest release of one of my most anticipated releases, John Williams’s final(?) film score to Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, analyzing to score in both an in-film and film industry way gave me something new to think about.

 

Don’t worry, I’m not going to get into a cue-by-cue study of the score. All you really need to know is that the score is certainly different from the previous four films. The villain theme is less overtly melodic, trading a hummable theme for something that comes off as more generic. Overall cues are shorter. And few big set piece style cues rely on string ostinati and agnostic rhythms instead of a determined melody. Just compare that to the melody focused Scherzo for Motorcyle and Orchestra or to the nearly 8 minute long cue (well it is a few stitched together) for the Desert Chase.

Yes, John Williams is getting older and may not compose in the same way he did 50 years ago. But I think the culprit lies more with how movies are made today. 

I’m referring to the practice of constant editing and reshoots, which plague big blockbuster movies. Traditionally, the film was picture locked (or close to it) before scoring would begin. This was important as composers who have to write music that corresponds to the scene down to specific beats and timestamps. You can’t really do that if those time codes and pacing are constantly changing. 

Granted, the original Indiana Jones trilogy, Star Wars, Back to the Future, etc have all had edits done (which is apparent if you compare the released score to the score heard in-film), but these are fairly minimal and the music is largely kept intact and flows accordingly.  A wholly complete score in this manner is not usually possible in the modern day due to changes in the film process. 

Film scores are obviously composed differently now. Music will be composed to be blanketed, able to be chopped up and used as the editors require. Naturally this leads to a focus on rhythms and agnostic music instead of more tour-de-force writing that is truly allowed to breathe. Intentional music written specifically for the film just doesn’t happen anymore due to this industry change. Users A.A Ron and Edmilson bring this up in the John Williams fan thread, which analyzes the score.

There is also the concept of spotting, which is about deciding when and where the score will be placed. This involves simple things like “I want this character’s theme here”, but this is the part of the filmmaking process where we truly get to allow room for the magic of film score to occur.  Some of the best directors like Hitchcock and Spielberg also direct with music in mind, providing that much needed Breathing Room for the music to take the scene, not in a bombastic way, but in a way that allows for a true camaraderie between visuals and audio. 

This doesn’t seem like as much of a priority nowadays. We don’t really tend to have scenes that allow for that use of music. And that’s not the composer’s fault, it’s the filmmakers. I can’t expect a Map Room: Dawn, Binary Sunset, or a Flying Bike style cue if the director doesn’t conceive of such a scene to begin with. In the end, constant editing and lack of music-focused scenes has just shown that film scores will never be the same anymore. 

At least compared to the style of music that we got until the mid 90s. We’re in a new era now.

My friend Derek, a filmmaker, posits that this is all budget related. Hiring a composer to write 1-2 hours of music (granted, we’d be lucky if a director even wants that much music in a film) and getting live performers for recording is expensive. This means that the only films that are allowed a symphonic score. But with constant edits, shifting director tastes, and producer priorities (A-list actor salaries for cameos, maximizing box office returns) the symphonic scores that we do get just don’t compare to what we got in the past. Nothing is allowed to breathe. We short change our film composers. 

So perhaps the solution would be to get my film score fix from other sources, ones where we do get a change to breathe.  Derek said I should look at the scores from indie films or smaller-scale films and not simply blockbuster/franchise  movies. But the issue there is that these things do not do symphonic scores. Yes, this could be a budget thing as Derek originally posited. I countered by saying that digital composing is still an avenue, which can work as a live orchestra in a pinch. A full symphonic sound can be done on a small budget, being easier now than ever before. We could do it if we wanted to. However, that doesn’t seem to happen.

Indie movies and small scale stuff (rom coms, intimate dramas), just don’t want the symphonic score; they tend to go for minimal approaches. Minimal isn’t bad, but it doesn’t always have to be solo piano or synths.  So now we don’t get the aesthetic sound of the symphony  in a romcom/dramas like Sabrina or The Accidental Tourist. Granted, these have some big names, but the sound could definitely be used in similar small scale movies.  But even if it is possible and could fit in with an accessible budget, filmmakers don’t pick it. This discussion on not choosing an aesthetic even when it’s fully available makes this whole discussion a matter of taste. 

What I find disappointing is that the less we see the intentional symphonic sound out there, the less people will want to use it. It’s a negative feedback loop. And when we only have one medium (blockbuster franchises) that feature a mere shell of what symphonic film scoring is, it creates a world where people start to just take it for granted. A symphonic film score is not lush with themes and complex orchestration even in its intimate and tender moments. Who cares? Audiences just need it to be epic and sound close to what you think it should sound like. Anything more is deemed unnecessary. Breathing Room becomes superfluous and therefore not taken. 

What a shame!

This all relates to my views on menswear.

