# Every score sounds the same to me...



## kid-surf (Feb 15, 2008)

Well, not every score, but feels as though it's gone pretty far past predictable at this point... Or has it?


I have been out of the loop this year. Generally I'm (no offense) sick of the style I'm generally hearing in film score. I know it's what many composers aspire to write, but I can't stand it. Much of it is sounding way too safe IMO. Not feeling a strong sense of creative risk. Yeah, I know that stuff makes money but that doesn't mean I'm going to find it fulfilling.

My question: What are some of the most INTERESTING scores this year? Not "best" scores, because that's always (usually) something HUGE which I probably dislike (a taste thing), but something fresh and new. Anyone come across any scores this year that were fresh, interesting and compelling but maybe a little under the radar? Maybe something that seemed like a creative risk but worked in that film.


Thanks,
KID


----------



## José Herring (Feb 15, 2008)

Usually I agree with this assessment. But I must say that this year I got a hold of the Oscars screening films so I took it upon myself to listen to....er I mean watch 3 of them so far. I must say that the Oscar picks this year are pretty cool.

3:10 to Yuma is a really unique score. It's a little tough not to compare it to Ennio Morricone's western works. In that respect it falls a bit short. I felt like Marco was trying to do Morricone without trying to be too Morricone'ish and that made it at times seem a little bit like watered down Morricone. But I give Marco a lot of credit for not over doing it orchestrally and relying a lot on non orchestral instruments and percussion.

Eastern Promises is a good score. Kind of a Russian Godfather type film. I was particularly struck by the use of woodwinds (imagine that) and solo violin to carry the film. I was also kind of impressed that they didn't go wall to wall on this film with sappy film underscore. The music actually played an upfront roll in this film and was noticeably absent in scenes that traditionally would have had music.

Ratatoulle (sp) is a good score. Excellent use of woodwinds for sure. Good use of Jazz in the score. Perfectly timed music. I think emotionally/ dramatically it fell a little short in some scenes. But the orchestration was really well done.

I also have No Country for Old Men but haven't seen it. I'm sure the film is good but I can't bare to suffer through another Carter Burwell score.

Jose


----------



## Alex W (Feb 15, 2008)

Sorry to go off on this tangent Kid, I'm out of the loop too. But...

Jose, watch the film - it's seriously awesome, there's hardly any music in it either from memory.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 15, 2008)

Jose i've seen No Country For Old Men and it pretty much has zero music. I didn't expect to see a composer listed at the end but there it was Carter Burwell. Easily his best score because I didn't even notice it. Now if Graeme Revell, Philip Glass, and Eric Serra would get more assignments like this the world would be a better place. 

Kid, i'll mention this before dcoscina does: Johnny Greenwood's score for There Will Be Blood is quite different from the usual stuff out there. That film is awesome.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Feb 15, 2008)

"There Will Be Blood" - definitely this one.


----------



## lux (Feb 16, 2008)

Kid, i havent heard many of the scores mentioned in this thread but probably what you hear is a reduction of cantabile material melody-wise and the simplification of orchestrations.

That is supposed to lead pretty soon to hear soundalikes imho.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Feb 16, 2008)

Another vote for Blood-

and I'm with you kid.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 16, 2008)

FIlm composers are generally going to pick a style for the score with the director, based on their joint perception of what the film requires.

How creative or daring it will be will then be determined by how much the film itself has room for that, the director's wishes, and the composer's ability in that style.

There certainly is more room to be exploratory in a thriller or sci-fi film or a quirky little film like "Napoleon Dynamite" i.e. than in a good but traditional film like "The Jane Austen Book Club" or period piece like "Elizabeth" so perhaps Kid this is as much about filmmakers making safe films (which does not mean they are not also good films) or filmmakers wanting composers to deliver safe scores as it is about the composers themselves writing safe scores.

Also, part of the problem is temp tracks. Directors fall in love with them sometimes and then want the composer to give them another version of that. The studios also support this because they are looking to ensure a film's commercial appeal and the only way they know how to do that is to make a film that is like another that was successful.

All that said, I still think the level of score delivered by A-list composers is overall pretty good.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 16, 2008)

There's a really good score out there by Phillipe Rombi which is a bit different as it's quite romantic golden agey.

http://www.amazon.com/Angel/dp/B000S59OCW/ref=dmusic_cd_album/002-0081155-8192842?ie=UTF8&qid=1203227202&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Angel/dp/B000S59O ... 202&amp;sr=8-1)


Mmmm main theme.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Feb 16, 2008)

So... 

"Finding Neverland" beats "Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban"

"Brokeback Mountain" beats "Memoirs of a Geisha" and "Munich"

Now "There Will Be Blood" isn't even nominated for an Oscar.


Does anybody even give a shit about the Oscars anymore?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2008)

Yeah, I'm with Aaron. We're halfway through "There Will Be Blood," and the score is great. And it works really well.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 16, 2008)

There Will Be Blood can't be nominated cause the majority of the music wasn't even composed for the film.


----------



## midphase (Feb 16, 2008)

Explain please


----------



## midphase (Feb 16, 2008)

Actually....never mind....I found this out:

The disqualification has been attributed to a designation within Rule 16 of the Academy’s Special Rules for Music Awards (5d under “Eligibility”), which excludes “scores diluted by the use of tracked themes or other pre-existing music.”
Greenwood’s score contains roughly 35 minutes of original recordings and roughly 46 minutes of pre-existing work (including selections from the works of Arvo Pärt, as well as pieces in the public domain, such as Johannes Brahms’ “Concerto in D Major”). Peripheral augmentation to the score included sporadic but minimal useage (15 minutes) of the artist’s 2006 composition “Popcorn Superhet Receiver.”


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 17, 2008)

Thanks for the ideas guys... I'll check the ones I'm not familiar with.


Ditto on No Country being a cool flick. Dug it! Funny thing is, that script probably would have been "passed" on if it were a spec, same as Memento was (But I don't expect anyone to believe me). I'd like to read it to see how much they actually wrote. Bet it wasn't that much (that detailed), considering they were directing. Casting was on the nose!

Trivia: My wife's buddy bought that book. It was basically his baby, my wife was with him when he bought it. I think this was before Coen Bros. were involved. (And he's reading my script this weekend... and I'm scared. :D My gut tells me it's not his thing, even though I really like the guy)

Saw There Will Be Blood tonight. 

(***SPOILER BEGIN***) 
I'm mixed. Didn't love it, didn't hate it. There were some script (logic / psychological truth) flaws for me that didn't allow the story to completely work. The look of it was great. Directing, tonally, was slowed down how the film should be. Then in the end it turns almost comedic before the killing. HUH...!? Few other things didn't work for me... I'm sure it'll be chalked up to "artistic genius". I see it differently. Not that the guy isn't talented, but I do think he lost sight of a few things... For me it was "almost" a masterpiece.
(***SPOILER END***) 

The score for me "almost" worked. I loved the fact that it was adventurous (would have loved the idea even more had it been 100% original music, but whatever. What does a director care long as it fits their vision?). There were times it played a little heavy handed for me, to the point the film began to feel more like a "play", which would've been totally fine with me had the film been solid and worked.


Carter Burwell -- I know he gets slammed but I thought his score for Adaptation was perfect and really good. Can't say I generally dig his take though.


KID


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 17, 2008)

Jay,

I agree with your take. I've been pretty open about what I think of safe and predictably directed films/scripts in the past.  The PC response is that "that stuff ain't for me..."

So I agree, it's not entirely the composer's fault. Mostly it's not the composer's fault. Which is the exact reason I went out and wrote my own scripts. I was sick of pursuing writer/directors I didn't feel were very good. My music doesn't match safe films... not that it's brilliant, it's just that "safe" is not where my head is at with creation in general. It's not about the money/fame for me. It's about trying to tell a story we've not experienced "this way" yet. Which includes an original script, a stylistic directing take and equally important, NEW music. 

So yeah, I agree with your reasoning, which is why I was wondering if there were some scores I missed... probably would be in some of the smaller films. For example; Kays tipped me off to BRICK last year or the year before. While I didn't totally love this score/film I loved that it felt different... it had a point of view.

Generally I feel that composers and writer/directors alike do a respectable job. But those sorts of films aren't what get me excited about this occupation. Which is why, now, the films I write don't easily lend themselves to a safe predictable score (unless we're trying to ruin it)  F' temp tracks!!! Let's do this w/o a net! :D


KID


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 17, 2008)

"Does anybody even give a [email protected]#t about the Oscars anymore?"


Aaron ---- Nope. Not unless they are a client where my wife is or a friend of mine who is somehow involved. :D

Otherwise, it'll always be biased. Mostly they are considered to mean more money (a two hour commercial). Yay! Who really cares if it's the same film we've already seen 3 times, long as it makes money! (in every market 'round the world)

Hollywood folks will attempt to brainwash you into believing they know what they're doing (far as taste). Nah, mostly everyone is trying to find that tent-pole. Hollywood must be taken with a huge grain of salt or they'll have you brainwashed trying to somehow be involved with the BIGGEST most HUGEST film there is. I'd rather aim at simply doing a great film...

The biggest joke going is the amount of Indie folks targeting huge hits. The producers stuffing all kinds of "pedestrian" ideas in to try and appease anyone on earth. Meanwhile films like JUNO were organic... yes 100,000,000 Mil+, but not targeted. She (the writer) didn't say "How can I write a film that will make 100,000,000 Mil+...?" She said, "How can I write a film I'd want to see". And now she's up for an Oscar... and her writing fee is through the roof.

But I digress...


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 17, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> Jay,
> 
> I agree with your take. I've been pretty open about what I think of safe and predictably directed films/scripts in the past.  The PC response is that "that stuff ain't for me..."
> 
> ...



I am pretty eclectic in my taste. I enjoy blatantly commercial films when they are well done, quirky indies, foreign films, etc. when they are well done, and I also equally appreciative bold innovative scores when that is what the film calls for and more traditional ones when they are appropriate and well done. So unlike you I do not have a dog in that "safe" hunt.

I will say however that I saw one of the 5 nominated fils for Best Picture yesterday and while it was great, the score is also nominated and frankly I cannot figure out why as I really believe it is a score I could write in my sleep and while it was not bad in terms of what it added to the film's impact and its intrinsic musical value, it was not exceptional in my judgement or my wife's, whose instincts about this stuff is pretty on target.

And no, I will not name names as it is my policy not to go on public forums and diss other composers, particularly more successful ones.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 17, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 15 said:


> "Paris, je t'aime"
> 
> I know it's 2006, but I thought I'd bring it up. Some musical 'bijoux' there, in the sense you mentioned. 8)


Nice to see this film mentioned. It recieved a standing ovation and prize at Cannes. The Coen Bros, Gus Van Sant, Wes Craven and many other world class directors worked on it. There are eighteen five minute segments mostlyl scored (very well) by Pierre Adenot. One segment, a tribute to old Hollywood horror films starring Elijah Wood was scored by Mike Andrews and orchestrated by yours truly. It was a hoot doing all that old school harmonic Waxman and Herrmann stuff. The orchestra applauded this segment's score (so I'm told by the conductor.)

The sameness in at least mainstream Hollywood commercial fare is the fear-based relentless use of temp tracks. It literly is the same score you have heard before often times.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 17, 2008)

I find temp tracks useful at the beginning of the process. I usually stop paying attention once I and the team have reached a point where my cues are working better than the temp for the scenes. They can also be useful later, when you get completely stuck.

Shouldn't we be blaming the editors for the sameness in temp tracks? I love them, for sure, but they are the first line, they make the first suggestions, often. 

When I think about it, it wasn't that long ago that every other temp had massive attack or tricky. Now it's very basic instrumental playing on top of drones (yours truly guilty as charged, btw), or purposefully lo-fi. Remember when every temp had DX-7 riffs? These are fads, they come and go.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 17, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> aeneas @ Fri Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > "Paris, je t'aime"
> ...



I'm totally interested to see that!



Dave Connor @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> The sameness in at least mainstream Hollywood commercial fare is the fear-based relentless use of temp tracks. It literly is the same score you have heard before often times.



Agreed. It's fear based. Many executives, producers and the like will try and convince any/everyone that it's "smarter" but the reality is that MANY people in Hollywood are afraid to have a point of view until they see someone else offer one first. The safest point of view to have is to aim at HUGE, it's been done a half million times already. 

As it's been said to me many times ---- "This is a ME TOO town... Nobody likes anything until someone more important does. Then it's, ME TOO!"

I don't hate this town, I love it, I'm just real about what creatives are dealing with.


----------



## lux (Feb 17, 2008)

No big experience here, but to me safe is like avoiding any kind of counterpoint because i'm afraid to have a crappy joint or overlapping of notes.

I think if I expressely avoid giving an own life to your music probably I'm playin safe. Result will work most likely. But it will be probably an addition more than a multiply. Unpredictable events are the multiply, when you have something from the scene that was unexpected, thanks to the music applied to it. Probably a risky process though, and suited for composers that dont have a loaded gun pointed to their heads.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 17, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat Feb 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I am pretty eclectic in my taste. I enjoy blatantly commercial films when they are well done, quirky indies, foreign films, etc. when they are well done, and I also equally appreciative bold innovative scores when that is what the film calls for and more traditional ones when they are appropriate and well done. So unlike you I do not have a dog in that "safe" hunt.
> ...



OK, gotcha. To be fair I can only say I have never had a director or producer ask me to do that for that kind of reason. It has always been just a matter of their thinking rather conventionally.


----------



## midphase (Feb 17, 2008)

"that script probably would have been "passed" on if it were a spec, same as Memento was (But I don't expect anyone to believe me)."

I believe you....stories about Memento are legendary in this industry, even Harvey Weinstein walked out of the screening muttering that he'll never have those two hours of his life back.

I loved Memento, but I know so many who hate it, I guess it's a polarizing film!

BTW....speaking of uniqueness in scores, David Julyan is one of my favorite composers and Chris Nolan one of my favorite filmmakers. I love how Julyan utilizes very little orchestral colors to achieve emotive connection that other composers can only do through much more complex orchestrations and overt melodic content.


----------



## midphase (Feb 17, 2008)

"Does anybody even give a [email protected]#t about the Oscars anymore?" 


