Interesting point you bring up there.  Is there a difference due to the medium you usually work in ?  I would have thought that had little to do with how the music would sound which is more to do with personal style/skill (unless you have a full orchestra at your disposal ;) )

tv music is designed to be incidental.  The greatest direction of the audience in tv comes from the actors delivery of a carefully drafted script.
In a film, the primary direction comes from the music and sound elements coupled with careful editing of the script and visual material.
Music is a tertiary element in tv, and a primary element in film.

using the same method in a film is suicide.  The audience in a film require complete direction with only the direct dialogue remaining unscored.  Scoring over the dialogue in tv keeps things flowing, scoring over the dialogue in film, unless it's a direct plot point, is distracting.  Distracting the audience lessens the emotional impact.
in tv, the primary job of music is to emphasise plot points and keep the pacing going.  In film, the primary job of music is control the entire audience, and every aspect of their experience.
A good score in tv, will win an emmy, a bad score will still allow an emmy to be won, provided the script and other elements warrant it.
A good score in film will win that film an oscar, a bad score will sink the film and deny it taking even its budget at the box office.
A film score manipulates the audience through the entire course of the movie.  A tv score merely enhances the performance and the script.
Some tv composers can score movies, but generally they will write muisc that is distracting to the audience.  A film composer may score a tv show, but will do so poorly as their score will be too large in scope and draw attention away from the script and acting. 

There are 2 different species of composers in the business, with many different breeds therein.

There are special tv programs made like films and special films made like tv programes, and in which case their respective composers can cross over.  But in general tv composers cannot become film composers, and film composers cannot really become tv composers. 
And the two will ruin each others genres if they attempt to do so.
These vaguely defined reasons give you just a small insight into why there is a "them and us" situation in the media industry, particularly between tv and film.

From the outside looking in, the difference as described sounds too large.  How do you classify an internet release and decide how to score it ?

This is the key point, you don't decide how to score it.  and composers who say the did, are lying, or are not talented.
You score something based on your abilities, coupled with your personal reaction to the particular piece of material.
Composers in the film industry have a different relationship with their directors than composers in the tv industry have with the same directors. 
Internet releases can be both film and tv productions, so you classify on a case by case basis. 

but since we're talking about talent, it's all instinctive.  You score it based on your response to it. If it's made like a tv program then it'll likely be scored as such, if it isn't then it'll likely be scored differently.  But if you're of a particular side of the industry you'll lean very heavily towards the style associated with your side.  That's all providing you ignore the director and producers.  Some composers like to listen to directors and producers which can be beneficial to tv, but destructive to film.
And can be beneficial and distructive at the same time...for both genres.

The talent and influences make sense, not sure I get what appears to be an artificial difference between TV and Film.  I guess I'm thinking it all depends on what you've mentioned and not neccessarily just the fact that it's TV or Film.  Thanks for the thoughts.

anytime.  yes, there's a lot i haven't mentioned and it all depends on that and that which i have mentioned.  but basically tv and film are differently paced.  The way that music works in these two mediums is entierly different and this requires different types of talent and different types of instinct. 
I suppose a suitable illustration of these differences which are industry wide would be the difference between generations and first contact.
generations was basically a tv production made to the scope of a film, whereas first contact was a film the whole way through.  the way that the music has been done for these two films illustrates this difference.  With Goldsmith's (film) score to Fc and mcCarthy's(tv) score to generations.
This whole thing is difficult to put into words, infact most of the quirks of the industry are.  I don't put them very well but i guess what i'm trying to say is that there are differences between the way a film composer and tv composer will score a film, and it's not just because of their different talents, it is because of the major differences in which the two mediums of tv and film work.

I'm gonna go out on a limb on this one and suggest another idea why the difference in the two musical styles evolved:
For the majority of its life, TV has been mono, with one speaker having to carry music, dialog and sound effects. The music would have been lost in all of the other stuff the speaker was trying to do.  Then binaural stereo emerged in the 80s, and while we finally could get the benefit of directionality, we still had two speakers doing all the work.

Movies, however, have had the benefit of surround sound for much longer, giving properly equipped theaters the ability to create a greater approximation of directionality for dialog, sound effects, and music, and the music could sit in the background more because it was not having to compete for "speaker space" if you will.

