Swan Song for Movie Soundtracks

Downloads are the way it is these days. They don't suit me - but that's just the way it is. We're forced to go along with the so-called digital revolution whether we like it or not.
Most movie sound tracks these days are a string of tunes from various whiny rock-balad bands. The days when real composers produced memorable sound tracks that were worthy of being listened to without veiwing the associated film are long gone.
guitars

CD are becomming a thing of the past, the internet is just like the wild west and it can be your friend or worst enemy. MP3 are the greatest thing since sliced bread! fall bridal shower|bridal shower clipart

I think the reason why iTunes sell whole songtracks is because the royalty deals made with individual artists usually depend on how an entire album sells rather than for individual songs. This method may be cheaper for studios overall than making singular deals that would stack up an album's budget and would not be worth issuing a songtrack. It's a bit of a catch-22.

Since the AFM (American Federation of Musicians) made it more affordable for distributors to release scores that number under 15,000 physical copies, I'm wondering how that translates to downloads. If that number is exceeded on iTunes, does the composer and orchestra get paid more? So much is made nebulous to the public, and I feel its the same for those who make the deals.

And what is the source of these score sales, anyway? How could I find out how many copies of Harry Potter or Cheri or 9 have sold? These numbers seem typical to me, especially with Ice Age 3. Surf's Up had a limited edition of 1000 copies and took a while to sell.

I had a whole big reply ready, and it got swallowed by the internet. Anyway...

Count me in among the loyal fans who buy soundtracks for movie. But this article is talking more about the "Inspired by" sort of deal, often containing maybe 1 or 2 songs that were used in the movie.

The problem with the "Inspired by" albums that pass off as soundtracks is that they actually follow the same marketing pattern that listeners are tired of, especially today when options are available to buy individual songs such as on iTunes or Amazon.com. Here's how it's done. You take 1 song and aggressively promote it, usually via music videos and radio. In this case, you can add being used in the movie or trailer. Then you put down 10 or so dollars to buy it and you find, to your horror, you basically paid for 1 or 2 songs, because the rest are duds.

This isn't a problem with soundscores because you got to "preview" the music as you were watching the movie. It's interesting the article brought up Celine Dion's "My Heart Will go On" as an example of a successful soundtrack, neglecting to mention one thing. The majority of that soundtrack was the score by James Horner. All of that was used in the movie so buyers know what they're getting into. Some people are more adventurous and buy before they see the movie (or, in my case, you can add "play the game" into it too, because video game soundtracks sell too). I used to be in that category, but not anymore. See comment about money at the bottom.

People buy soundtracks because they want the emotional experience they had when they saw the movie without actually having to view the movie again. My reply may sound like I'm biased towards soundscores rather than collections of songs. But I'm not. In fact, I recently bought the soundtrack to a Thai movie that is made up of only songs by various artists. But the difference is that all of the songs were actually used in the movie. I knew, buying it, that I was going to like what I hear because I already had an opportunity to listen to them all in the movie. These days, money is too hard to come by to be haphazardly spending money on things that you don't know whether or not you will like it. Especially with "Inspired by" soundtracks, just buy the 1 or 2 songs you like.

The soundtracks being talked about in the article are more like "Inspired by" collections that may even have little relevance to the movie. I very much like listening to soundtracks to movie, count me in as one of those of the loyal fanbase. What I don't like are "Inspired by" albums that are supposed to pass off as soundtracks.

Often, they follow a similar marketing pattern that non-soundtracks follow. Many use one or two songs in movies or trailers to promote the album, much like how an artist would use one or two music videos or air them on the radio to promote their album. Put down 10 or so dollars for it, and you find you really only bought the one or two songs, because the rest are stinkers. It should come as no surprise that, from downloaded sources, sales would be lackluster. People will buy the one or two promoted songs and ignore the rest.

It's interesting the article brought up Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On", from a soundtrack that was largely a soundscore, not a collection of songs. It sold because of two things: "My Heart Will Go On" was catchy and, more relevant, so were James Horner's compositions. The buyer's knew they liked it because they heard it when they saw the movie. (some people are more adventurous and listen to them before they see the movie. I used to be like that, but see the comment about money below)

People buy soundtracks because they want the emotional experiences they felt when they saw the movie/show or played the game without having to actually watch/play it again. I like soundscores, but I am not against buying soundtracks that are made up of all songs, provided the songs were actually used in the movie. At least that way I got a little preview. I know, ahead of time, whether I liked it or not. Money is too tough to come by these days to be haphazardly spending it on things you are not sure you actually want.

It's sad to see its decline, as Soundtracks give music a healthy relationship to movies so that ideas can get integrated and products can turn into diversified phenomena. While the movie industry still looks healthy, the frail music industry has some subpar management, and is part of the reason for the decline in music sales. A movie is a great place to showcase new music as they attract large audiences and people would enjoy soundtracks if they really liked the movie. Plus, soundtracks can encourage people who haven't seen the film to take a look.