Sorry to sound arrogant as fuck....but the only Oscars that I will truly give a shit about, are the ones where I'm nominated.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > The sameness in at least mainstream Hollywood commercial fare is the fear-based relentless use of temp tracks. It literly is the same score you have heard before often times.
> ...


How does this "ME TOO" line of thinking align with the claim that, in Tinseltown, "you need to be original, you have to have an unique style"? They seem opposite to me. Maybe they are budget-related attitudes? Like: the higher the budget, the safer the music? But then again, what is a 'high budget'? Also, what is 'safe music'? Maybe the ticket payers would hate 'too similar' music, maybe they will be bored and turned off by 'safe music'...

My position is that 'moderately-risky' (whatever that might mean o ) is as safe as can get. I love fresh scores that sound familiar though... I also love familiar scores that sound fresh... :wink:


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 17, 2008)

My 2 cents:

To be honest, I am more a little bit sick of the same question over and over again. No more ideas, scores sound lame, blablabla ...

Why is this so?

Are the "guys" lazy ... or sitting with dices at home, putting in random notes in Sibelius? That they are burned out and dreaming of a white island somewhere in the open sea?

The funny thing is, these questions always (or most of the time) from composers or musicians. Back then, everything was better etc.

Okay, most of the famous composers don't even have to think about money for the rest of their lives, but they also have to be aware that an experimental score could ruin a movie ... or there is also the director who has a certain imagination.

To a certain poiint, you can always adapt one genre to another one and in the games genre currently it is like: "Yeah, we want this hollywood bang bang sound, lots of choirs, lots of percussions, you know ... eh ... Zimmer, ok?"

Then you see the critics. *Yawn* .. another lame hollywood copy etc.


I really really would love to encourage directors and developers to be more open and experimental, because without risking something, there wouldn't be new stuff ... especially here in germany, everyone is careful, going the safe way and doesn't want to risk anything. Risk could mean loss of money ...

but most of the time there are so many more factors included, rather than just doing a new outstanding score.

What about the other categories?

Noone sick about:

... the same actors over and over again?
... the same lame 3D fx they overuse all the time? ("I am legend" ... horrible!!!)
... the same lame stories?
... the same lame concepts?


I know I am a bit off here and there, but I just felt like saying this 

... and regarding the Oscars ... I stopped watching it, when "Shakespeare in love" was the big winner back then ...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> "Yeah, we want this hollywood bang bang sound, lots of choirs, lots of percussions, you know ... eh ... Zimmer, ok?"
> 
> Then you see the critics. *Yawn* .. another lame hollywood copy etc.


I agree with that, seen that happen all around.

Sometimes, "big" is so small - see the Pirates of the Caribbean scores, all compressed and flattened in every sense, music-wise and sound-wise. A boring, flat mishmash.

Some-other-times, "small" is really big - see "To Kill a Mockingbird" score. Awsome! Fresh and impressive as ever, even after 45 years. 8)


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 17, 2008)

Yes, but get the message:

The developers or directors don't care! 
If they like e.g. hollywood style in games or they ask a certain composer to get to the vertical limit (on the dB meter ) ... then mostly it is, "do it or send me the next guy". Never argue with a producer!!

And on the other side: Why should Zimmer do something else, than his epic horn melodies, 480 violas, crunchy mixes and that awesome sound. It's what he is famous for!!


----------



## midphase (Feb 17, 2008)

I think part of the problem started coming in when some of these washed-up "Rock Stars" started getting hired to compose for films. Yes, I'm talking about Elfman, Zimmer, Trevor Rabin and a host of others.

For the most part, these guys simply did not have the classical background (or practice) to create scores with lots of depth and dimension....so they did what the do best, plink plunk some triads on the piano and come up with catchy diatonic melodies in the vein of the pop music they've been famous for.

Here's the kicker....this poppish sound actually caught on, and legitimately knowledgeable composers started being asked to "emulate" the sound, and hence the vicious circle started!

But things have not yet gotten to be as bad yet boys and girls....as I see a brand new trend emerging which could mean the serious end of you and I, and that is the lack of a score! Cloverfield is a good example....but even No Country could have worked fine without any music since it's so sparse anyway. Same with the movie Bug which I think has like 3 cues in the entire film (I have no idea where the other 10 tracks of the CD came from).

Thanks to Cinema Verité, we might all be out of a job soon enough!


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 17, 2008)

Zimmer doesn't like violas at all... Usually he's only writing for the other four string sections and violas substitung lower or higher where he sits fit... I guess where there's a break from this rule it wasn't exactly Zimmer who did that 

On the other side as an example for a refreshing score that is yet "safe" the "The Devil Wears Prada" score came to my mind (though already 2006). The composed part that is. Groovy-jazzy style and yet safe because that's what they do at smaller scale on many TV shows/series.

PolarBear


----------



## lux (Feb 17, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I think part of the problem started coming in when some of these washed-up "Rock Stars" started getting hired to compose for films. Yes, I'm talking about Elfman, Zimmer, Trevor Rabin and a host of others.
> 
> For the most part, these guys simply did not have the classical background (or practice) to create scores with lots of depth and dimension....so they did what the do best, plink plunk some triads on the piano and come up with catchy diatonic melodies in the vein of the pop music they've been famous for.
> 
> ...



I agree here. Even if i would say that pop guys did exist in the past too, Hans Zimmer was doing Black Rain with synths of that time (btw, i like that score) while John Williams worked to Born the 4 of July and The last crusade. And I think no one at the time was thinking about asking JW to play the score with synths or doing it "pop".

I think the greatest change has been into industry. Managerism, thinkalike, low culture and cost-cutting are the sign of our times and the guidelines for the modern show business.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> "that script probably would have been "passed" on if it were a spec, same as Memento was (But I don't expect anyone to believe me)."
> 
> I believe you....stories about Memento are legendary in this industry, even Harvey Weinstein walked out of the screening muttering that he'll never have those two hours of his life back.
> 
> ...



Same, I dug the movie. Funny thing is that I've not run across many who admitted to not liking it... could be the "me too" thing. 



midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> "David Julyan is one of my favorite composers and Chris Nolan one of my favorite filmmakers."



Same. They make a good team.



midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> "I love how Julyan utilizes very little orchestral colors to achieve emotive connection that other composers can only do through much more complex orchestrations and overt melodic content."



Ditto... I wouldn't know if he's a composer's-composer but I like the guys work.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> "Does anybody even give a [email protected]#t about the Oscars anymore?"
> 
> 
> Sorry to sound arrogant as f#@k....but the only Oscars that I will truly give a [email protected]#t about, are the ones where I'm nominated.



I love honesty... I don't find that to be arrogant.

In fact if you ever win I will say "Hey killer, Kays won, I know that guy! I'm stoked for him!"

If I ever won I'd probably be one of the ones who cries... it would be because I'm sentimental. I'd be thinking of all the hurdles I'd overcome. It would be a very public award for a very private accomplishment. The film in question would be an afterthought at that moment. The award would merely serve as a reminder to believe in MY art... Not what someone else assumes my art is supposed to be. Because the only way I'd ever win one would be because I stuck to MY vision when so many were trying to get me to surrender it to match theirs ---- Not interested...


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> kid-surf @ Sun 17 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sun Feb 17 said:
> ...




Hollywood is a contradiction... that's how. 

It works like this. You must create the "unique / original" whereby you've got a chance of snaring the "ME TOO's". You gotta aim for that guy/girl who is the TASTE MAKER, the person who believes in their point of view regardless of what everyone else thinks. THAT is the person you've got to impress. From that point the ME TOO's will fall in line.

My lawyer told me that he often goes out with a script. People pass. Suddenly the right people love the script and the folks who passed are calling back to say "When are you going to send me that script!" He says "I already sent it to you... you passed, remember?" They say "No, I don't... so why don't you send it to me". That's how it works.... 


I would say the higher the budget the more skittish folks get about risk and the safer they want everything (script, music... etc). They aim to PAD everything to try and eliminate risk wherever possible. Which is why I'm not interested in writing or directing those sorts of movies. I believe in the idea of writing great scripts that are somewhat contained. Thus the budget is lower, thus you are afforded more risk. (Risk in this case being a story that isn't for everyone, yet a story that is strong as is. Sine the budget is small enough you can RISK making a film with a good script... at which point there is no need to inject producer notes and the like that only serve to appease an audience that will never be interested in this particular film.)

I know there is an audience for crap. I mean, Chipmunks made, what, 200 Mil? Personally, I can't find a creative reward in that. I'm sure someone in this world can, good for them. They're rich, but nobody will care about their film 6 months to a year from now. The money will be spent at some point. Seems pointless to knowingly create that which will be artistically irrelevant no mater how successful.

As to your last comment -- I would say there has not been a successful artistic venture that involves NO familiarity.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

Waywyn @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> My 2 cents:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for your 2 cents Alex.


Your suggestion is exactly where my head is. While I recognize this is a business I refuse to think of it ONLY as a business. And this is the brainwashing I'm referring to. If you've got a slew of creatives expounding on the virtues of business, something is fucked up. From a practical position it is OUR job to CREATE, it is THEIR job to figure out how to SELL this creation. We've allowed the suits to brainwash us creatives to the point we are mindlessly chanting their same slogans. Slogans like "This is a business first and foremost"...

What..!? 

Fuck that. This is ART first and foremost. Period.

We'd all be creating whether or not we were paid for it, at which point the suits would sell something else, they'd leave us in the dust and follow the money. Thus... Damn right I'm going to fight to express myself the way I see fit. Which is in fact, not the way we're supposed to think. We are supposed to RECOGNIZE the wisdom in falling-in-line like a good little soldier. We are supposed to WANT to write those films we've already seen hundreds of times over, we're supposed to WANT to do these sound alike scores. Why? Because they make money. 

Question: If one is not a creative what is their MAIN goal? Right.... money.

I'm a creative, my main goal is to create something I believe in. Period.

It was quite an eye opener once I stepped away from my somewhat desperate role of being a composer. I suddenly realized that I was fooling myself as wrote music I never would have written otherwise. Suddenly I realized that what I "actually" wanted to express was not that at all. (went hand in hand with me kissing up to directors telling them I liked their work when I often didn't. Only I would fool myself into believing I actually did)



> ... the same actors over and over again?
> ... the same lame 3D fx they overuse all the time? ("I am legend" ... horrible!!!)
> ... the same lame stories?
> ... the same lame concepts?



I'm one of those guys who would fight to use the best actor for the role even if that meant respectfully not wanting to use the hot A-List dude. Even though that would make it harder for investors to invest, and would generally piss off those around me... seeing as you are supposed to not care what your movie ends up being so long as you get it cast and greenlit. (I want to simply do the best movie possible -- Think Coen Bros. attitude towards filmmaking) 

I'm one of those guys who doesn't write the same old story we've seen a billion times. Which makes it harder for me to get a movie made (in theory). The other theory is that it'll be easier because the script is good.

I'm one of those guys who can't stand the samey concepts. Which is why I can't easily point to a score I could temp into my film had it already been shot. Which is why I would never ask a composer to copycat some score. I don't believe in stealing the emotional identity from someone else's film. I believe in creating your own. It's like... at some point someone must do something new. Said another way... "do what they do and not waiver from their vision"


Sounds arrogant. I know. But what I'm really saying is that, I believe we creatives know what we're doing. And I believe it's something worth fighting for...


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I think part of the problem started coming in when some of these washed-up "Rock Stars" started getting hired to compose for films. Yes, I'm talking about Elfman, Zimmer, Trevor Rabin and a host of others.
> 
> For the most part, these guys simply did not have the classical background (or practice) to create scores with lots of depth and dimension....so they did what the do best, plink plunk some triads on the piano and come up with catchy diatonic melodies in the vein of the pop music they've been famous for.
> 
> ...





I can see if from that POV, but also this one...

Where some films work better with a composer's composer. Others would play like "classical snobbery". All depends on the film.

My feeling is that we are better off in some cases. SAW for example. I've long thought Horror music was LAME. Not because the music wasn't "good" necessarily, but because it was way too safe, way too plain. In comes Charlie Clouser and finally we've got horror music that sounds scary... sounds like someone actually being murdered. Good! The tired genre needed a shift from those tired-ass piano motifs established 20-something years ago.

That's one example of a perfect fit, IMO.

One example of taking a risk and arriving at a more natural cohesion. It could happen more often if more directors/producers were open to what FITS instead of what WORKS. (There is a huge difference between the two in my mind)


I personally don't feel the composer will go away. But what's interesting from my POV is that I originally started writing (scripts) because I wanted to create a vehicle to write the sort of music "I" wanted to write. Fast-forward and the music is far secondary to the scripts/film, for me. The right music is still critical in my mind, but I was surprised to see how far back I pushed it compared to everything else (referring to the scope of creating a film). I never understood what "It's about the film" truly meant until I wrote a few scripts and planned on directing.

Having said that... music is WAY critical. I personally can not comprehend how it's not blatantly obvious to a director how important original music is.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> On the other side as an example for a refreshing score that is yet "safe" the "The Devil Wears Prada" score came to my mind (though already 2006). The composed part that is. Groovy-jazzy style and yet safe because that's what they do at smaller scale on many TV shows/series.
> 
> PolarBear




Funny you'd choose that score considering my wife sold that film. Are you puling my leg, or serious?

In all honestly, I liked the film.


----------



## lux (Feb 18, 2008)

I doubt Polarbear is a subscriber of "kid surf chronicles" newspaper :mrgreen:


----------



## nikolas (Feb 18, 2008)

Quite honestly if YOU had 10-80,000,000 US$ do invest (budget) in a movie, would you trust your own instincts? Your own self? Your own image? And I'm NOT talking from the composers side, who would very much like to try out something new (at least I would). I'm talking about the publishers view, about 20/21/30th century fox, MGM and every company out there. 

If I pay SUCH a large amount of money I will want bloody Tom Cruise once again on screen! Because the name alone will bring mentioning and money and money and money and money. And I will certainly not take any chances in the music, or fx, or anything. 