Like film scores, classic menswear (tailoring, ivy, corporate styles etc), is all lumped together in the minds of the general audience as a shell of what it once was. It’s become occasion wear, worn pragmatically only for situations that specifically call for it: weddings, job interviews, and funerals. Hell, people may not think about sport coats, ties, and OCBDs as garments with intentional aesthetics and designs, but simply as “something you wear”. Details go out in the window in favor of serving that purpose. Striped shirts and patterned ties have gone the way of Stravinsky and Bartok-esque embellishments; they just aren’t necessary, so they aren’t even attempted.  

People’s idea of a suit and what tailored outfits look like have been streamlined, casting out ivy separates, sportswear, riviera style, or the plethora of expressions that can be afforded through elements of classic menswear. Remember how many different looks the Esquire Man could do? In other words, people just need to wear a suit, any other considerations are unnecessary and therefore not taken. Budget priorities are certainly factors (as I discussed in this article), but tailoring is also easier to get into now more than ever before. Deciding to wear classic menswear, like a symphonic film score, is all about taste. And when people are given ultimate freedom, classic menswear is not something a person typically considers to wear when offered the expansive list of wearable genres currently out there.

This is no one’s fault. Like with film scoring, the ecosystem has changed, shifting people’s priorities. This makes what I like to become rarer and rarer. But it’s not all bad. In the wider world of fashion, we are able to see people push the boundaries of fashion and what men can wear. It is truly a good thing that we’re seeing new designers make it, especially when it gives voices to people who used to be unable to speak. 

It’s my hope that this new era still provides room for what I like. It’s silly and selfish, but I think its important to make a case for our passions, especially as they’ve been re-contextualized for the modern world, giving it a bit of a new meaning. Orchestral film scores and classic menswear used to be the lingua franca of their times, but I want people to see it as an intentional choice that one can take pride in choosing regardless of whats en vogue. People just need a chance to like it.

My essay on discussing menswear critically set the stage for all of this, but I think this blog post reveals more about what I’d consider to be my “goal” or “purpose”: to encourage people to dive deep and simultaneously make a case for the things that I like. This is all done in the hope that perhaps people may get it. Is there a way we can encourage critical discussion, to get people to think about these things as more than just a pragmatic purpose? And most importantly, is there a way we can make a case for what we like (in film score and classic menswear)? Can we do it without relying on tropes (a wedding outfit or a blockbuster franchise)?  Is this all destined to be a thing of the past and to remain niche?  

It’s clear that my taste in film score and clothing seem to be linked more than ever before. And this reveals so much about me. Specifically how for both film score and menswear, my references (or things I consume) come from a very particular era or creator (1930s clothing, John Williams, ivy photographs, Apparel Arts illustrations). That’s because people today seldom make things the way I want them. I’m forced to look back, whether it’s for actual outfit inspiration or just to view for leisure. In both realms, I am in pursuit of a specific aesthetic and I’ll take it where I can get it. Call it an obsession, but both require shifting through tons of things in order to find what I like, as the taste becomes more niche and less relevant with every year. 

I am aware of my own hypocrisy. I have a specific taste in film score, but I do not pursue a career in composing to show off how this taste has merit. I also am not planning to develop a line of clothing that has my desired proportions or scale of foulards. That’s because I know that to survive, my taste will be compromised, which would hurt more. Because above everything else, I am an enjoyer; you can call it a consumer if you want. I want this to be something I enjoy as a hobby. But I realize that perhaps this is a privileged take.  It’s definitely an idealistic one!

Who is to say that things in the past were all good and art for the sake of art? Maybe John Williams also felt like his  music in Raiders or Sabrina wasn’t allowed to breathe; maybe there were edits he hated to make. Apparel Arts certainly wasn’t creating these illustrations to push the boundaries of how men could wear classic menswear– they were trying to sell clothes in the way that was most effective of the time. It was “fashion”, but it was also considered “normal dress”, especially since other genres of fashion simply didn’t exist at the time. And now, almost every image I show on this blog that isn’t a photo of me is marketing materials from brands; they are still inspiring, but they are still selling something. 

Therefore, I concede that neither of these passions are or ever were “pure”. But that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate their aesthetics and want them to continue. And plus, I’m not exactly here to consider them art but to think (and critique) them as if they could be.

I believe that the practice of making art is the only place where true Breathing Room for the “unnecessary” (ie, not pragmatic) gets to live. It is where we are allowed to delve into what others consider to be superfluous because we know they are not superfluous to us.   If ever-evolving pragmatism is what made these things go away, then I believe giving them Breathing Room is what will help them survive and be taken seriously. “Seriously” not in the scholarly realms of fine art, but “seriously” in terms of what makes us happy. While we can’t deny the necessity of pragmatism, joy is what tends to drive agency and intention. 

That’s why I always push for things to be considered a hobby. To do things for fun! It is the closest thing we have to “art” (a realm of Breathing Room) as hobbies allow us to dive deep into the development of a specific taste and the drive to keep it going, even if it doesn’t serve you in the way of practical social benefits. It’s easier to wear a suit and fedora or write a grand cue if it isn’t tied to your income (aka when it’s a hobby). I don’t like the idea that things should only be done if they serve a wide pragmatic goal. That’s a surefire way to ensure the extinction or bastardization of what we love. Just look at mediocre symphonic film scores and the current state of the suit! 