With the advent of HDTV with 5.1 standard, and the possibilities of 6.1, 7.1, 8.1...(depending upon the bandwidth available) stereo being included in the standard, TV can finally get what the movies have had for years now, and it will remain to be seen if the music evolves to take more of a back seat like it has in the movies.

I also noticed something after watching Season 1 of TNG: the music was much more "in your face" in that season than it was in subsequent seasons. In fact, it tended to be more like the OS music, only later becoming a little more subtle and balanced with everything else. Was it different composers, different orchestras, or what? If somebody "in the know" can clue me in, that would be appreciated.

Looking at the problem from a sound pov is an interesting idea, if that was to be the case, then when stereo and eventually surround and submersive audio came in, the problem would dissapear.  But unfortunately, this problem persists even when we change tv composer to opera composer.  The medium itself is significantly limiting, 45 minutes on a small screen just isn't enough time to force the audience to go on the wide ranging and vastly scoped emotional journey that is the viewing of a film more than 1.5 hours long.

Secondly, and i will argue this from being 'in the know', music is the second most important element in any audio visual experience.  primarily because it and it alone decides how an audience will emotionally experience the production and thus how they will feel about that experience, inshort it provides for the sucess and failure of any production.  Any production which forces music to be a backseat element has and will forever continue to suffer the negative judgement of history, particulalry in film.

finally, 1st season of tng was slower paced requiring a more theatrical and less action orientated score.  However in subsequent seasons, action took presidence over shakesperean screenwriting, and thus required shorter orchestral tracks, which were primarily used to narrate action sequences and provide for interscene plot changes.
Also note that the 2 part episodes have a different effect on the audiences to the one part episodes, and the fact that their scores are much more theme orientated.  eg Scorpion, way of the warrior, best of both worlds as opposed to the incidental scores of the one parters.
On some occasions where another composer had been scoring a season's episodes, mcCarthy would be brought in to score a key episode or a two parter, because mcCarthy has a more narrative style of composition.

All that i can tell you is that when you make a film, like a tv episode, it sucks.  for some reason it just doesn't work.  And when you make an episode, like a film, you get over ambitious and that doesn't work, at least that is the historical judgment.  The present judgment is whatever the critics say it is, but in the long run, making music take a backseat to film spells the death of that film, particularly if that film is epic.
And where tv episodes are trying to be bigger than the medium for which they are made, scoring them like an ordinary commercial just doesn't help those episodes to do well.
The overall success or failure of a film depends upon the choice of composer, and in the long run, the same is true of tv.

Just because I find this to be such an interesting topic I have to weigh in. I can't help but think of some examples to go along with matmilne's information. For example, think of a Seinfeld Episode. Quirky synthesized bass guitar in little quips in between scenes, or to accent jokes. But always in the background. Versus Pulp Fiction. Slamming classic toons that completely set up and feed into each scene. Now try and imagine if they switched soundtracks. Ok, that's not really fair, I am crossing all sorts of genre lines, but it gives you a bit of an idea of what he's talking about.
I mean can you see a Danny Elfman Score (Edward Scissorhands, Death Becomes Her, Batman, Beetljuice, And so many more, look up more on IMDb.com) put onto a  TV Show like Robot Chicken? I mean I know he scores a lot of TV Opening credits, but seriously.

I would love to heart some examples of good TV & Film that break these rules. Maybe a TV Show like Pushing Daisies (i saw a sneak preview of the pilot so I'm not sure if it aired yet), or a movie like Superbad, where i don't remember noticing the music much.
But really who can think of some examples of bad TV & Film, made bad because they break these rules: I know a cold case episode that had Bruce Springsteen singing throughout the whole episode, and while I liked the episode because my friend was guest starring in it, it was super distracting. And as for a film...have to think. All I can come up with are independents, and I would hate to fault them considering resource limitations.

(Sharon, love the new avatar, by the way.  Is that available as a pinup calendar??  It should be.  :D)

I agree with what you are saying about the genre setting the level for the musical theme [but, of course, there are exceptions.  I think of Six Feet Under  which had a great score to it, and also even our own favorite, Battlestar Galactica (the new series).]  But overwhelmingly, I agree.  TV hasn't been conducive to "big scores" --

But I don't think the limitation is on the composer.  I think there are composer who can probably handle multiple genres and styles.  Granted, those that work in films will probably have more background and experience in that big score arena. 

That being said, the bottom line is:  does it work for me, as a viewer?

kinda rambling, but took a pain pill earlier....