"I am legend" could've been interesting but it was SO lame when CGfx came in (that is most of the time anyways ) I like Will Smith as a matter of fact. I would dare to claim that most people do. Changing from the prince of Bel air to that is an accomplishment! and well done to him! 

Direction? when was the last time you saw something REALLY worth it? (I've not seen there will blood) but "children of men" was one HECK of a movie, with all elements - music standing amazing! 

etc...

One thing that I do know in life: You get what you pay for. The pricier the better. It sounds lame, it's not always true, but unfortunately if applies! So, if that Zimmer guy, who I'm tired of listening and reading his name, comes up as a rather expensive and you get so many fanboyz trying to be like him, well... he's a safe bet. At least Williams knows what he's doing (afaik that is)

Sorry for the rant


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 18, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I think part of the problem started coming in when some of these washed-up "Rock Stars" started getting hired to compose for films. Yes, I'm talking about Elfman, Zimmer, Trevor Rabin and a host of others.
> 
> For the most part, these guys simply did not have the classical background (or practice) to create scores with lots of depth and dimension....so they did what the do best, plink plunk some triads on the piano and come up with catchy diatonic melodies in the vein of the pop music they've been famous for.
> 
> Here's the kicker....this poppish sound actually caught on, and legitimately knowledgeable composers started being asked to "emulate" the sound, and hence the vicious circle started!



I really don't know you good enough to know if you really feel upset about these wannabe composer intruders to the glory and oh so shiny intelectual world of untouched harmony&theory or if you just used these words to describe a new era of score )



midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> But things have not yet gotten to be as bad yet boys and girls....as I see a brand new trend emerging which could mean the serious end of you and I, and that is the lack of a score! Cloverfield is a good example....but even No Country could have worked fine without any music since it's so sparse anyway. Same with the movie Bug which I think has like 3 cues in the entire film (I have no idea where the other 10 tracks of the CD came from).
> 
> Thanks to Cinema Verité, we might all be out of a job soon enough!



Sorry, but that's nonsense. If "Cloverfield" doesn't have a score (didn't watch it yet) then it is a matter of style. It is the same style used, as if there is no speech in a movie, as in "Caveman", ...

Look at Woody Allen's Movie "Curse of the Jade Scorpion". This movie got two tracks only and it works very well, no even better because it is always good to hear those chords over and over again.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

lux @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> I doubt Polarbear is a subscriber of "kid surf chronicles" newspaper :mrgreen:



And I'm not making any money from it... WTF??? :evil:


----------



## lux (Feb 18, 2008)

I am legend is one of the biggest pieces of crap i've had the occasion to see.

I think rarely you can see such a complete lack of even the smaller fresh idea, from every point of view.


----------



## lux (Feb 18, 2008)

kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> lux @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt Polarbear is a subscriber of "kid surf chronicles" newspaper :mrgreen:
> ...



I'm a subscriber though. Paypaled a long time ago but still waiting for my first issue of the magazine... >8o


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

nikolas @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Quite honestly if YOU had 10-80,000,000 US$ do invest (budget) in a movie, would you trust your own instincts? Your own self? Your own image? And I'm NOT talking from the composers side, who would very much like to try out something new (at least I would). I'm talking about the publishers view, about 20/21/30th century fox, MGM and every company out there.
> 
> If I pay SUCH a large amount of money I will want bloody Tom Cruise once again on screen! Because the name alone will bring mentioning and money and money and money and money. And I will certainly not take any chances in the music, or fx, or anything.
> 
> Sorry for the rant




Which, like I said, is definitely the battle if you're a filmmaker with a point of view other than "money and money and money and money". 

If every films has Tom Cruise in it... well... so long to art. Nobody can convince me the only reason to do this is to make an investor a pile of money. 

No, you weren't ranting you were adding to the discussion. Thanks. I appreciate straight up sincere talk. I think this has turned into a worth while discussion which hinges in part on "Why do we do this, is it for the money mostly? If so how do we crete anything other than same old thing if nobody is willing to take a risk?"


Seems like an oxymoron... or am I missing something?


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 18, 2008)

kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Question: If one is not a creative what is their MAIN goal? Right.... money.
> 
> I'm a creative, my main goal is to create something I believe in. Period.



I absolutely agree that there is a lot of stuff out there which isn't really ... uhm ... the green from the apple  (damn, these stupid from german translated sayings )

... and of course my main goal is it to be always creative too, no matter what I am working on. Even if it is the smallest casual game.

... but first of all the customer is king. What do you do when a director comes to you and tells you: "Okay, here are 20.000 Dollar, I want bishbash hollywood sound!"

Do you start arguing with him about creativness? I think you do what he wants, you grab the money and you see each other on the next project, or no?


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

lux @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > lux @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> ...




You didn't receive it? Considering you're my only customer I write the paper by hand flown to you by carrier pigeon. I know of one bird w/o a job!

Nick Batzdorf handles all my refunds... if he gives you attitude contact my editor, Choc0.

My bad...


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Question: If one is not a creative what is their MAIN goal? Right.... money.
> ...




I depends.... 

Although, I'm not a composer anymore for that very reason. I don't do well in that scenario because I don't believe in it. I didn't believe in it so much I wrote my own scripts so that I may not have to deal with those sorts of directors.

I plain disagree with any director that hires you for what only YOU can do then turns around and asks you to give him a "bishbash hollywood sound" that ANYONE can do. Especially at that fee. 

I knew I couldn't argue creativeness with those sorts of directors, they wouldn't get it... so I split. That's my perspective, not what everyone would choose to do. But it made sense for me, for better or worse.


----------



## lux (Feb 18, 2008)

i just received a couple of stickies via mail. No pigeon. given your editor i'm afraid for pigeon's life at this point.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 18, 2008)

kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> ...




ANYONE can do? Sorry, do you really think anyone is able to do that hollywood sound? I am not only talking about that compositionwise, but the sound also.

But you have to admit to a certain point that you also have to think: money
I am still in that state that I need money, ... and if I get the job to create kind of a bishbash hollywood sound I'll just do it and be creative with what I am allowed to or what my options are. I also give critics, comments and try to discuss certain things about what's being wanted but I would never start arguing with a director or developer about his (maybe already carved in stone) ideas and directions.


----------



## IvanP (Feb 18, 2008)

Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> ANYONE can do? Sorry, do you really think anyone is able to do that hollywood sound? I am not only talking about that compositionwise, but the sound also.
> 
> But you have to admit to a certain point that you also have to think: money
> I am still in that state that I need money, ... and if I get the job to create kind of a bishbash hollywood sound I'll just do it and be creative with what I am allowed to or what my options are. I also give critics, comments and try to discuss certain things about what's being wanted but I would never start arguing with a director or developer about his (maybe already carved in stone) ideas and directions.



+1.

I also tend to see short films as a playground for trying our own voice, and, hopefully, if it works, expand it in a feature, should one be lucky enough...

But the rest...I agree with Waywyn...I recently finished some arrangements for a late night show in a local tv. The director had a specific song in mind for all the show, a club-house stuff, and he wanted me to follow it as close as possible.

So I did some cues in the line and style, trying to be innovative enough in order to prevent being sued and having fun as well...I thought that was logical...otherwise they just would have bought the rights to the song, wouldn't they?

He called me quite upset and asked me..."this is not what I asked for...I want you to completely rip off the song, I want that song, that bass line, that voice, etc...I don't care about being sued..."
I tried at 1st to convince him of something else (and better) and I stopped doing that after realizing the guy was stuck in his mind. I did the rip off and bye bye...I can't even register my work since I just ended doing a cover song. If I had just stuck with the cover I wouldn't have lost two days work. It's sad, but it ended up being a take it or leave it decision and money won. 

So yes, there are options for being creative and other that don't...

There goes my 2c.

Iván


----------



## careyford (Feb 18, 2008)

Graeme Reynolds' score for A Scanner Darkly is worth a listen. The movie made me a little dizzy; it's all in rotoscope. I think this was out in 2006. Lots of varied instrumentation and great colors. 

Now that I think of it, another rotoscope/animated film had an interesting score: Year of the Fish composed by Paul Cantelon. Really compelling use of the accordion as a solo and jazz instrument. I don't think the score is out on CD but the film is a good Netflix rental.

Richard


----------



## drasticmeasures (Feb 18, 2008)

midphase @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> "Does anybody even give a [email protected]#t about the Oscars anymore?"
> 
> 
> Sorry to sound arrogant as f#@k....but the only Oscars that I will truly give a [email protected]#t about, are the ones where I'm nominated.



EXACTLY! Right on, dude. 

I haven't watched the AMPAS awards in 3 years (since Gustavo started his winning streak :roll: )

Jayson - 
I'm not sure what your style is, or what you would call refreshing, but check out "The Machinist" by Roque Banos. It's a fresh (to me, anyway) take on mid-century Hermann scores.


----------



## lux (Feb 18, 2008)

Nice post John.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 18, 2008)

Thanks lux. Kind of long, but I finished a score yesterday so now..........


----------



## synthetic (Feb 18, 2008)

Great stuff John, thanks for sharing this. 

One question, tough. You say that the sketches that your orchestrator gets are very complete. But don't these composers have their own orchestrators for putting together these sketches? I know a few top guys who hum or play into their sequencer, then they have guys who turn these into detailed sketches. So they still have (their own) orchestrators to fill in the blanks (only not at union scale). 

I'm not supporting the "anyone can deliver that sound" argument. I think I'm getting better but I'm not there yet. Zimmer has released some of his sampler mockups for Pirates and Gladiator, and they sound huge even before the orchestrator gets to them.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 18, 2008)

Actually to be fair 100%

I know someone, who says that he can't read music! Let alone write! I won't mention his name of course or any of his work. I also assume that "can't read notes" is an exxageration. I mean I can't believe that the 5 staff system is hard to learn. 

But still I am certain that he knows very little about music theory even, or intervals, or anything else.

Well his stuff is nothing short of AMAZING! And complicated. And clever. And not borringly tonal.

But of course, if it was for a real orchestra to play his stuff, he would need huge help. Help with translation. 

Anyways,

Great post John! Thanks


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 18, 2008)

The point is whether it takes one guy, two guys, or twelve guys, at some point to get that "Hollywood" sound, someone has to understand that style of orchestration.

The producer/director will not care how it is achieved, but "anyone can do it" would only be said by someone who hasn't and therefore does not know how hard it is to do well. Now if one means "anyone can hire someone who will help them do it" that is so if you have the coin.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 18, 2008)

synthetic @ 18th February 2008 said:


> Great stuff John, thanks for sharing this.
> 
> One question, tough. You say that the sketches that your orchestrator gets are very complete. But don't these composers have their own orchestrators for putting together these sketches? I know a few top guys who hum or play into their sequencer, then they have guys who turn these into detailed sketches. So they still have (their own) orchestrators to fill in the blanks (only not at union scale).
> 
> I'm not supporting the "anyone can deliver that sound" argument. I think I'm getting better but I'm not there yet. Zimmer has released some of his sampler mockups for Pirates and Gladiator, and they sound huge even before the orchestrator gets to them.



If you mean secret orchestrators who quietly create the sound and then send to other orchestrators? No. I don't believe that is what is going on for the composers to whom I alluded, though of course I accept that you know otherwise for at least some other composers. For one thing, I can tell my hand on a hand-written score the same as I can tell the hand of the composers for whom I've orchestrated, so it would be hard / impossible to pass that off as your own if it were in fact someone else's work. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative -- can't prove there is no top-secret guy -- but I've not heard a hint or whisper of it from the guys I've met. 

Certainly, some of the name composers play into sequencers, even those who can orchestrate themselves. Sometimes all the orchestrator gets are midi files and a sound recording of the mock-up. To me, such a practice, while not quite as noble or something as penning out every note and accent, is still very much composer-to-orchestrator, not some pantomime in which the orchestrator really writes. I can tell you that once I'm done with a mock-up for a director, that music is WRITTEN. Everything is there. If there is a big run in the strings, maybe some doubling from the violas or cellos or something would be added, but there are no important -- even semi-important -- choices left. So, even if there are amanuensis guys who do take-downs of synth mockups, I don't view that as impugning their artistic integrity.

I have also met some of the guys who work in-house for the composers and they do create sounds and add extra synth percussion (in at least one case) and those can be important contributors to the sound. But they get direction from the composer, the same way one tells a cellist to play with greater passion or percussion to whack the tam-tam hard or use different mallets or something.


Sometimes I'm sure the orchestrators are adapting cues from one place to put in another place and that gets a lot closer to real composing, but still, it's the material and tone, chord progressions, percussion choices, and innumerable other 'genuine' composing choices that are determined by the composer, not the orchestrator, in doing that. I agree that this practice if taken to an extreme, is pretty close to some line or other.

All kinds of stuff happens at the last minute when sometimes unreasonable changes are demanded, but I have never heard that there are numerous 'big guy' composers out there who are somehow just figureheads with all the little mice writing in the night (referring to Hans Christian Andersen there, of course).

I definitely don't know it all and I don't want to exaggerate my information's completeness -- I have a few friends who work directly with these composers and have talked in some detail with them and they really do know. I don't work with the big name guys and I don't know first-hand.

So, there are undoubtedly some poseurs but their presence has, I believe, often been greatly exaggerated.

Last, I look to my own experience. I am finally, after about a dozen films and plenty of TV music, learning to get the sound I really am aiming at, most of the time. No matter which orchestrator I had hired in the past, if my stuff was lame, it still sounded too busy, or too indecisive, or too something-else, no orchestrator on earth could make it sound like Elfman or James Newton Howard or John Williams. Now, I feel like I can deliver Hollywood when it makes sense (or at least when I think it makes sense). So maybe part of this is based on that experience.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> ANYONE can do? Sorry, do you really think anyone is able to do that hollywood sound? I am not only talking about that compositionwise, but the sound also.



No, not literally, metaphorically. As in, a hollywood sound is more readily available "out there in composer land" than your (Alex's) specific creative "voice" as a composer. You know?



Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> But you have to admit to a certain point that you also have to think: money I am still in that state that I need money, ... and if I get the job to create kind of a bishbash hollywood sound I'll just do it and be creative with what I am allowed to or what my options are. I also give critics, comments and try to discuss certain things about what's being wanted but I would never start arguing with a director or developer about his (maybe already carved in stone) ideas and directions.