In Hanging Out, Sheila Liming said that writing was a way for her to “hang out” with her favorite authors, philosophers, and artists. I’d expand on that to say that this active engagement with things she likes (taste) and creating things (writing) is way to ensure that these ideas live on. I really like that sentiment, much like how Hanging Out with friends ensures that the relationship continues, though perhaps that’s my preference for Tangible experiences coming through. In any case, we need to be engaged with what we like and openly Hang Out with them, if we are concerned with keeping them going.

That’s why I do all that you see me do. I want to ensure my taste lives on, in anyway we can. Brown checked jackets and spearpoint collars may not be the sportswear look of corporate men today, but I love them, so I make it my “uniform” for going to coffee shops. In that same vein, lush love themes may not be in the latest Netflix romcom and quirky action cues with themes for heroes, villains, and macguffins may not en vogue for a big adventure movie (do they even make those anymore?) but these approaches have a home in my own music library. They are not pragmatically correct choices to make if I wanted to truly be taken “seriously”, but I do it because I like it. I want these things to continue, perhaps even to contribute to the canon (if I can be so bold).

You might be concerned about evolution, but other people will handle that. The genre of men’s fashion will continue and evolve whether I do this or not; the same goes for film score. Most people are concerned with what’s next. But that’s okay! I just want to make a case for my taste, whether it’s popular or not. Being anachronistic with your aesthetic preferences and raging against the dying of the light is what makes this personal. In other words it’s the root of our individual taste and style.

Perhaps the fact that it us doing our own take on this (and not simply wearing the exact same clothes or compose thing the same specific notes) is what makes this a form of evolution. We can see these aesthetics preferences live in a place where they haven’t been before. In other words, the very presence of Breathing Room is unprecedented and new. In the case of Williams, we know that his taste is allowed to breathe outside of film score as evident through the plethora of non-film work he’s done. That’s actually a good reason for me to get further into classical/concert work, as I struggle between loving the specific medium of film score (the challenging partnership of music and visuals) and the increasingly endangered techniques and orchestrations found within the specific film scores that I enjoy.

In any case, we must provide Breathing Room in order to allow the agency of taste to take effect. 

The first step we must do is to encourage people to even have hobbies, engage with their taste critically, and to know the value of simply hanging out. Once that’s done, then we should also take care to make a strong case for why they should consider what we like, if they wanted to. It may not exactly be evangelism in a strict sense, but my conscience is fine with whatever efforts I do. 

I feel like I’ve done that with my approach to photography. My friends have all gotten into it and enjoy taking photos for fun, whether or not they post them publicly or not. It could be a documentary fit pic, a somber portrait, or a flash-laden capture of silliness. These things live on because we do them for fun. Obviously, these things aren’t exactly endangered, but you’d be surprised how many people don’t find joy in taking and being in photographs. People don’t need to be into it, but the ones that have an interest end up finding joy in it. 

It should be quite clear that I want the same thing for symphonic film scores and classic menswear.. For now, I already do a whole blog and podcast to push for the latter, just in case someone gets intrigued to try it out for themselves Maybe with the surging popularity of certain elements of classic menswear in the post-pandemic era, it may be time for me to shift my attention to the former.

If only I had more time.

Post Script: I am aware that Dune had plenty of music focused moments, but that isn’t exactly composed in my taste. A good one to counter my opinions with is Randy Newman’s Marriage Story, which is proof that a symphonic score can exist with a small scale story and A-listers. Animated films also tend to utilize a full symphonic score that has ample Breathing Room as the medium of animation requires so much to be completed a head of time, with little opportunity for constant edits (at least ones that would affect pacing and time since every scene must be created).

I definitely encourage people to watch score analyses and reductions, which display all the mechanics of film score at work. This video on the Jurassic Park finale shows that a blockbuster movie can be full of complex orchestrations and intentional uses of themes (like the Carnivore motif). A lot of these things are wholly unnecessary, but Williams and Spielberg do it anyway. The cue is largely preserved, with minimal edits, which is why Williams is able to do such a detailed job with ease. If only we could do that more often! 

If you want more of an idea of how I look at scores, I suggest you visit FilmTracks as the owner’s reviews of scores (and resultant markers of taste) is similar to mine (as I grew up reading his analysis). Just read his critiques of Danna’s score to The Time Traveler’s Wife. I don’t think we need to praise things for just existing. Marvel’s scores and J. Crew Ludlow suits do not get a pass simply because some consider them to be the last bastions of hope for symphonic film scores and tailoring respectively. We should look at if things are good and not simply available. Filmtracks remains critical at all times. That is what taste is all about.

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget that you can support me (or the podcast) on Patreon to get some extra content and access to our exclusive Discord.

Always a pleasure,

Ethan M. Wong

Big thank you to our top tier Patrons (the SaDCast Fanatics), Philip, Shane, Henrik, and Alexander.