Rick

I'm replying to the music part of this thread only because I expect it to be split soon.

If you want an example of a fabulous movie made utterly unwatchable because of its scoring, check out Ladyhawke. At the time it was released, it wasn't quite an issue because that kind of synth was sort of in, though even in 1985 Ladyhawke's score was more suited to Ginger Lynn than Michelle Pfeifer. By today's standard, the music in Ladyhawke is truly cringe worthy.

Porn music for a fantasy epic. I can't imagine what the producers were thinking.

HD

Either the tapes got mixed up, or somebody got the wrong idea, what with all the leather, the dungeons, and the chain-mail bikinis ;D

Sharon, it may not be fair but it is an excellent point.  Genre lines surely make a big difference also and I'm wondering if this actually makes a bigger difference than the medium or the length of the film/show.

Would a documentary film be scored in a similar way to a documentary TV program.  Likewise a Horror Film versus a Horror TV show and so on and on.  Doesn't the "style" of music more represent the subject matter ?

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this is more to do with Genre and length.  But even then it gets a bit tough. 

I admit to not "grasping" this idea of composers for TV and composers for Film (Obviously some are known for Film or TV work, it's more the can't crossover and don't "design" the score items). 

You mentioned The Best of Both Worlds being scored by the same composer as if it were a film.  It is then split and shown as two episodes (maybe together but perhaps with a week between them).  In effect we have a film score applied to two seperate TV shows (Is it only a "film" score because of the length when combined?).

What's to stop a composer "known" for his TV work adjusting his style to the requirement of the piece being composed for, resulting in this case with a film score.

Then, I get contradictions.  I assume (since I don't know) that Helena Chronicles might be between 50 minutes and 1h 10mins run time.  Odyssey was 53 mins.  They are both more or less TV show length being delivered over the internet.  The contradiction is that you as a film composer are doing one and Dex as a "TV" composer has done the other.  I'm struggling now, will one come across like a film and the other not or are you adapting your style to suit a more TV based setup ?

My brain hurts...

Thanks to the borg queen for her infinite wisdom.
Hudson, you started this conversation and i'm glad you're carrying it on.

Genres make an enormous difference to the style of music that is written, of course they do, and they affect the pacing and just about every other area.  However, this generally only affects the style of orchestration and the style of arranging, rather than the fact that a tv horror show is made differently to a 3 hour horror epic, or a 1.5 hour horror film, or a 2 part horror feature, or indeed a trilogy or a horror short be it 2 or 20 minutes long, for film or for tv. 

Any person from any area of production could work on all of these, but they will only be suited to one particular one.  They will only really enjoy doing one, or one medium and they will only instinctivly know how to work seamlessly on one.

The budget for a 2 part sci fi show was different to the budget for a film of the same genre and length using the same production members and materials, why?
The best of both worlds had big and expensive visual effects shots, but the shows on either side were lucky if they got an external model shot, why?
The music of the best of both worlds was a tv score, but that 5 note melody featured heavily, where the usual generic music didn't so much, why?
It wasn't a films score as i said, it was made as a tv score and edited as such, but it is much bigger in scope and sound than the average tv episode.  There is a very heavy use of choir, strings, gongs and timpani, like a goldsmith score. 
these are interesting points that serve to confuse, because tbobw was made as a tv show, but was made to look and feel more like a film, because it was the end of an important seasonal milestone and they wanted something big to improve the standing of the show.

The point i am making is that the score to generations is significantly different to the score of insurrection despite the fact that the budgets are similar and the length is similar, the actors and production memebers are the same, except that some special film folks were brought in for areas like sound, visual effects, and cinematography, but the main difference is that Goldsmith is a film composer, McCarthy is a tv composer.  Generations score is grouped around one main theme, and this is grouped around one particular key and one particular chord structure.  Whereas the theme to insurrection is changed beyond recognition from one track to the next, and yet the tracks seem to fit together and sound familiar.
Why? because it doesn't occur to McCarthy that the music he uses for a battle sequence will significantly alter the way a romance scene is interpreted by the audience an hour down the line, where with goldsmith it's a given from track to track, with each track making up a piece of the jigsaw puzzle.  And although the pieces are wildly different in shape and size from one piece to the next, they all fit together in one particular way and only in that way to provide the real picture.

there is an entire civil war being fought between people in the film industry and people in the tv industry and it isn't over air time or budgets.

i will admit that from an audience's stand point it is difficult to see this because on the surface they look and feel more or less the same, but as you become more observant to these points and several others, you will start to notice significant differences between tv and film.