Yes, I do think of money. But it's not the first thing I think about, is all. I believe one can make a lot of money doing exactly what fulfills them creatively so long as they are surgical about it all. It's not going to be easy to carve out that path. My brain works differently than the directors who would simply be looking for a "service", I'd be looking for a collaborator and I would hire this person based on their unique voice so that it would "tonally" add to my vision. At which point I would want to know their point of view... considering that's why I hired them.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

Richard --- Thanks I'll check it out.

Nathan -- Thanks I'll check it out.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Finally, I agree with Waywyn. If it were so easy to get the Hollywood sound, compositionally or otherwise, why aren't all of us doing big movies? Artistic integrity? Producers wouldn't hire the same guys over and over and pay them $250k-$1 million per score if indeed anyone could do it. Why would they? They don't want to waste a million dollars.



Again... I was speaking metaphorically, not literally. No, I don't believe that ANYONE can literally rip off those guys and do it as well. 

What I'm referring to is the very common practice of asking a composer to "rip off" the STYLE of that particular big name composer who's established their OWN style. For every composer making the 1 Mil per flick there are thousands of lower budget filmmakers who are asking their composer to rip off that guy's style.

More to the point -- ANYONE can rip off a style. Doesn't mean they did it justice, doesn't mean it's any good. But the director may be thrilled nonetheless. That is what I have a problem with. Thus I decided to write my own films so I don't have to deal with those sorts of filmmakers... The other reason is that, the filmmakers asking their composer to rip off another composer are the same filmmakers who've, more often than not, ripped off another directors style. (especially on the lower budget -- obviously the higher budget directors are the one's who've created the "voice" along with their composer that the lower budget filmmaker is attempting to steal from).

Yeah, I know I'm stubborn in that regard. But my mind will never waiver from that belief.


I flatly believe in original material.

(Original - meaning, any likeness is coincidental. As opposed to intentional)

I love money, same as the next guy... but I believe it can be had creating original material, is all.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> And on top of that, of course Nikolas is right to point out that, when you invest $80 million-plus (by the time you include a $30mm advertising campaign), you are reluctant to risk a composer who delivers a score that doesn't really cut it, doesn't pay off when the satellite crashes in New York (or whatever), or is some kind of idiosyncratic, distracting musing on Art. They want it artistic (check out the end of King Kong for Art in Commerce), but not TOO artistic. They would be nuts to just tell a composer to do whatever the muse says, when there is $80 million of someone else's money on the line.



Of course he is right..? Then you mention the most enormous films out? Most of us here will never work on a film with the monetary scope of a King Kong. Sure, on a film that expensive he's absolutely right... but that's absolutely obvious to just about anyone. Even me... 

With each studio doing 16 films a year those films aren't the films we readily need to concern ourselves with. Not just yet...

The problem in my opinion starts further down the scale, budget wise. The films with budgets around 10 Mil and below. The films our peers are doing (Sure, we may all know some Class-A guys, but you know what I mean). The same films that rarely land unless they feel original. Yet, again and again these people wish to try and steal the identity of some previous successful bigger film. The producers acting as if they are working on King Kong, when they are in fact, not.



JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> I think it is very hard to deliver a big, crowd-pleasing, exciting sound in a way that is also creative. Only a tiny minority of Hollywood composers has the latitude to write what they want and even they are 100% subject to what studio execs say (ok, maybe John Williams or one or two others are not, but I think this statement is true enough).



Very true. Which is why I feel it's short sighted to try unless you are working on tent-pole films (and the like). Which is what you are describing.



JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> So, whatever. It's fun to work on small, arty movies because they really want an individual sound. That's part of the appeal of such a small film. But when I am asked to write for a broad audience, I believe that I have to be very clear on what I am doing. Even Thomas Newman, whose scores I like and who is (justifiably) regarded as an innovator, appears to be asked for another score like the ones he's already done over and over and by and large, he apparently is willing and maybe happy to do that -- with superb results in my opinion.




Fun to work on an artsy film? Well, the way I see it, that artsy film (if the script/directing was brilliant) is the best shot a composer has to establish their VOICE which will then be adapted into a big budget voice, should they get there... byway of this artsy film. Personally, I don't see how writing for a broad audience will allow a composer to ever BREAKOUT from behind the temp score.

Thomas Newman is being asked to rip-off "himself". I would say that is a high class problem. Thomas newman is scoring my wife's clients film by the way. I heard the film is amazing. 




JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> I guess I don't know why anybody wants to be a film composer -- a mass market product if there ever were one -- unless he's willing to please the crowd, the producer, the director and -- hopefully -- himself as well. I don't write a single cue that I don't believe in. If I don't buy it, I believe it will never work for the director and the rest of the approval process. But that doesn't mean that I try constantly to reinvent what audiences are expecting.




That's why I stopped being a composer (but for anything I create myself or any friend who'll allow me to write MY music). I got tired of ghosting and working on films/anything-else where it seemed to always be about ripping something else off, when you get right down to it. Sure, I put my spin on it and took pride in it, but that was far from doing what "I" wanted to do. I don't believe in that process... so I stopped trying to appease those sorts of people.

I believe in pleasing people so long as they are in the camp I like to please. Which means I'll probably never write a film that costs 100 Mil. Doesn't mean the film won't gross 100 Mil. 

My point of view is not to "aim" at reinventing what audiences are expecting... my point of view is to deliver on a particular styling.


Agreed, there are much easier ways to make a living... That's why I am so stubborn in my view of creation. I wish to do EXACTLY what I wish to do.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 18, 2008)

JohnG @ Mon 18 Feb said:


> but there are no important -- even semi-important -- choices left.
> ...
> But they get direction from the composer,
> ...
> it's the material and tone, chord progressions, percussion choices, and innumerable other 'genuine' composing choices that are determined by the composer, not the orchestrator, in doing that.


The general idea that I gather from your previous posts, especially considering the few quotes above, seems to support my own 'theory' that a film composer is a sort of a Director of Music, in the sense that there is a Director of Photography and an Art Director. The composer does a director-type job (if not THE director's job) when spotting, choosing the role of the music in a given cue, choosing the mood, the timbral palette to be used, the pace of the music, the idiom (modes, type of harmonic cadences, etc.), the motifs, the place of runs/swells/stings, etc. - thus making his score somewhat similar to a director's storyboard (albeit an audio 'storyboard', ie a midi/audio file of the cue played into a sequencer). THAT is, IMO, the part of COMPOSING, or 'writing' the music. That's putting forth what the composer creates in his 'noodle':

_SCHIKANEDER
What have you got for me? Is it finished?

MOZART
What?

SCHIKANEDER
What? The vaudeville, what'd you think?

MOZART
Yes.

SCHIKANEDER
Can I see it?

MOZART
No.

SCHIKANEDER
Why not?

MOZART
Because there's nothing to see.

[He giggles triumphantly. Schikaneder stares at him.]

SCHIKANEDER
Look, I asked you if we could start rehearsal next week and you said yes.

MOZART
Well, we can.

SCHIKANEDER
So let me see it. Where is it?

[Mozart, with a bright, rather demented smile presents his head to Schikaneder.]

MOZART
Here. It's all right here, in my noodle. The rest is just scribbling. Scribbling and bibbling. Bibbling and scribbling._
8) 

So, after the 'noodle' (the Music Department Head, the Director of Music, the Composer) does 'its' part, there comes the 'scribbling and bibbling' stuff: transcribing the mockup, filling in the gaps, orchestrating, adding the synths colors, copying and extracting the parts, and all. Stuff done by various other people. But 'there can be only one': One Noodle to Rule Them All. 0oD 



> Now, I feel like I can deliver Hollywood when it makes sense


I do hear very diverse stuff coming from Tinseltown. What do you people have in mind when you call music 'Hollywood'? What's this stereotype about? Or, maybe, no stereotype? What is NOT 'Hollywood' then?


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> The point is whether it takes one guy, two guys, or twelve guys, at some point to get that "Hollywood" sound, someone has to understand that style of orchestration.
> 
> The producer/director will not care how it is achieved, but "anyone can do it" would only be said by someone who hasn't and therefore does not know how hard it is to do well. Now if one means "anyone can hire someone who will help them do it" that is so if you have the coin.



Jay,

Most everyone took my statement far too literally. So I'll reiterate. Trying to clarify a bit more.

How many projects have Thomas Newman "sound alike" scores? Of those, how many scores were actually AS GOOD as what Thomas Newman would have done? 


Yet, the director/producer in question is likely thrilled with the music. He was able to rip off a bit of the relationship Thomas and Sam have "organically" built.


I find it disingenuous to aim for that. I'd much rather find the next Thomas Newman. I'd rather be the next Sam Mendes. Which means, one must create a voice of their own. The sooner the better, I say.

I don't understand why this is such a foreign idea to creatives. Like I said, I believe there is a bit of brainwashing going on. I used to be brainwashed too. Thinking that since "this is the way it works" that it was the ONLY way it works. My point is that it's not...

...Thus, I'm on a "creative mission" whereby I believe I'll prove that to be true for myself. So far, so good. Plenty of hurdles ahead. Absolutely. But, so far so good. Very good in fact.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 18, 2008)

kid-surf @ Mon 18 Feb said:


> one must create a voice of their own. ... I don't understand why this is such a foreign idea to creatives.


Would you call a director of photography: a creative professional? If yes, how many 'unique' cinematography styles do you remember, also how many 'unique' cinematographers names can you mention from the top of your head? Generally, who needs 'unique'?

To be more clear: in a film's 'economy', is cinematography of lesser importance than the score?


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 18, 2008)

I'm not interested in debating "taste"... 

I have my particular point of view regarding cinematography. And yes, I view it as creative. And yes, I view it as "AS" important to the score. But no, not as important as the script. The script is the reason any film (i.e. story) is being told... it dictates everything to follow.

"I" need unique and that's really all that matters to "me" in the grand scope...

BTW -- I'm also not interested in debating a rigid definition of 'unique'. I don't believe in the word but for it's casual use when discussing art. There are few creations in this world that are consummately singular.


Worth It's all a matter of degrees to arrive at the whole. The pay somewhat reflects this. Not perfectly, definitely not. But it does suggest the idea that worth is a sliding scale.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 18, 2008)

I've never dealt with anything close to a high budget (yet). But the people I work with tend to respect me and leave me take all the decisions pretty much on all audio. (but again I'm talking about games and not film).

However in theatre (in Greece at least) I've had pretty much the same experience. 

I just find that I've probably been lucky yet, or maybe just too picky to choose the people to work with (not for, but with). This way (and since I'm still officially a student (hehe) and a scholarship covers some main expenses), I'm cattering fully for my creative needs. Maybe too much as well.

What I find a "nice" challenge, is to try and take what the other person wants (the client) and make it your way, under his/her rules. how to bend those rules, enough so as to please yourself and at the same time the client.

Again this is for games and theater. A couple of documentaries I've done it was completely different actually.


----------



## Toddk (Feb 19, 2008)

all these threads look the same to me.

Most, like this one, started by people who
are bitter about the fact that they are not
as talented and succesful as they hoped, or
thought.
They're answer is to begin tearing [email protected] down. Blame this person, blame that
person, blame the director, blame Trevor Rabin, blah blah blah.
You've gotta be [email protected] kidding me man. :roll: 

Pull your head out of your a$$, and spend some
time getting better at your craft , instead of countless hours of typing bullshit critiques of
people who are more talented, successful, and work a ton harder than you.
TK


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 19, 2008)

It's too bad you can't say that directly to my face...

Look, you don't know shit about my "craft", so spare me you fuck'n moron. And yes, I will feel free to continue to express my opinion based on my experiences -- which leads me to where I'm at today, which is not needing to kiss some director's ass, specifically when I don't believe in their "craft".

As well, you have no friggn clue how hard I work... and yet you pretend that you do. Absurd. Far as my talent -- I'm exactly as talented as I thought I was...

Your insinuation that I am "blaming" people for something or other is plain, dense. Congrats!

No, I'm not kidding you. Get used to it.

KID


----------



## midphase (Feb 19, 2008)

"started by people who are bitter about the fact that they are not as talented and succesful as they hoped, or thought. "

Todd, from the aggressive stance in your post, sounds to me like maybe you're the one who is bitter. Time to get out Annapolis perhaps?


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 19, 2008)

Personally I have made my peace with the facts that I am neither as talented or successful as I had hoped.

What is happening here however is why I think my policy of not coming on public forums and knocking another composer's work, particularly a more successful composer, is wise.


----------



## wonshu (Feb 19, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> Personally I have made my peace with the facts that I am neither as talented or successful as I had hoped.
> 
> What is happening here however is why I think my policy of not coming on public forums and knocking another composer's work, particularly a more successful composer, is wise.



Word... and makes the personal life so much better and all of a sudden all the other things seem to fall into place as well.

You know, clients can smell jealousy, negative energy and desperation. Just get rid of it.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 19, 2008)

Successful composer is what u wanna be, so why should u critique the successful composers, huh? If you don't like all the successful composers, that only shows your bad taste - which is likely the root of your unsuccessfulness . You oughtta LOVE successful composers, all of 'em. So there - Three 6 Mafia won an Oscar, and Gustavo won two. If you critique them and other successful composers - that will only reveal how hopelessly unsuccessful u r, also how much u envy successful composers because of your unsuccessfulness.

Yours truly,
Sid Ganis


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 19, 2008)

Wow, Sid, I had no idea _you_ were here with us all this time!


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 19, 2008)

I'll explain my "talent" comment.

"I'm as talented as I thought..." Meaning, simply, talented _enough_ to write my own films.

Nope, I'm not jealous of anybody. Specifically, when I don't believe their particular film is up to the standard I have for myself. Which is generally the types of films and such I was in position for. Which is why I set out on a journey to afford myself the opportunities to create what "I" wanted to create. That's not a slam on anyone, it's just that I had a different idea of what good was. Now a days the film as a whole is far more important to me than the music as a singular element, but the music is still critical.

