July 2009

The Death of the Movie Soundtrack

Growing up some of my favorite CDs were movie soundtracks. The good ones always had a collection of great songs that perfectly encapsulated the mood of the film. Some were a handpicked selection of Top 40 hits (Animal House, The Big Chill, Dirty Dancing) while others were eclectic mixes of songs I had never heard before (Trainspotting, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction). The best soundtracks gave a great variety of music and were huge sellers for record companies and studios alike.

Then in the late 1990’s the format hit a wall. Interest waned, numbers plummeted and the quality left a lot to be desired. The first Transformers soundtrack didn’t even sell 500,000 copies. Spider-Man 2, the eleventh highest-grossing film of all time, couldn’t sell a million soundtracks. Although the audiences for those films were huge it didn’t lead to soundtrack sales.

How did such a successful genre fall so far, so fast? It’s a mystery even a gumshoe like Sam Spade would have difficulty unraveling. There is a trail of evidence however. Let’s examine the clues…

Studios
Although they had much to gain by the success of soundtracks, entertainment conglomerates always saw them as just another ancillary revenue source. When cost cutting hit the studios hard in the 1990s, it was easy to scale back on original music. The new strategy was to throw in a bunch of filler music with a single original song by a name artist. Trouble was that song was usually under the end credits and often missed by audiences. Although a cheaper way to make soundtracks, consumers didn’t respond.

Record Companies
Licensing music has become an expensive proposition over the last twenty years. Songs from popular artists like The Beatles are impossible to find due to price. Add a shrinking catalog of artists that studios could get affordable access to and suddenly there was this repetition of music on soundtracks. Do a search sometime and see how many times “All Along the Watchtower” appears on a soundtrack. Great song, but it’s worn out it’s welcome.

Consumers
One explanation might be that people don’t buy soundtracks anymore. Around the world, music sales have declined precipitously this decade. That’s partially do to iTunes and other file sharing networks. Much like in the 1950s, we’re in a time where the single is more important than the album. If the album itself is a weaker concept, it stands to reason that the soundtrack is too. Why buy the whole soundtrack when you can download the one or two songs you really want and create your own movie playlist?

Directors and Producers
The creative side of film also shares some blame. Music has become an overlooked part of a film and left to the music supervisor to figure out. Just contrast the music for Transformers with the decades biggest soundtrack hit, O’ Brother Where Art Thou? With a clear strategy and hitless bluegrass music we rarely heard, O’ Brother went on to sell 7 million copies. When directors and producers get lazy on music, the movie soundtrack is bound to suffer.

Who killed the soundtrack? It can be argued that it was a collaboration of all. Have faith music fans because all is not lost. Movies like O’ Brother, Magnolia and About a Boy provide a glimmer of hope. All were not only fantastic soundtracks but integral parts of the film. More than providing color or revealing shifts in mood, the music was part of the action onscreen, speaking through characters.

Soundtracks will survive, although it is on life support. Certain films lend themselves to excellent music like the band-focused Once or others with a strong musical vision like The Life Aquatic and Slumdog Millionaire. The key to continued cultural relevance of the soundtrack is in good original compositions. The good news is that there are a host of talented musicians out there just itching to get a chance to compose music for a soundtrack. Let’s hope the studios and record companies give them a chance.

And That’s the Way It Was…

Walter Cronkite, who anchored the CBS Evening News from 1962 to his retirement in 1981, died Friday after a long illness. As a television journalist and anchor, Cronkite was simply one of a kind and remarkably influenced history in ways that no other broadcaster ever did. In today’s vapid news coverage it’s hard to believe that one man could have such power. Yet in the glory days of the Big Three networks, Cronkite was the Zeus of broadcasting’s Mount Olympus.

Take his view on war. Late in President Lyndon Johnson’s term, Cronkite turned pessimistic about America’s prospects for winning the Vietnam War. And he voiced his view on a broadcast. When Johnson learned that Cronkite had taken this stance, he said that if he had lost Cronkite, he had also lost America’s support. Johnson ultimately declined to seek a second term in 1968, and the nation’s anti-war movement gained momentum.

Cronkite shaped our lives, too, like no other media figure. When President John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, much of the nation heard the news from Cronkite. When he removed his glasses and showed his grief on the air, it was a sign, somehow, that the nation was headed for trouble.

And he wasn’t beyond living in the moment. When we look at the Apollo 11 landing it’s hard not to think about Cronkite’s minute by minute coverage. We shared in his joy as we saw Neil Armstrong’s first step on the moon.

Can you imagine any news anchor today wielding such influence? Can anyone hope to have this kind of impact on American lives?

Cronkite loathed the kinds of TV journalists of this era who made their reputations by shouting and bickering on the air. He never raised his voice, probably because he never had to. He had the respect of his colleagues, counterparts and audience members because he focused on breaking news and speaking in plain English.