Soundtrack sales are going down because the music in movies anymore is horrible.

Come to think of it, movies nowadays are horrible in general. Movies coming out now are just vehicles for talentless flavors of the week (cough- Katherine Heigl- cough) instead of having interesting characters or a good plot.

I love movie soundtracks, if I like a movie so much, I'd often seek out if they have a soundtrack. And yes, it could consist either scores or a collection of pre-recorded songs. Some soundtrack CDs are often better than the movie or it would sometimes elevate the movie up a notch. I listed my top twenty list of movie music on my blog: http://flixchatter.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/favorite-movie-music-–-my-top-twenty-list/

I think people are confusing scores with soundtracks. I think scores have a smaller, more loyal audience. With ituns and other ways to purchase individual tracks, I can see soundtrack sales slumping.

Maybe people don't by the soundtracks to movies because they always leave off the best songs on the soundtracks!
Empire Records, for instance, has an AWESOME soundtrack on the movie, but the cd is quite lackluster.

just a quick note about the Harry Potter soundtrack. Maybe is they actually paid John Williams to write the score it would sell copies! I love listening to the first three soundtracks, but every since they decided that they could pay someone cheaper, the soundtracks haven't really been worth buying. John Williams still has a name that means something!

As usual the article reads like the only soundtracks worth bothering with are those filled with songs, i.e.: those that will sell to the kids. Well just to set the record straight (pun intended) there is a thriving collector CD market for soundtracks, and I mean genuine movie scores, not music from and inspired by the film, which more often that not means half a dozen songs actually in a film, and the rest padding.

Labels like Intrada, Varese Sarabande, FilmScore Monthly, La La Land, and others, are valiantly keeping movie (and TV) music both new and old alive. They may be mostly limited editions, but they sell, and to the right, interested, people.

So basically, the article supports and follows the song-as-soundtrack thinking so common these days, and ignores what actually helps movies affect us, the dramatic underscore. They may not sell in numbers like The Bodyguard, but they do sell. Anyone remember Zulu?, The Great Escape?, Doctor Zhivago?, Jaws?, Star Wars?, Dances With Wolves?

Admittedly movie scores these days are not generally of the same standard they were a few years ago. Responding to EvCritic's penultimate comment, I have many soundtrack CD's in my collection, and this is just a smattering of those that for me are just as valid on LP/CD as any other type of music:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Star Trek: TMP, The Black Hole, Star Trek II, The Right Stuff, Hanover Street, The Stunt Man, The Omen, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, North By Northwest, The Day The Earth Stood Still (Herrmann), Open Range, The Sand Pebbles, Independence Day, Legend, Klute, Romancing The Stone, The Fury, King Kong ('76), Bride Of Frankenstein, The Living Daylights, Stargate, and many many more.

Rant over.

Just to toss in a comment, but I used to buy instrumental soundtracks, but not so many vocal ones. Typically, few songs have ever been worth purchasing an entire CD (or now download), and as the article suggested, they're often re-hashes of popular songs that have been produced for other albums.

As far as instrumental soundtracks go, it's been a long, long time since any composers have put out memorable music. In the 70's and 80's, and even before, the composers put an effort into producing "theme" music: hummable, memorable, and evoked the movie they were made for. Lately it seems, composers are more content to exist in the background, and one piece sounds much like another.

So yes, the quality isn't what it was and the option to purchase one song exists where it once didn't. I don't blame studios, or consumers, for their parting of ways.

I never understood that policy of iTunes, because when it comes to those "Various Artists" soundtracks you can usually find most of the older songs elsewhere, and it also turns you off from buying anything from the album because it feels like a rip-off.

Another thing that might help is making available those songs that sound really cool in the trailer, but aren't in the movie.

"Blame changing consumer patterns"

How about the consumer patterns that have been FORCED on the consumer?

I am a 44-year old music collector who prefers phyical media to anything iTunes can come up with. I had no intention of changing my consumer patterns but technology and marketing decided to change them for me.

Ten years ago, it wasn't uncommon for me to go to a film and stop by the CD store on my way home to buy the soundtrack. Now, because The Kids are downloading and the industry employs the "blockbuster success or nothing" philosophy, there are no CD stores to go to.

Having shared that little rant, I’ll also add that it’s possible that soundtracks weren’t all that purchase-worthy to start with. I have kept only about a dozen soundtracks from four decades of movie-viewing. For every Bernard Herrmann or "Saturday Night Fever" album there are twenty utterly forgettable ones.

Oh, and one last thing: can we PLEASE declare a moratorium on graphics with CDs and tombstones? Tired. Very tired.