After I finish typing this I will call an agent at a Big-5 agency to set up a time for me to pitch a couple TV ideas, even though my focus is feature writing. Why will they meet me? Because this agent loved my script. Yet, I'm still waiting to see if I'm going to be signed there (waiting word from a couple other agents -- even though several have liked my script. It's a consensus thing). So in the meantime (one day) I conceived of and outlined "2" TV shows (Think: 6 Feet Under, The Riches, Nip Tuck etc.) Another agent gave my script to a client to consider starring even though I'm not signed there, yet. Will I be signed there? I really have no clue, I don't count on things I have no control over, but I do control certain elements to this puzzle. Such as, writing, storyboarding and shot-list etc. I do the work and let things fall where they may, it's out of my control at that point. Thus far, nobody who's read my script hasn't liked it. Yet, it's the toughest agency in Hollywood (actually, the world) to get signed at... really tough. Realism.

*And no, none of these people is my wife... I don't need handouts.

So here I am exactly one year from the time I first considered the idea of writing my very first script and I'm meeting with agents who would have never met me about composing. I landed a great lawyer that would never have represented me as a composer. And I feel I'll be signed somewhere good if it's not this particular agency--based on the reactions I've gotten. I'm far from jealous... my plan is working thus far. I'm in a WAY better position than this time last year. And yet, there is plenty of road yet to travel. It's technically not even the beginning yet.

And yet, some knuckle-head is siting there telling me I don't work hard. Yeah right, buddy. I'm a friggn machine when it comes to working. I'm currently writing two more scripts, storyboarding for my previous script and writing music for it as I assemble my package to direct it, conceived two TV shows, looking for a book to option to adapt and working on my concept for a bigger budget commercial film. All this at the same time, and still I'm able to post here... oh well, I work hard and I work fast, that's all.

By the way... I'm not sure if anyone I've worked with is signed or ever will be. Which is another reason I HAD to leave composing. I hated the idea of relying on someone ELSE to take me where I want to go (which is to a place I could create what "I" liked... AND... make decent money doing it). I felt utterly trapped. I felt I could write "myself" into that position. So far so good. I wrote my latest script (the one people are liking) in just over two weeks. So... I can always write another, and another. At this point I have confirmation that I did the right thing regardless of what happens with this particular script.

The fact that I find a lot of film music to be "samey" (specifically in the mid budget) isn't an indication of jealousy. It's an indication of "personal taste". I don't believe in samey art, is all. The idea that any composers don't conceptualize the difference is strange to me. For example: I believe film music in general (meaning ALL films regardless of budget) would be a much more compelling and honest landscape if composers were given MORE creative freedom. That's idealistic, yes, but it's the freedom I would fight for that composer to attain should I get to direct and decide not to score myself. This freedom would be, in part, derived from eliminating the temp altogether. That's a bad thing? Not to me. It's fairly startling to me that composers, of all people, disagree with that concept and expound on the virtues of "status quo". I personally don't care if every director on earth agrees with that idea, I don't. And I never will. I personally would never hire a composer who agreed with it... I don't need to steal from another writer/director, even if I deeply admire their work.

Doesn't anyone believe in organic creation anymore? I know many do, maybe just not as many here.

By the way, I don't use templates to write these scripts... for better or worse they are 100% my ideas. Which is, for me, what creation IS. I'll take that risk. 



No hard feelings... you guys do what makes sense to you. I'll do the same. o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 19, 2008)

aeneas @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> Successful composer is what u wanna be, so why should u critique the successful composers, huh? If you don't like the successful composers, that only shows your bad taste - which is the root of your unsuccessfulness . You oughtta LOVE successful composers. So there - Three 6 Mafia won an Oscar, and Gustavo won two. If you critique them and other successful composers - that will only reveal how hopelessly unsuccessful u r, also how much u envy successful composers because your unsuccessfulness.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Sid Ganis




I'm critiquing the "Hollywood mindset"... the one that FORCES composers to not be honest too much of the time. I don't see a temp as honest and I never will. That composer doesn't need to copy someone else's vision.... I trust they can write. And that's my gripe.

I would never say any of this stuff but for anonymously. But yes, I believe it's cheating to use a temp score (Unless it's the original music of the composer you hired.)

I'm FOR the composer expressing themselves, as opposed to AGAINST... I'm for the director expressing themselves... I'm for the writer expressing themselves.

I guess I'll never be in the running for a PG film. 


But hey, some people are in this for the money and fame. Good for them!


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 19, 2008)

kid-surf @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> After I finish typing this I will call an agent at a Big-5 agency to set up a time for me to pitch a couple TV ideas, even though my focus is feature writing. Why will they meet me? Because this agent loved my script. Yet, I'm still waiting to see if I'm going to be signed there (waiting word from a couple other agents -- even though several have liked my script. It's a consensus thing). So in the meantime (one day) I conceived of and outlined "2" TV shows (Think: 6 Feet Under, The Riches, Nip Tuck etc.) Another agent gave my script to a client to consider starring even though I'm not signed there, yet. Will I be signed there? I really have no clue, I don't count on things I have no control over, but I do control certain elements to this puzzle. Such as, writing, storyboarding and shot-list etc. I do the work and let things fall where they may, it's out of my control at that point. Thus far, nobody who's read my script hasn't liked it. Yet, it's the toughest agency in Hollywood (actually, the world) to get signed at... really tough. Realism.
> 
> *And no, none of these people is my wife... I don't need handouts.
> 
> ...



Hey, Kid, I don't mean this as a kncok but is it possible you are simply a more talented script writer than composer?

Also. you knock temp scores and then you mention several successful shows that you somewhat are modeling ideas on. 

Remember, no less than Igor Stravinsky said, "Good composers borrow, great composers steal."


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 19, 2008)

It's possible... in fact, I would say that is probably true. But considering I was offered to be hip-pocketed at a decent agency and also ghosted for a guy doing studio gigs that tells me that I'm at least at a certain level. (which no isn't the top... but it's also not the absolute bottom. It's like, what it is...)

My belief is that I was never meant to be a "composer". My belief is that I was mean to be a writer/director/composer -- Whereby the sum of the whole is what gives it the most artistic strength (even though my script can stand on it's own, thats' not the complete vision). I've never written music I've "wanted" to write... I've only copied styles I didn't particularly care for to appease someone else. And that felt false for me. 

Noooooo..... I am absolutely not MODELING anything after anything else. That TV example was simply to explain the "type" of shows they are. Conceptually they are nothing like any of those shows but would possibly fit NEXT to them as a separate entity... As in, none of those shows are like the next but there is a through-line. The through-line is that my TV ideas (like those) are darker and probably not right for network TV. That was the point of the examples...


"Good composers borrow, great composers steal."

I know the saying but wasn't there more to it.... something about not being obvious.  If I can't recognize that someone stole, then cool! I feel like it's original. The problem I have is where it is blatantly obvious and lazy.



Q: Wouldn't you rather express something organic -vs- being relegated to using a temp score. I found, personally, that I could never outdo the temp music regardless of the genre. I've not often heard cues I felt were better than the original honest and organic cues. I feel that is part of the prob, especially with newer directors, they don't often realize they could have gotten a better score (non-watered down) by trusting the composer to do his/her job. They end up with this nock-off score that sounds like a flimsy impersonation and have no idea what they could have had... which is a film with an identity.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 19, 2008)

kid-surf @ Tue 19 Feb said:


> I'm FOR the composer expressing themselves, as opposed to AGAINST... I'm for the director expressing themselves... I'm for the writer expressing themselves.


And I am for film editors expressing themselves. I am for CGI modelers expressing themselves. I am for gaffers expressing themselves. Generally, I am for everybody expressing themselves. After all, expressing oneself is what films are about, ultimately. Self expression is the heart of this industry.

Kind regards,
Jerry Bruckheimer


----------



## JohnG (Feb 19, 2008)

My main objective originally was to challenge the charge that many major composers are dependent for their sound on orchestrators. In addition, I also set out to question the idea that just about any composer, if he had the money to hire these orchestrators, could write similar music. I don't think either proposition is generally true, based on what I've seen.

I see that this is a bit divergent from the original complaint that everything sounds the same, though they are related in a way, I believe.



aeneas @ 18th February 2008 said:


> The general idea that I gather from your previous posts, especially considering the few quotes above, seems to support my own 'theory' that a film composer is a sort of a Director of Music, in the sense that there is a Director of Photography and an Art Director. The composer does a director-type job (if not THE director's job) when spotting, choosing the role of the music in a given cue, choosing the mood, the timbral palette to be used, the pace of the music, the idiom (modes, type of harmonic cadences, etc.), the motifs, the place of runs/swells/stings, etc. - thus making his score somewhat similar to a director's storyboard (albeit an audio 'storyboard', ie a midi/audio file of the cue played into a sequencer). THAT is, IMO, the part of COMPOSING, or 'writing' the music. That's putting forth what the composer creates in his 'noodle':



No, aeneas, that is not quite what I meant to say, if I understand you correctly (not sure I do 100%). 

To try clarifying, what I mean is that a composer is the guy who does everything that you said but, in addition, conveys specifically, whether by a pencil score, midi files, or otherwise, what tempos, pitches, instrumentation, register, timings, and so on are to comprise the music for a movie. 

This definition does not exclude hummers or mid-only guys. A midi or audio rendition of a cue can be identical to what actually goes into the score, which stands in sharp contrast to a 'storyboard' that is merely a cursory outline of the movie. So the storyboard metaphor is not at all what I meant, but would be included in my conception of what a 'true' composer does.

Certainly in my case the midi and final orchestral renditions are barely distinguishable, though I sometimes make changes while orchestrating my stuff. I in no way was intending, in the case of major composers, to describe some kind of 'director of music' or musical storyboard guy who gives guidance overall. Instead, I am trying to describe the guy who makes the vast majority, or all, of the detailed decisions. 

If someone transcribes a midi file or copies out a full-blown orchestration from a detailed sketch, that does not make him, in my opinion, a composer or even a quasi composer. He is doing an important, often skilled job, but that is not composition when I do it and I don't think it is when anyone else does either. Use of such professionals does not, in any way, diminish the composer's position or justify criticism of the composer somehow not being responsible for his work or dependent for his 'sound' on orchestrators who 'really' write the stuff.

By contrast with what I just said, though, in television these days, your description of a musical storyboard guy is perhaps more accurate in some cases (maybe many cases). Still, I think your description of tò.‹   pjú.‹   pjû.‹   pjü.‹   pjý.‹   pjþ.‹   pjÿ.‹   pk .‹   pk.‹   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk	.Œ   pk
.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk .Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk.Œ   pk .Œ   pk!.Œ   pk".Œ   pk#.Œ   pk$.Œ   pk%.Œ   pk&.Œ   pk'.Œ   pk(.Œ   pk).Œ   pk*.Œ   pk+.Œ   pk,.Œ   pk-.Œ   pk..Œ   pk/.Œ   pk0.Œ   pk1.Œ   pk2.Œ   pk3.Œ   pk4.Œ   pk5.Œ   pk6.Œ   pk7.Œ   pk8.Œ   pk9.Œ   pk:.Œ   pk;.Œ   pk<.Œ   pk=.Œ   pk>.Œ   pk?.Œ   [email protected].Œ   pkA.Œ   pkB.Œ   pkC.Œ   pkD.Œ   pkE.Œ   pkF.Œ   pkG.Œ   pkH.Œ   pkI.Œ   pkJ.Œ   pkK.Œ   pkL.Œ   pkM.Œ   pkN.Œ   pkO.Œ   pkP.Œ   pkQ.Œ   pkR.Œ   pkS.Œ   pkT.Œ   pkU.Œ   pkV.Œ   pkW.Œ   pkX.Œ   pkY.Œ   pkZ.Œ   pk[.Œ   pk\.Œ   pk].Œ


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 19, 2008)

kid-surf @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> It's possible... in fact, I would say that is probably true. But considering I was offered to be hip-pocketed at a decent agency and also ghosted for a guy doing studio gigs that tells me that I'm at least at a certain level. (which no isn't the top... but it's also not the absolute bottom. It's like, what it is...)
> 
> My belief is that I was never meant to be a "composer". My belief is that I was mean to be a writer/director/composer -- Whereby the sum of the whole is what gives it the most artistic strength (even though my script can stand on it's own, thats' not the complete vision). I've never written music I've "wanted" to write... I've only copied styles I didn't particularly care for to appease someone else. And that felt false for me.
> 
> ...



I mostly quoted the Stravinsky thing as a joke as I doubt he was really serious, probably just responding to charges that later in his career he was influenced by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern.

Seriously, I DO admire your idealism. I have more modest goals. I love to score films/TV. All I care about is doing the work, getting paid, and walking away from it with a happy client and the feeling that I have done a craftsman-like job that helped the film and that others think sounds good. I really am not concerned with how original I am or am not.

If you visit my website and listen, I doubt you will hear anything that makes you say, "Wow, I never heard that before." But hopefully what you will hear in the music is, emotion, intelligence, and craft that is evident in a wide range of styles both with an orchestra and electronics, as well as the songs I have written that were recorded.

That is what I have aspired to and continue to strive to achieve.


----------



## midphase (Feb 19, 2008)

Hold on gang....I feel like things have spun out of control.

I don't think anyone is pooping on successful composers....but the question was raised as to why most scores out there kinda sound the same (and you've got to admit....they kinda do).

So I suggested (along with others) why this might be.

Look, most "kids" out there who are graduating from music college and entering the professional market have never even heard of Stravinsky....much less Bernard Herrmann or Dimitri Zinovievich Tiomkin...so they compositional skills are inherently limited to the music that influences their writing....such as Zimmer and Elfman who generally (as we can all agree) have a tendency towards triadic harmony and diatonic melodies.

Does that mean they're better, we're better, they suck, we suck? I don't know, and really no opinion was expressed to that point except what each and every one of you have chosen to read into it.

This is not about jealousy, or bitterness, or being less talented and less successful than some of those top paid guys. As a matter of fact talent has very little to do with it. To prove my point, I cite guys like Nick Phoenix, Craig Sharmat, Thomas J, our beloved Simon Ravn, and sure...why not....Aaron Sapp (here's to you kid) who IMHO can run circles around Zimmer and Elfman. So why aren't they working on Pirates 4? Because it's not really only about talent, it's mostly about salesmanship and business acuity...and the proverbial being at the right place at the right time.