Cronkite was an enormous cultural icon as well. Archie Bunker, the fictional symbol of America’s Silent Majority, detested Cronkite on All in the Family. While right-wingers didn’t appreciate Cronkite, they, like everyone understood the nation trusted him. No wonder Cronkite earned a reputation as the most trusted person in the country.

TV news figures today seem to believe that the louder they talk and the more they argue on the air, the more respected they will be. It’s as if they learned nothing from Cronkite’s example. They lack his integrity and dignity — and don’t appear to care at all.

That’s too bad. The nation now needs the kind of calm, measured style that Cronkite took such pride in presenting to viewers.

And that’s the way it is.

Winners and Losers with Oscar’s new “Top Ten”

The June announcement that the Academy Awards will now feature 10 Best Picture nominees is still reverberating in the industry. Doubtless it will have many profound effects – some positive, some negative – on Hollywood. About 300 films qualified for the award in 2008, so now almost one out of every 30 films will now have a chance to be a Best Picture nominee. The biggest upside is that more films will have the potential to capitalize on their nominations, in box office receipts and ancillary revenue.

But there will be a far larger impact on the big players in the entertainment industry, as well as some ripples in often overlooked areas.

Independents
The optimistic view is that an expanded list would make room for indies, foreign films, blockbusters and even comedies, an underrepresented genre at the Oscars. Imagine a list from last year that included The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Role Models and WALL-E. Or would those films still be shut out and replaced with Revolutionary Road, Che, Frozen River and The Changeling?

The Trades
Variety and the Hollywood Reporter have fallen on hard times during this recession. What better was to improve the bottom line than full-page “For Your Consideration” ads for every film from Transformers to The Hangover for three months.

Critics
Talk about fodder for the Internet and a new cottage industry. Pundits and prognosticators will come out of the woodwork to predict the almost every film’s Oscar chances. And the expanded roster doubles their chances of correctly predicting this new “Top Ten.”

Directors
When there were only five contenders for Best Picture, usually at least one director in that group missed out on a nomination. That often led critics to comment “Did the film direct itself?” Now at least five films will see their helmers shut out further dampening the egos of directors.

Studios
The expansion to 10 nominees has already increased the stress level of some studio executives who worry they’ll have to spend even more money on award campaigns. Most studio films will not merit serious consideration however and no amount of marketing will change that. Instead, smaller players will have a chance to get noticed… or at least in theory.

Academy Members
They’ll have to fill in 10 entries for Best Picture on the nomination ballot now, twice the work and twice the headaches. That will lead to more questioning of members’ choices, especially when it’s doubtful that they’ll have time to see a host of contending films.

Oscar’s Cachet
The Oscar has always been one of the most sought after awards in entertainment. The dilution to a top ten threatens the credibility of the Best Picture award. And in honestly, there isn’t an overabundance of quality films anymore. Go down to your local Cineplex and look at what names are in lights. In a year with Land of the Lost, Bruno and Year One I wonder where the Academy will even find 10 worthy films this year.

The change has been made but the dust won’t settle for quite some time. Will bigger be better in Hollywood? We’ll find out in February 2010.

Are Studios Feeling the Urge to Merge?

Chatter about deals has become more intense lately which usually is a sign that something is up. With an uneasy economy, terrible advertising market and a sharp drop in DVD sales studios are looking for ways to cut costs. Considering most studios are lean operations now, the other option would be to consolidate. Two recent rumors involve DreamWorks Animation and NBC Universal suggests that the climate might be right for mergers and acquisitions.

Insiders say that TimeWarner is considering a move towards acquiring DreamWorks Animation, the current jewel under the Paramount banner. We’ve been told that there’s an “out clause” which would permit DWA to terminate its deal with Paramount if it paid $150 million to the big blue mountain. Given the bad blood between DreamWorks and Paramount it’s a surprise the “out” hasn’t been used yet.

It’s unlikely TimeWarner would be the only bidder if DreamWorks left Paramount. Disney now owns the DreamWorks live-action unit and would love to put the two pieces together again. And of course Viacom, as Paramount’s parent, could decide to match any bids… especially since there are three major animated features to be released in 2010.

General Electric, which owns NBC Universal, needs to make a decision on the company in the near future. Former owner Vivendi is likely to sell it’s remaining 20% stake (worth potentially $4 billion), leaving GE to pony up and buy the stake or leave it to another major and get out of the entertainment business entirely.

Driving these rumors is a growing consensus that they entertainment industry is entering a new period of consolidation. Noted investor Mario Gabelli told Barron’s recently, “A round of consolidation will occur in the next six to 12 months because of the costs of financing, prints and advertising, the benefits of globalization and such. We hear talk of something going on.”

For now consider this kind of speculation seems like random water cooler talk that drives stock prices up and down but doesn’t do much else. On one point however, studio executives, investors and pundits agree… there will be fewer entertainment companies around in 3-5 years. How it will go down remains the big mystery.