Score vs Song

Something which has been bugging me since the start of this paper is the question of what is more complimentary to images, score or song?

In reality I think that both work, when used appropriately. It would also depend on the sort of film you were trying to make, for example, a complition score works for a period film. Wheras a complition score for a modern teen film just seems like a moneymaking exercise (synergy too).

Boogie Nights is a really good example of a compilation score working well. This may come down to the fact that the songs feel tied to the images (the filmmakers have obviously thought about this) and that they are also able to invoke the 70s and the 80s. I think it's just a side effect that the 2 volumes of soundtrack have sold well.

Musical montages in standard Hollywood fair tend to stick out like a sore thumb though. It just seems like a way to promote the soundtrack featuring the actor/singer. Here I'm thinking of Hillary Duff and Lindsay Lohan, both of whom have recorded songs for the soundtracks to the films they have starred in.

In general though, I'd say that music specifically conceived for a film is a better accompaniment (although the Tarantino way of doing things is interesting; coming up with a mix and developing the film around that). My example of a good score is that from Ravenous. This is a collaboration between Damon Albarn (the Blur and Gorillaz guy) and Michael Nyman (a notable composer). For this film they tried to use instruments (like a Jew's harp) from the period that the film was set (the 1800s). No pop songs here. If you've seen the film, you'll know that this score works really well.

So given that there is usually two soundtracks for films (the score and 'music from and inspired by the film') it is interesting to note that the latter is bound to sell better (shown by the fact there's often several volumes). This is probably because a score often doesn't function very well without the visuals to compliment it.