For some of us it hasn't happened yet....and unfortunately for some of us it never will, but it doesn't mean that we're bitter....and it certainly doesn't mean that we can't express a certain opinion about our peers in a public forum.

Look...people criticize Bush all the time....is that because they're bitter that they didn't get elected as president?

Some of you seem to be really concerned about possibly "upsetting" some of these top composers...as if they have any time to hang out this forum or if they're going to lose any sleep over some nobodies criticizing their work. I don't think we ought to live in fear of upsetting the "gods" as this is simply unhealthy. If your work depends on keeping good relationship with some of these big names (maybe because you happen to be a software consultant and trainer?) then your best bet is to be as neutral as possible and avoid threads like these altogether. But if you're a red blooded composer who wears his heart on his sleeve then by all means express yourself, some of the most outspoken and controversial composers were also some of the best!


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 20, 2008)

midphase @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> Hold on gang....I feel like things have spun out of control.
> 
> Some of you seem to be really concerned about possibly "upsetting" some of these top composers...as if they have any time to hang out this forum or if they're going to lose any sleep over some nobodies criticizing their work. I don't think we ought to live in fear of upsetting the "gods" as this is simply unhealthy. If your work depends on keeping good relationship with some of these big names (maybe because you happen to be a software consultant and trainer?) then your best bet is to be as neutral as possible and avoid threads like these altogether. But if you're a red blooded composer who wears his heart on his sleeve then by all means express yourself, some of the most outspoken and controversial composers were also some of the best!



I do not do it because:

There is no constructive purpose in my saying Mr. Big Name did a crappy score for "The Big Budget Movie." Nobody learns anything from that. If I were to do it it would be in the context of "IMHO the score did not work because i.e. the film was very sentimental and the music may it seem even more so, etc. " because at least with that kind of discussion there is the possibility of learning taking place.

Like it or not when it comes from a less successful composer it makes you APPEAR jealous or bitter whether you are or not and since that is not who I am I do not wish to appear to be that way.

Finally L.A. is a small town and you never know who has a friend or colleague or support person visiting one of these forums who will read something critical you say and report it back to someone you wish did not know that. There is simply no point in needlessly making enemies.

Now if one can say to an absolute certainty that he/she will never want to work for another composer or have them recommend you for a score that is below their budget or they are too busy to take (both of which have happened to me) then one can take that posture but I think it is foolish and what has the poster really gained except spouting off his/her opinion to a bunch of people who do not really care about their opinion.

If I were to get very busy there are people here who I would perhaps call both because of their skills but also because I am convinced that they would not go behind my back and bad mouth me. There are others here who while their skills might qualify them for the call who I would not call because I am not convinced that they would not go behind my back and bad mouth me because of the way they have behaved here.

Everyone makes their choices. I make mine not out of fear but out of the desire to conduct myself in what I deem to be a professional manner and to deal constructively with the community.

Others are of course free to reach different conclusions.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 20, 2008)

I like all the film scores ever written and I totally love all the film composers, especially the successful ones in my small town.

Mucho mucho love, kisses, and hugs,
Asp Iring
(213) 213-2132


----------



## wonshu (Feb 20, 2008)

I love baseball...


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 20, 2008)

midphase @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> To prove my point, I cite guys like Nick Phoenix, Craig Sharmat, Thomas J, our beloved Simon Ravn, and sure...why not....Aaron Sapp (here's to you kid) who IMHO can run circles around Zimmer and Elfman.



lol wtf.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 20, 2008)

I have to agree with choco on this. While the aforementioned guys are very talented, comparing them to Elfman is a bit of a stretch. This is a guy who has evolved and grown over his career like maybe no one else. He's tackled some pretty tough forms and styles of music and has always tried to go beyond his abilities (and succeeds!). 

Until I hear the same level of writing for *real orchestras* from those listed above, I will remain unconvinced that they are superior to Elfman. Writing for sampled orchestra and real orchestra is miles apart. Sorry to burst you bubble.

Edit- Now Zimmer is a whole different thing. I'll take a Thomas J. piece over his any day of the week!


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 20, 2008)

To me noone can run circles around Danny's Edward Scissorhands, not even John Williams. 8) I agree Zimmer is a bit of a different story but can anyone on these forums write to picture better and come up with better themes? When I hear the equivalent of the Crimson Tide theme come out of this forum or someone pops up with a sound which changes the soundscape of the film music industry more than Zimmer has i'll give them props.


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

"Until I hear the same level of writing for real orchestras from those listed above, I will remain unconvinced that they are superior to Elfman. Writing for sampled orchestra and real orchestra is miles apart. Sorry to burst you bubble. "

Sorry to burst your bubble...but Elfman works very much the same way that we do....and then hands off his score to very talented orchestrators who make sure it totally rocks with a real orchestra. The music dept. support teams on some of these films are sometimes over 30 people!!!


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

"There is no constructive purpose in my saying Mr. Big Name did a crappy score for "The Big Budget Movie.""

Jay,

Granted I haven't read every message posted to this thread, but for myself, I don't recall saying that someone's score was crappy....I think you're interpreting it that way. I merely meant that they were not unique and have a tendency to sound like many other scores. And if I came face to face with Zimmer and the conversation turned that way, I would probably tell him the very same thing. I don't think he really cares either way, he'll probably be the first one to admit it, but as I previously stated....it is a business and he knows his clients extremely well.

My biggest problem is not with Zimmer (or Elfman, or Rabin), but rather with the multitude of fresh new composers who seek out to imitate that sound as closely as possible instead of trying to develop their own voice (and at least attempt to persuade the directors they work for to not go for the same old same old).


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 20, 2008)

midphase @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> "There is no constructive purpose in my saying Mr. Big Name did a crappy score for "The Big Budget Movie.""
> 
> Jay,
> 
> ...



My comments were not directed at you specifically Kays, they were general in nature. 

That said: )
First of all, in your scenario it is highly unlikely Zimmer or Elfman etc,. would ask you what you thought of their score and if you volunteered that without being asked then you really would be a fool, which I do not believe you to be.

As for your larger point, I think that has always been true. Whenever someone is successful with a "new" sound, there will always be a lot of imitators because there will be demand for it.

For concert hall music I might see it as an issue but for film music, frankly, for me it is irrelevant.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 20, 2008)

Begs the question, again for me anyway: does everyone have a voice? Of course we all have ways of communicating musically, but how rare is it to actually have something or a way to tell/support something that is so unique that many people value it? I taught for a few years in another life, and I would find maybe 3 or 4 per group of 20 who had something that I would call a 'voice'.


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

"To me noone can run circles around Danny's Edward Scissorhands, not even John Williams."

You are such an enigmatic guy, yet I learn something new about you every day Choco!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 20, 2008)

I have always thought that the Edward Scissorhands score was temped at some point with The Fortress of Solitude cue in Superman. Great scores, both of them. Great composers, both of them. Great composers steal. o


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Feb 19 said:


> Seriously, I DO admire your idealism. I have more modest goals. I love to score films/TV. All I care about is doing the work, getting paid, and walking away from it with a happy client and the feeling that I have done a craftsman-like job that helped the film and that others think sounds good. I really am not concerned with how original I am or am not.
> 
> If you visit my website and listen, I doubt you will hear anything that makes you say, "Wow, I never heard that before." But hopefully what you will hear in the music is, emotion, intelligence, and craft that is evident in a wide range of styles both with an orchestra and electronics, as well as the songs I have written that were recorded.
> 
> That is what I have aspired to and continue to strive to achieve.




Thanks for admiring my idealism. But know that it's based in realism. I do the work, too... I don't just talk. (Even though I type a lot of words -- too many words) :D

I hear you. 


I suppose if you consider yourself a craftsmen that we may fundamentally be at odds with the role a film-composer plays. Which is perfectly fine, it is what it is. But my belief is that a composer is far more than a craftsmen. 

I personally am not looking for "Wow, I never heard that before." Not in my own music, nor in anyone else's. What I AM looking for is "honest". (same goes for all aspects of film)

Which, for me, is at odds with this somewhat myopic idea of technique that I often see on this BBS. Meaning, I believe far too many composers get wrapped up in technique, form and function (almost as if they are a computer program) and forget that the primary reason to even USE a composer in film is to help establish the "emotional spine" of the film. I wouldn't say that comes from "craft", that is an innate ability. (One that exists in every artistic medium in my opinion)


How's that for some idealism. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Begs the question, again for me anyway: does everyone have a voice? Of course we all have ways of communicating musically, but how rare is it to actually have something or a way to tell/support something that is so unique that many people value it? I taught for a few years in another life, and I would find maybe 3 or 4 per group of 20 who had something that I would call a 'voice'.




Could be that not every film composer who goes to school and learns the craft/techniques has an innate voice.

I personally feel that "voice" is something you're born with. Craft/technique is a function to help you better express that voice. It's not something you learn in school... Otherwise, everyone stomping the streets after film school would be evenly talented. Some are brilliant, some horrible, the majority being average.


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

I don't think that that's anything that Kid has ever stated that I didn't agree with 100%

You might disagree with him, but in the end it's guys like him that people end up admiring the most...the guys who truly have an impact on the world of creativity.

I'd be willing to bet that if either Beethoven or Wagner were still alive and posting on this forum, they would ruffle so many feathers that in comparison Kid would be extremely tame!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 20, 2008)

midphase @ Wed 20 Feb said:


> I'd be willing to bet that if either Beethoven or Wagner were still alive and posting on this forum, they would ruffle so many feathers that in comparison Kid would be extremely tame!


Considering the few things that I have learned about Beethoven and Wagner, I believe they would have been hardly capable of scoring for film, even less than Stravinsky. Very few successful concert music composers can successfully score for film (Aaron Copland, John Corigliano, and Eliott Goldenthal come to mind). Two different worlds, having in common only one thing: the use of sounds. Bernard Herrmann and John Williams would be the opposite example: they are successful filmscorers who have failed to write successful concert music. However brilliant one might be, one can't have them both. 

More generally, I can hardly see the point of mentioning concert music composers (and their type of skills) in this particular forum. Apples and oranges, aren't they?


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

Ok....how about Bernard Herrmann? He would have been an opinionated fuck I bet!


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 20, 2008)

midphase @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Ok....how about Bernard Herrmann? He would have been an opinionated f#@k I bet!



Due, you really are full of it. Herrmann wrote several concert works and many of them were quite good. Williams has also written several pieces that have enjoyed critical and commercial success. So perhaps they did not resonate with you but don't give us the sweeping "they just couldn't cut-it" proclamations.

Another fellow that dabble successfully in both concert and film worlds was a little known Russian dude named Sergei Prokofiev. But I'm sure you haven't heard of him.


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

Coscina Dude....can you read?

Are you full of it?

My post was concerning the fact that Herrmann was a very opinionated according to various sources, and he didn't have any reservations about speaking his mind.

Aenus made a comment about the fact that I was comparing apples and oranges by bringing up Wagner....so I switched my example to Herrmann. But I was certainly not questioning Herrmann's talent, he's quite possibly the best composer of the 20th century as far as I'm concerned!

You obviously misunderstood me....dude!


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 20, 2008)

Kid, you're writer... and one can see that... any chance you get your open range of thoughts compressed to a readable single paragraph per post?  Actually our professors told us this is a effective way of communiation, as people would listen and therefore have a chance to say yes as opposed to a generic no... 

Just me perhaps, so don't mind me intervening... already supressed that you could have passed your column on to me as you didn't send it to me the first time 
PolarBear


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

Thanks goes to Kays and TJ. Back at'cha.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 20, 2008)

kid-surf @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> [q
> 
> Which, for me, is at odds with this somewhat myopic idea of technique that I often see on this BBS. Meaning, I believe far too many composers get wrapped up in technique, form and function (almost as if they are a computer program) and forget that the primary reason to even USE a composer in film is to help establish the "emotional spine" of the film. I wouldn't say that comes from "craft", that is an innate ability. (One that exists in every artistic medium in my opinion)
> 
> ...



The feelings and the desire to establish the "emotional spine" is innate. The ability to translate it is a function of craft IMHO.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> midphase @ Wed Feb 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok....how about Bernard Herrmann? He would have been an opinionated f#@k I bet!
> ...




Not that Kays needs my help, but...

dcoscina -- You responded to an idea that was clearly never presented.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> kid-surf @ Wed Feb 20 said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...




I disagree... Are we at an impasse? :D


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 20, 2008)

PolarBear @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Kid, you're writer... and one can see that... any chance you get your open range of thoughts compressed to a readable single paragraph per post?  Actually our professors told us this is a effective way of communiation, as people would listen and therefore have a chance to say yes as opposed to a generic no...
> 
> Just me perhaps, so don't mind me intervening... already supressed that you could have passed your column on to me as you didn't send it to me the first time
> PolarBear



It depends on what is being communicated. I would bet your professor offered up plenty of "books".  Perhaps he's/she's even written one.  

I've expressed most of what I wanted to so it's likely that my responses become shorter. But, you are absolutely free to scroll past them if they do not. I don't edit anything I can't make money from. 

No worries though, I've added you and Lux to my column's spam list... consider it an early Christmas present. o-[][]-o


----------



## aeneas (Feb 20, 2008)

dcoscina @ Wed 20 Feb said:


> Due, you really are full of it. Herrmann wrote several concert works and many of them were quite good. Williams has also written several pieces that have enjoyed critical and commercial success.


Who cares about critics? Also, what commercial success?? Their concert music didn't enjoy any commercial success. They're both successful filmscorers, they're definitely not successful concert music composers. Steve Reich, Arvo Part, and Gyorgy Ligeti are successful contemporary concert music composers. They sell. Herrmann and Williams don't sell.



> So perhaps they did not resonate with you but don't give us the sweeping "they just couldn't cut-it" proclamations.


No proclamations. They obviously didn't "cut-it" in the concert music market. So what? They are filmscorers, arguably the best ones ever. My point was that it's extremely rare that one can "cut-it" in both markets. 



> Another fellow that dabble successfully in both concert and film worlds was a little known Russian dude named Sergei Prokofiev. But I'm sure you haven't heard of him.