The easiest illustration will come when i score hellena, and the differences between my scoring instinct and oddysey's will be fairly obvious then, especially now that you'll be looking for it.

What I've done is download this thread, and I'll read it over the weekend.

Whilst the postings aer long and comlex, it DOES look interesting :@)

I understand what you're getting at with individual pieces of music being part of a larger whole. I think one of the best examples I've come across is the score for the Robin Williams/Robert DeNiro film Awakenings, particularly the closing credits piece where (at least to my ear) the entire movie's story is summerized in a single orchestral piece.

That said, I'm a little confused as to your statements about scoring over dialogue. Certainly when that's done in film it drives me up the wall for the most part and often I've come away from a movie thinking everything would have been better if they'd cut 90% of the music. This bad use of music is satirized quite nicely in the first Darkman movie where if Liam Neeson raises an eyebrow, it's accompanied by an entire string section. But in certain cases scoring over the dialogue is fantastic. Case in point, the BSG scene at the end of Pegasus where Adama tells Kane "I'm getting my men!" and hangs up on her. To me that's one of the most powerful scenes in Sci-Fi history, and everything had to come together to make it that way, from the editing to the shot choice to the circling camera and the increasing tempo of the music and even the instruments chosen.

Now I've been a music lover most of my life, but this is the first time I've ever put a lot of thought into its use in TV/Film, but, if done properly, what is the issue of scoring over dialogue?

If I'm missing the point here, please simplify it and explain it as if to a child.

HD

When i talk about a tv composer, or a film composer, i'm not talking about a person who scores tv shows, or a person who scores films.  i'm talking about the mindset, the type of talent and the particulars of that talent that any one composer who works with media has.  That's probably what's confusing the most.

I may not have mentioned this point properly, you can score over an entire dialogue sequence in a film without a problem, provided that it follows very closely all of the drama in that scene.  However this is a rarity in film, because the whole film is made in such a way that the pacing is provided by many elements.  in standard non film-like programs music is used to keep things moving, and is used scarcely in important scenes, so the temptation for tv composers when they move to film is to either score over everything, or not to score over enough, or not to follow the drama closely enough which then makes the music a point of attention in a distracting manner. 
The frequent result is a score that makes the movie seem empty or bamboozling to the audience.

In tv, the power of the script is enough to keep things ticking over, with a careful choice of camera angles and handheld shots the audience can feel and understand much of what is going on without music.  But in film, this can be done over a much longer sequence leaving nothing but the dialogue at the same angle on the same person for minutes at a time, which has the effect of making the composer feel that that scene is unsupported and requires a background.  Of course what they don't realise is that a lot of the power comes from the contrast between these slow quiet and unscored sequences and the big, epic action and vfx heavy scenes in a film. 

In tv it is customary to use music to highlight plot points and scene transitions, in film it is used to narrate everything even when there is no music present in the scene.  Tv and film composers know this, so basically the musical psychology of a tv composer when they go to film is to use music in everything, or not at all, or completely inappropriately.   The result is that the dialogue, which has been left to support itself gets scored over and distracts the audience.
This is a general occurance of course, there are exceptions where tv composers have done a good job, but it doesn't happen that often.

You can tell a tv composer from a film composer by paying close attention to the way scene transitions and dialogue scenes are scored.  A film composer will tend to have music covering key stories within the film, where as a tv composer will tend to be there to provide an atmosphere.  Tv scores are atmospheric, film scores are thematic and atmospheric. 
In film, a tv composer will score over dialogue sequences in a film, a film composer will only score key parts of dialogue scenes.
In tv, a tv composer will score the scene transitions, and maybe the dramatic sequences, a film composer will try and score everything to make the tv show much bigger and significantly more dramatic than it is.

it is a diffcult thing to grasp, as i will be repeating, but the main thing to remember is that in tv music is a tertiary element, there to provide atmosphere and give the show something so that it isn't completely silent.  But in film it is a primary element, there to narrate the entire script but not neccessarily all in music.  This creates two different mentalities, and some people are better suited to writing long complicated pieces of music that span many scenes, whilst others are better suited to writing short bits of music that provide a box like structure for the rest of the material.

It's difficult to clarify, but in film the music is there to enhance and tell the story.  in tv the actors and the script provide that.