Prokofiev? A poor example, IMO, 2-3 scores is not much. Also, those Eisenstein's films are little more than artsy oddities. Talking Soviet guys, how about Shostakovich instead? Now THAT was the guy who really "cut-it" in both markets. A truly successful, exceptional concert music composer AND filmscorer. 'Successful', because he sells. 'Exceptional', as in 'exception'. My precise point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2008)

A piece of sacrilege: I remember thinking the music in Edward Scissorhands was too big for the scenes, which were fairly small - too loud in the mix and just too big.

But Danny Elfman is great, of course, so it's not like I'm sneezing at him. And yes, I actually do understand that there are lots of people other than the composer who can be responsible for decisions like that.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 20, 2008)

JohnG @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Daryl @ 18th February 2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Waywyn @ Mon Feb 18 said:
> ...



With all due respect, I worked in L.A. for 23 years. The term "hummers" came from orchestrators working with "composers" who couldn't write but because of relationships, got the gig anyway.

Many of the composers you mentioned are trained composers who do read and write and create indepth sketch scores. 

But some aren't.

Hans doesn't read music. He plays the score into Cubase, gives the MIDI file and the audio to his orchestrator, and it goes from there. I heard Hans say this directly. 

Danny Elfman may today be doing complete sketch scores, but in the beginning he had a lot of help and I know the orchestrator who helped him. 

Before he passed away, Michael Kamen waited until the last minute. I have several friends who orchestrated for him who told me point blank they were tired of writing like Michael Kamen.

So it does go on.

I don't disagree about your other points, which I think are dead on. But we have to admit there are guys getting film scoring gigs who need an orchestrator to make it happen when a live orchestra is required.


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

I agree with Peter....if you hang out in LA long enough....you will hear some stories that most people elsewhere have no idea about.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 20, 2008)

kid-surf @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Feb 20 said:
> 
> 
> > kid-surf @ Wed Feb 20 said:
> ...



It would appear so.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2008)

"Which, for me, is at odds with this somewhat myopic idea of technique that I often see on this BBS. Meaning, I believe far too many composers get wrapped up in technique, form and function (almost as if they are a computer program) and forget that the primary reason to even USE a composer in film is to help establish the "emotional spine" of the film. I wouldn't say that comes from "craft", that is an innate ability. (One that exists in every artistic medium in my opinion) "

Yes, but - to be rude - so what? A point of view + technique beats a point of view + not knowing what the fuck you're doing every time. And in fact technique + not terribly original music beats having a point of view with no technique most of the time.

There's nothing wrong with having a little skill. That's why people work so hard to acquire it.

I should add that while every person is truly unique, very few of us are able to do anything earth-shattering in our lifetimes - whether we're musicians or anything else. But lots of us are competent, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 20, 2008)

Peter Alexander @ Wed 20 Feb said:


> But we have to admit there are guys getting film scoring gigs who need an orchestrator to make it happen when a live orchestra is required.


Yes, we have to admit the inconvenient truth - there ARE guys like that, let me name a few, to their real shame: John Williams, Howard Shore, Thomas Newman, and everybody else. o=< Come on, is there one single Class A composer who doesn't use orchestrators, "to make it happen when a live orchestra is required"? Are there directors who don't need film editors, "to make it happen"?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 20, 2008)

Aeneas, what are you basing your opinion on? I mean, you've repeated the same thing many times over the past few months, but have you ever orchestrated for any of those people to see what they are and aren't capable of doing?


----------



## midphase (Feb 20, 2008)

I think there are a couple of guys out there who do their own orchestrations. Alexandre Desplat comes to mind (incidentally his work on Syriana was rather unique)


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 20, 2008)

Stravinsky was not a failed film composer he just decided not to do it (though he was courted by the likes of Walt Disney.) It's also hard to imagine the great theatre writer and huge fan of cinema not being able to score film since he may be the most borrowed from composer in film history. Elmer Bernstein, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams amd almost every composer I can think of in (and out of) film quote the guy constantly. In fact the three composers I mentioned have outstanding scores that reflect three totally distinct styles from his three periods. The question probably should be how great a film composer would he have been.

As to his character a close friend of his Fritz Zweig the famous conductor and teacher spoke in the warmest terms regarding him to me personally. A recent listen to his rehersals (recording sessions) shows him delighting everyone within earshot and and generating great warmth. Not remotely obnoxious, aloof or condescending.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 21, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> "Which, for me, is at odds with this somewhat myopic idea of technique that I often see on this BBS. Meaning, I believe far too many composers get wrapped up in technique, form and function (almost as if they are a computer program) and forget that the primary reason to even USE a composer in film is to help establish the "emotional spine" of the film. I wouldn't say that comes from "craft", that is an innate ability. (One that exists in every artistic medium in my opinion) "
> 
> Yes, but - to be rude - so what? A point of view + technique beats a point of view + not knowing what the f#@k you're doing every time. And in fact technique + not terribly original music beats having a point of view with no technique most of the time.
> 
> ...




I agree... 8) 

This isn't about all-or-nothing thinking. It's (re: my POV) about balance first and foremost. Then striving for more than what one is "allowed" to do. 

I'm not asserting that one can have no clue what they're doing and arrive at anything meaningful... at least, not consistently -- Part of the reason I work so hard to get better. Always... it's a life's journey IMO.

BTW -- I feel it's rare someone would arrive at earth shattering if that was their goal. I believe one arrives there byway of being creatively honest. So it's more like a nice surprise IMO. On the other hand, who doesn't aim to create their best work each time?

No, I didn't think you were rude... :D I appreciate people sharing their views on this... I think it's important to discuss (every so often) the reasons we're all doing this.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 21, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Wed 20 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > But we have to admit there are guys getting film scoring gigs who need an orchestrator to make it happen when a live orchestra is required.
> ...



With a director it would be more like having your DP set up your camera shots whereby you focus mainly on the performances. (which is something some directors do... although I believe that's cheating unless it's second unit stuff --- It's probably obvious that some directors even get behind the camera. That's pretty hard-core though. That's like playing some of the music yourself. :D)

Although... pre-prod folks usually get a reasonable time to do their job. Unlike post.


----------



## lux (Feb 21, 2008)

This orchestrator vs composer vs hummer vs midi based guy reminds me a bit of the synth debate where some people say youre not a real electronic music composer if you dont program your patch from scratch on your synthetizer....

Orchestrators always say they could compose as the composer theyre working for and they simply dont want. 

Composers say that they can orchestrate as well, but they just dont have the time. 

Who can afford just Gpo say that its everything you need to have a realistic sounding orchestral arrangement. 

People allergic to harmony books say that one just needs to compose with heart and using just a linear language. They say "Hans does it all the time"

Guys who have a pretty strong and formal training say that you dont write effectively unless you have 450 parts moving indipendently in your arrangement.

People that listen TJ arrangement officially say that writing like the golden age is no more necessary those days (but man, how much they would like to....)

Guys with a lazy attitude to music studies say that you just have to fit what happens on screen, that score needs to "work", no matter what the notes are

Choco says none in the music history can draw a circle around the Danny boy.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 21, 2008)

BTW -- I'll get to chill at Thomas Newman's scoring session soon. I'll have a massive boner. He's probably my favorite composer from an emotional standpoint. My guess is that he'll deliver something very inspired (special) this time around. He's always "good", but you know what I mean. I heard the film is amazing.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 21, 2008)

Lux, you had me till this one...

"Guys with a lazy attitude to music studies say that you just have to fit what happens on screen, that score needs to "work", no matter what the notes are "

That is true, the score needs to "work" no matter what the notes are. Which is different than saying the score can work with nonsensical notes. (unless Charlie Kaufman wrote the script)


----------



## lux (Feb 21, 2008)

do you have a lazy attitude to theory? if yes, then I still fit 

Well, i mean expecially that attitude that forcefully justifies compositionally simple approaches as the main root for a successful score. I loved movies with less simply approaches to music, as much as some with a linear and pop feel. Close encounters and Blade Runner are both lovely experiences to watch and hear.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

midphase @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Coscina Dude....can you read?
> 
> Are you full of it?
> 
> ...



WHoops! Sorry midphase, I meant to respond to aeneaus' post not yours. :oops: 


Sorry, I guess I hit the wrong button. My apologies. He's the one who's full of it! I'm tired of his school-yard argumentation tactics. If someone presents a good point he simply invalidates it by saying "I don't care". I'm not sure how old he is but judging from his conversational skills, I'd say high school.


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 21, 2008)

lux @ Thu Feb 21 said:


> This orchestrator vs composer vs hummer vs midi based guy reminds me a bit of the synth debate where some people say youre not a real electronic music composer if you dont program your patch from scratch on your synthetizer....
> 
> Orchestrators always say they could compose as the composer theyre working for and they simply dont want.
> 
> ...



Hehe, that sounds familiar :mrgreen: 

Regarding the "how creative/opinionated can/must/should or should not a composer be vs. the director" question I found an interesting quote from multiple Grammy nominated mastering engineer John Mayfield adressing to his clients:

"Though my primary intent is to make you happy, it is also my duty to make sure that we are meeting or exceeding the aesthetic standards of the market you have chosen to compete in."

http://mayfieldmastering.com/faqs.html

Wise man ...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

lux @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> Guys with a lazy attitude to music studies


I am not sure what you mean by "a lazy attitude to music studies". In your opinion, what would be more "lazy": to limit music studies to notes, or to study the other three elements of music just as much as notes are studied? To me, the latter looks less lazy.



> say that you just have to fit what happens on screen, that score needs to "work", no matter what the notes are


Who said "no matter what notes are"? I always said the obvious thing that notes should work with the film. Also, I said is that, when it comes to film scoring, IMO, notes are at least AS IMPORTANT AS the other three elements of music - and I have reasons that support my pov. You may have a different opinion, and you may have reasons to support your pov. Also, yes - the score must work with the film, you surely agree with that. If the filmmaker is happy with your score and he or she she says that your score works well with his or her film, what more do you want? And that was a simple question. I honestly don't want anything more (besides the check :D), so I am curious about what more do YOU want.



lux @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> Well, i mean expecially that attitude that forcefully justifies compositionally simple approaches as the main root for a successful score.


I don't quite follow - who is "forcefully justifying" what? Also - "simple", "complicated", "main root" - these are just words. There are no universal approaches to filmscoring that will assure successful scores. A successful score is the score that the filmmaker likes. When the filmmaker hands you the check, shakes your hand and thanks you for the great job - then you can be sure that you have delivered a successful score. That is what successful filmscorers do. So, again - what more do you want?



> I loved movies with less simply approaches to music, as much as some with a linear and pop feel. Close encounters and Blade Runner are both lovely experiences to watch and hear.


Exactly. Simple scores are not good (or bad) scores because of their simplicity. Sophisticated scores are not good (or bad) scores because of their sophistication. A score must work with the film, and the only one able to decide whether it works or not is, IMHO, the filmmaker. Who else?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 21, 2008)

I notice you still haven't answered my question, Aeneas. You keep saying John Williams doesn't know how to orchestrate - "to his shame" - and I'd like to know what you're basing that curious opinion on.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> I notice you still haven't answered my question, Aeneas. You keep saying John Williams doesn't know how to orchestrate - "to his shame" - and I'd like to know what you're basing that curious opinion on.


No, I don't "keep saying" that, for I never said that, please read again - I did not address whether or not composers do know how to orchestrate, I just said that they USE orchestrators (is now visible enough? :D). What am I basing that "curious opinion" on? Short answer: imdb. In all big budget films scored by each and every Class A composer, I am seeing Orchestrator: this and that. Do I have to prove that ALL Class A composers actually do use orchestrators? It's obvious that they do, who thinks that they don't?? Sorry, I don't see your point...

edit - "to his shame" was an obvious tongue in cheek...


----------



## nikolas (Feb 21, 2008)

I stoped following the thread but: WHAT!??!?!?!? As far as I know Williams is "one of the few" who DO know how to orchestrate. And his music clearly shows that it's not a puer talent thing, but based on many contemporary techniques (Stravisnky, Ligeti even, etc). And this cannot be the fault of an orchestrator. So how can someone know SO much about music but nothing about orchestration is... well... bizzare about me. Plus in recent concerts he conducted the orchestra himself. Have not seen videos, but it's another bizzare thing to know how to do, without knowing how to orchestrate... Bizzare indeed...

But anyways...


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 21, 2008)

The original Williams scores I've seen were handwritten in pencil on 8 staves with precise directions for the orchestrator. He uses orchestrators as a 'force multiplier', allowing reasonable composition output per day, but is very specific about what he wants from the orchestra.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 21, 2008)

There are composers who use orchestrators because they do not know how to orchestrate.

There are composers who use orchestrators because they do not have time to orchestrate.

I too have see one of John William's 8 line sketches. They are so complete and detailed that you really could bypass the orchestrator and had them straight to a good copyist.

EDIT:

This is not a response to any one particular post, just a clarification.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

I am not judging the reasons behind the use of orchestrators, I was just affirming the obvious fact that everybody uses orchestrators - so the use of orchestrators doesn't say anything about the capacity of a filmscorer to orchestrate.

I know what you're talking about, I have seen a couple of JW's eight lines sketches, which were shorthand orchestrations. Yes, a good copyist could extract the parts from there. Yet, I have not seen JW's sketches for all his scores - he may be not always provide complete details, so he does need and use orchestrators, that's sure thing. 

There is no need people to get inflamed about which composer knows more or better orchestration than another composer. When it comes to big budget flicks, every filmscorer needs and uses orchestrators, that's all I said. I was not addressing the reasons behind that fact, I don't know them, I have no interest in knowing them, and anyways it's not my call to judge those reasons.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

Oh brother.... :roll:

aeneas, I have edited my post as it is obvious you are right and we're all wrong. And I'm frankly tired of arguing semantics for today.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> aeneas, whenever someone presents a rock solid musically sound point you run and hide behind the dismissive "I don't care" stance.


dcoscina, whenever you address a point that I make, you seem unable to refrain from getting personal. May I ask why is that?