Interesting thread. While I tend to be and study the more technical, I've often wondered why some music works and other music doesn't. This is kind of a peripheral study I've been doing on why some of the really expensive studio programs are bad and some of the cheap/fan based productions can be really good. I'd be curious on other's thoughts I'll be throwing out here about what I've seen with music. If there is a technical term for an idea I describe, please post it.

Some of what has been mentioned so far is often called "cutting on the beat" and "editing to the beat". In oversimplified terms, this means editing cuts and dialogue are placed so that they are somehow in beat/sync with the music. Matmilne has pointed out the different styles of that I haven't noticed before. Oddly some of the bad styles he's mentioned remind me of the usual Thanksgiving interview where the reporter is in the middle of a bunch of turkies and the turkies only want to gobble when the reporter talks (outtakes of those are often quite funny). When the beat/sync is off for no specific reason, it's almost like watching and hearing two different things and will often make the story over it fall apart.

Having a background in sound, ear biology needs to be mentioned also. There often needs to be a transition medium from one sound level to another. Background music can often do this. If transistions are too abrupt, the transistion would stand out as being a problem, which is usually a bad thing. BGM or sound effects to fill the hole are often used. Since outer space technically has no sound, going from a noisy engine room to an absolute silent shot of a nacelle would be awkward for a human to hear. The movie "2001" actually did a little of this for specific emphasis, though. I've seen an unscored workprint with no sound effects and every time there was a cut to outside or some establishing shot that was totally silent, it felt like my brains were being sucked out my ears. Even some of the dialogue shots were really "dry" without BGM.

Matmilne has hinted at this a few times, but I want to beat it in: The best background music is the music that pushes you back into the story and does so nearly invisibly. By "invisible" I mean that the music may or may not be noticable (blaring or not) but the overall response is the focus on the story even if you are trying to focus on the music. I've had this happen to me and consider it a good litmus test for a very well put together segment.

"That Blue Jeans Guy" mentioned the lackings of TV speakers. Taking that a little further, physical TV's will always have limited frequency response, poor stereo separation (because of the physical distance between the speakers and the distance to the viewer), and relatively high distortion (even a large wide screen digital TV hanging on the wall). Why the distortion problems? It took me awhile on the speaker forums to get that one. If you pop the hood on a TV, most speakers are not enclosed and wide open in the back. This means that the open circuit cavity of the TV is the speaker cabinet (and stereo speakers can interact with each other in the back). These are usually made of flimsy plastic that resonates easily. Resonation changes the sound. Any change in sound from the original is distortion. This open cavity design behind the speakers is the reason TV speakers often sound so "boomy" and unintelligible. It's also impractical for TV speakers to get down into the subwoofer range (a Galaxy class starship really has some heavy engine rumble you'd never hear on a plain TV). For these reasons I often feel sorry for TV composers having such limited and poor resources to work with.

One thing I've noticed between TV and film music is that a lot of the TV music seems to be from existing stock. While it is hard to get away from that with specific themes, TV recycling is often over used and can take away from the scene it is under. My guesses for this would be lack of talent/inspiration in the composer and episode budget constraints.

This leads to a question: Are TV and film scores generally composed before, during, or after the production has finished? I remember an interview clip of some director being overly impressed with a re-score and mentioning he had the video re-edited to it. My guess would be the composer "should" be peripherally involved during most of the production so the director and composer are both on the same page with ideas and timings. Actual work would be towards the end.

In some of the better movie scores I've often noted that "less is more". This isn't often seen in TV (at least the shows I watch). I mean "less" by the slow music isn't jam packed with anything and everything that could be "slow". The minimum amount of instruments are used with the minimum beat to carry the tune. The Stargates are one of the TV exceptions. SG1 "Cure" has one of my favorite slow BGM's.

Speaking of "Cure", this is one of the example episodes where there's talking over the slow BGM. What allows this to work is that the BGM is slow, low, minimalistic, and often has pauses to allow for dialogue.

Since Ladyhawke was mentioned, I'll also bring up Flash Gordon (1980, not the current one, although the current one could probably use help from Queen). I seem to remember a scene where they are about to take War Rocket Ajax and Flash is yelling something to Voltan over the music. If memory serves, the music level dropped (doughnutting) so brief dialogue could take place and resumed in full when the action started after (editing to the beat).

With my ADHD moving to non-orchestrated music, how much do people expect a certain kind of music for a scene? Do people come preloaded with those expectations? I'm having trouble with exact wording, so I'll give some examples. In most Star Trek movies the starship combat is the standard orchestrated. In Matrix 1, the "metal detector" action scene in the hotel lobby went off with a heavy bass guitar. Bakuretsu Tenshi anime action preferred a heavy metal guitar. Battlestar Galactica 2003 often has space combat with drums. While I am fairly flexible on the music types listed, BSG's drums on action seemed really awkward to me. Is that because I'm so pre-programmed to expect something else? Are other people like this?

I don't know how much anime others have watched here, but I've noticed that most of the anime I've seen tends to fall under the film type scoring instead of TV. From what matmilne has said, I'm guessing this is because the anime story arcs are often series long even though the episode may only be 30 minutes. Do the Japanese know something we don't???

I have more, but I think my last rambling will be on the SpiderMan 3 ending. That is one of my favorites. MJ's lyrics are a bit too obvious, but the jazz gets replaced by an orchestra very seamlessly and the two actors actually get to act and not restate what is already known. I really wish TV would have more of those types of endings. It shows a little intelligence to the viewer.

At the risk of seeming odd, I'd like to tie in an older form of entertainment, the stage.  In the final days before widespread cinemas, stage productions (and I'm not talking musicals or operas here) of stuff like Shakespeare reached epic proportions.  They'd assemble teams of legendary actors and actresses, the A list of their day, have huge sets that look real in photographs (try doing that with a set TODAY), extremely detailed costumes, etc.  One additional thing they had then that regular stage drama now lacks--a full pit orchestra, performing incidental music written especially for that production by composers such as Sir Edward German and performed right on cue.  Made long dialogue-loaded Shakespeare and other works much easier to follow, having the equivalent of the type of film score Matt's been talking about.  (A lot of those stage incidental music composers went on to set the original trends for film composers.  German was Britain's first film composer, in fact.)

Incidental music is small tracks that are used merely to define the end of one scene and the beginning of another, highlight a couple of plot points and provide a background for the action sequences.
by far the most common type of music found in "stock" libraries well over 90% is incidental.  To use it in tv is common practice, to use it in film is suicide.

In film , you don't use incidental music, or at least the good composers don't.  You use narrative music,  that  is a set of themes and a set of styles that are made specifically for every story element. 
Anime tends to be an animated movie, but shortened for tv, so what you're really watching there is a very epic tv show.  but yes with the threads running through multiple episodes, it is better to score in a style that links each episode to the next following the various threads and ending when they end in the various episodes towards the end.  Anime tends to be more film like in its effect on the audience and this is inpart due to the way it's scored.  So in a sense the japaneese do know a lot more than we do about this genre.  but we got them on film, no problem.

music as part of sound design is fine ie a jazz band on set during a ball scene, this is common practice in tv and it works perfectly.  It's when you use background or lounge music in film as the music track, that there are problems.  particularly with pacing.  

obviously the genre of music depends on the period and goals/genre of the film/tv show.  contemporary music is much more common in tv, and generally only used in film if it's to an industrial future or set in the 20/21st century.  If the film is fantasy, or cinematic in any way then orchestral is generally better, because the genres are paced differently and the stroy threads are arranged differently.

Interesting points from both sides of the argument.

As far as I'm concerned, both have their merits.

For example, on the side of TV scoring, Murray Gold, who does the music for Doctor Who, is a perfect example. His music sends shivers up my spine everytime I hear it, and is capable of terrifying me or reducing me to tears.

On the other side, you have people like Danny Elfman, whos music is so deliciously quirky or Philip Glass, whose music is fantastically subtle.

On both sides, you have the fantastic Jody Talbot who scored the League Of Gentlemen tv series AND movie, and managed to do both brilliantly.

I guess its one of those things where you cant generalise, and you need to take each case on its individual merits...

well yes, it's the same with everything.  You do have to approach everything on a case by case basis.  However there are specific trends that can't be ignored. 
And there is a "gulf between the television and film camps in hollywood " as the the next generation companion put it when it was describing berman working on generations.
And obviously, owing to the human condition, there are differences between the people who work in these areas.

But yes, it's easier for an outsider to review each composer on an individual basis without getting into the complications of palace intrigue that is the differences between the two worlds.

This is an amazing thread to watch.

I'm not suer if I can contribute, but it's fascinating, nonetheless