Just point one "rock solid musically sound point", then present your opinion on what would make it a "rock solid musically sound point", and then tell me what would be the reason(s) that should make me care about it. I am sorry that you have that perception of things, because I do not "run in hide", and I am only dismissing what I think to be dismissible. Do you feel like you can give me lessons on what IS dismissible and what IS NOT? Do you feel like you're some sort of authority on the matter? Did you make your mission to convert me to your way of thinking?



> Do you have the capacity to admit when someone has a good point and *learn* from their knowledge or do you think your POV is infallible?


Do you have the capacity to address a point without questioning other people various capacities? Mind your own capacities, willya? To my eyes, you are WAY more opinionated than you seem to believe that I am. Your own need to learn is no smaller or bigger than mine, your own knowledge is no smaller or bigger than mine, you are no more and no less "ò/g   p’/g   p“/g   p”/g   p•/g   p–/g   p—/g   p˜/g   p™/g   pš/g   p›/g   pœ/g   p/g   pž/g   pŸ/g   p /g   p¡/g   p¢/h   p£/h   p¤/h   p¥/h   p¦/h   p§/h   p¨/h   p©/h   pª/h   p«/h   p¬/h   p­/h   p®/h   p¯/h   p°/h   p


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

aeneas, the fallacy with your point about choosing to dismiss what you like is that you're ultimately not engaging in a conversation when you do not acknowledge other people's view points, especially those who have significant experience in the field of film scoring. You don't seem (at least to me) to want to accept that others may have valid points- sorry but perhaps I'm opinionated against those who have a "know-it-all" perspective. And perhaps tunnel vision on some topics. I'll concede that. But I respect what Jay, Nikolas, Nick, Thomas J, Craig S., and a few others have to say on this topic as they have more experience than I do and I want to gain more insight into this field based on guys who have real world experience. I did some film scoring in the late '90s but a lot has changed since then.

And I'm not sure swearing at me strengthens your point. It does reinforce my point about school yard conversational tactics however. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 21, 2008)

""to his shame" was an obvious tongue in cheek..."

Obviously it wasn't obvious.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 21, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 21 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 21 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > I notice you still haven't answered my question, Aeneas. You keep saying John Williams doesn't know how to orchestrate - "to his shame" - and I'd like to know what you're basing that curious opinion on.
> ...



aeneas, I have a short story for you regarding John Williams.

I was involved with a recording session where the trombonist plays with John Williams every year at the Half Shell on the Charles River in Boston on July 4th.

He said that 1 year JW got a call on July 4th about 10 minutes before rehearsal asking him to do a JW version of the National Anthem. At rehearsal JW explained that he just got a last minute call to do a special arrangement of the National Anthem. He then (from the conductors podium -- and on the spot) asked the players to take out a pencil. He then proceeded to dictate to each section of the orchestra what to play. At the end he counted off.... and the the whole orchestra played a JW arrangement of the National Anthem.

The trombonist said it was amazing.

So... instead of (perhaps) jumping to conclusions regarding 'A list' composers and their orchestrators, consider for a moment that they might have ridiculous deadlines and need the help of the orchestrators to pick up where the 'A list' composer left off.

Just because a master-chef has a team of sous-chefs working for him, doesn't mean the master-chef doesn't know how to cook. :roll:


----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 21, 2008)

Thonex @ Thu Feb 21 said:


> Just because a master-chef has a team of sous-chefs working for him, doesn't mean the master-chef doesn't know how to cook. :roll:


That's a good analogy, but I prefer to think of orchestrators as being like "fluffers" on a porn set. Sure, in a perfect world, the star of the scene would handle everything herself. But she also needs to "stay fresh." 

So given how important it is for the stars to be at their best when the cameras are rolling, fluffers are a necessity. Just like orchestrators. A perfect analogy, really.


----------



## nikolas (Feb 21, 2008)

Mike: This is the BEST analogy ever! :D


----------



## Brian Ralston (Feb 21, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Thu Feb 21 said:


> That's a good analogy, but I prefer to think of orchestrators as being like "fluffers" on a porn set. Sure, in a perfect world, the star of the scene would handle everything herself. But she also needs to "stay fresh."
> 
> So given how important it is for the stars to be at their best when the cameras are rolling, fluffers are a necessity. Just like orchestrators. A perfect analogy, really.



And right in line with Randy Newman's analogy on the Pleasantville DVD commentary track where he says that film composers are really just akin to "paid whores".
:lol: :wink:


----------



## midphase (Feb 21, 2008)

"WHoops! Sorry midphase, I meant to respond to aeneaus' post not yours."

No problem Coscina, I figured there might be some misunderstanding (not that I don't deserve as equally strong responses to my feather-ruffling posts).


----------



## midphase (Feb 21, 2008)

"He then (from the conductors podium -- and on the spot) asked the players to take out a pencil. He then proceeded to dictate to each section of the orchestra what to play. At the end he counted off.... and the the whole orchestra played a JW arrangement of the National Anthem. "

I think that's a cool story...but in all fairness...he's probably conducted the national anthem a few hundred times and knows the orchestration by heart. It's John Williams' equivalent of a rock band improvising Freebird with the lead guitarist giving on the spot directions to the other players.

Don't get me wrong, I love John Williams and I think he's supremely talented, but I wanted to present a point of view which might make the whole story a bit less "supernatural" in character.

When it really comes down to it, these guys are as human as you or I. John Williams studied with some amazing people like Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco, and was a session player for some amazing composers such as Herrmann, there is no doubt in my mind that this type of exposure to the masters gave him a musical insight that most of us can only dream about...and I'm sure in 50 years of experience, he's learned a trick or two that to us might seem like an extraordinary feat.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 21, 2008)

And you know what, Mike? I keep trying to explain to my wife why I need all these fluffers, but she just doesn't accept it.

Women.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> aeneas, the fallacy with your point about choosing to dismiss what you like is that you're ultimately not engaging in a conversation


No, "not engaging in a conversation" is not a fallacy. To say that it is a fallacy - that's a fallacy.



> when you do not acknowledge other people's view points, especially those who have significant experience in the field of film scoring.


Do acknowledge whatever you want to acknowledge, then leave the others acknowledge whatever they want to acknowledge, and do not attempt to judge people on the basis of what they may acknowledge or not. You are in no position to give 'acknowledging lessons' to anyone. So far, you failed to acknowledge my clear to the point questions, also you continuously fail to address the points, while focusing on the person. That's low and fallacious, in my books.



> You don't seem (at least to me) to want to accept


Why are you insisting on that nonsense about "what I want"? Are you interested in a discussion about that? Who else is interested in such a discussion? If I dismiss this subject (about "what I want") as irrelevant to this thread, what would you make of that? That I "run and hide", right?



> that others may have valid points


How 'valid' other points are depends entirely of what I think of them. "Give peace a chance" is a valid point ONLY if I think it to be a valid point. Same about "Ausländer aus", or any other point. It's me who decides whether a point is valid or not. It is not your call to decide that for me - can you acknowledge that? 



> sorry but perhaps I'm opinionated against those who have a "know-it-all" perspective.


Then go on and be opinionated against your own "know-it-all" perspective. I am far from having a "know-it-all" perspective, it is you who's displaying a "know-it-all" perspective on the subject: 'what perspective I might have'.



> And perhaps tunnel vision on some topics. I'll concede that.


Then concede it about your own tunnel vision. Or, maybe your own tunnel vision is precisely what prevents you from conceding it. Maybe your own tunnel vision is incapable of conceding itself as being a tunnel vision.



> But I respect what Jay, Nikolas, Nick, Thomas J, Craig S., and a few others have to say on this topic as they have more experience than I do and I want to gain more insight into this field based on guys who have real world experience.


So the value of what you read is based on WHO wrote it. Good for you. To me, a point is in no way validated by my impression on the person who makes it. If something appears to be a valid point to me (if I don't find fault in it), then that is a valid point, regardless of who said it. BTW, how valid does this point seem to you? - "Film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has on the book I am reading."



> And I'm not sure swearing at me strengthens your point.


I did not f***ing swear on the f***ing purpose to f***ing strengthen my f***ing points - I am sorry if you feel that I did. I was just saying that you are not in the position to judge me in no f***ing way - and that's a fact of life, acknowledge it. 

What strengthens my points, and what weakens yours, is the fact that I do address the points, and you do address the person while talking about "fallacies". That is what I would call "full of it".



> It does reinforce my point about school yard conversational tactics however. :lol:


Your "point" is nothing more than a fallacious assumption.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 21, 2008)

[quote:60b020e2f7="dcoscina @ Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:58 am"]aeneas, the fallacy with your point about choosing to dismiss what you like is that you're ultimately not engaging in a conversation when you do not acknowledge other people's view points, especially those who have significant experience in the field of film scoring. You don't seem (at least to me) to want to accept that others ò/   p¨‚/   p¨ƒ/   p¨„/   p¨…/   p¨†/   p¨‡/   p¨ˆ/   p¨‰/   p¨Š/   p¨‹/   p¨Œ/   p¨/   p¨Ž/   p¨/   p¨/   p¨‘/   p¨’/   p¨“/   p¨”/   p¨•/   p¨–/   p¨—/   p¨˜/   p¨™/   p¨š/   p¨›/   p¨œ/   p¨/   p¨ž/   p¨Ÿ/   p¨ /   p¨¡/   p¨¢/   p¨£/   p¨¤/   p¨¥/   p¨¦/   p¨§/   p¨¨/   p¨©/   p¨ª/   p¨«/   p¨¬/   p¨­/   p¨®/   p¨¯/   p¨°/   p¨±/   p¨²/   p¨³/   p¨´/   p¨µ/   p¨¶/‘   p¨·/‘   p¨¸/‘   p¨¹/‘   p¨º/‘   p¨»/‘   p¨¼/‘   p¨½/‘   p¨¾/‘   p¨¿/‘   p¨À/‘   p¨Á/‘   p¨Â/‘   p¨Ã/‘   p¨Ä/‘   p¨Å/‘   p¨Æ/‘   p¨Ç/‘   p¨È/‘   p¨É/‘   p¨Ê/‘   p¨Ë/‘   p¨Ì/‘   p¨Í/‘   p¨Î/‘   p¨Ï/‘   p¨Ð/‘   p¨Ñ/‘   p¨Ò/‘   p¨Ó/‘   p¨Ô/‘   p¨Õ/‘   p¨Ö/‘   p¨×/‘   p¨Ø/‘


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Feb 21 said:


> You are wasting your valuable time arguing with this guy. I respectfully suggest you decide to do as I have and just ignore him.



Yeah I agree Jay. If anus wants to go on about the philosophy behind music and continue forge into more esoteric abstract meanderings, he's welcome to it. Me, I'm going back to Piston's Harmony as all of this discussion about notes and such has got me wanting to get back to the roots of my studies. It's been a while since I had a look at that stuff.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> That's what you feel like after you've tried to discuss something with aeneas.


I am sorry for your troubles, yet I don't feel responsible for them. Ashermusic has already pointed to the remedy for your type of sickness: stop reading my posts. If you got carsickness, then don't get in the car.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> If anus wants to go on about the philosophy behind music and continue forge into more esoteric abstract meanderings, he's welcome to it.


Send my congrats to your anus, he's doing a great job as your brain's replacement.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

Well I can see that things are degenerating here so I will apologize to aeneas for the cheap shot I made in my last post. 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some matters concerning how we view music.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 21 Feb said:


> Well I can see that things are degenerating here so I will apologize to aeneas for the cheap shot I made in my last post.
> 
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree on some matters concerning how we view music.


Right, apologies accepted, no hard feelings.  

My main disagreement is about getting personal, any other disagreements (on words, opinions, "views", etc.) are OK with me.

So... uh, what was this all about?... Oh, yeah, right - every score sounds the same to ME TOO. 



kid-surf @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> As it's been said to me many times ---- "This is a ME TOO town... Nobody likes anything until someone more important does. Then it's, ME TOO!"


 o-[][]-o


----------



## Thonex (Feb 21, 2008)




----------



## aeneas (Feb 21, 2008)




----------



## Thonex (Feb 21, 2008)




----------



## JustinW (Feb 21, 2008)

This is a long thread and I am not sure if it was mentioned, but I totally dug the 30 Days of Night score.

It is pretty radical!


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

I think certain composers (mostly Media Ventures) have a generic or homogeneous sound. I do think guys like Goldsmith and even Alex North pioneered different sounds. Also liked what Leonard Rosenman did. I think he studied under Schoenberg or at least under a known serialist (composer not killer).


----------



## musicpete (Feb 21, 2008)

I guess, that homogenous sound is, what is "in" right now. Maybe that will change.

And don't forget that even Goldsmith (as much as I look up to him) basically delivered the same action score for the last 15 years of his life. Over and over again. Don't you also have his "danger motiv" ringing in your ear all the time? You know, that ascending short line usually for strings + some brass. His genius lied in doing the same thing over and over again for YEARS, but still finding a way to make it sound a little different, a little fresh, a little interesting EVERY SINGLE time.

I also think you guys are discussing multiple topics at the same time, so you'll never reach an agreement.

* How did he do it? Why do so few composers nowadays are able to do that?
* Is it really necessary to do it? So many people are happy with the homogenous sound tapestry.

Millions of people love McDonalds food, so it must be great food. All those people can't be wrong! 

Personally I think that nowadays most music for films fits neither the emotional context nor the onscreen action. That goes for nearly all Hollywood pictures scored by the "young and new guys" as well as the "sound tapestry guys". It was one of the reasons I stopped going to the cinema at all: The music kept pulling me out of the plot, destroying the suspension of disbelief, killing my enjoyment. But obviously I am only one amongst many who like it the way it is.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 21, 2008)

I think Goldsmith was delivering varied scores in the '70s to mid-'80s. Maybe even up to Total Recall but then he started phoning in his scores. They lacked the complexity of his earlier works although he himself said he wasn't going to bust his ass just so some engineer could drown his music out with 80- tracks of sound effects.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm probably the only one but there isn't one Goldsmith score that I really like.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2008)

Pervert!


----------



## midphase (Feb 22, 2008)

"I'm probably the only one but there isn't one Goldsmith score that I really like."

As I said before....I learn something new about you every day!

One of these days I'll actually learn what type of music you write....then we'll have gotten somewhere!


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 22, 2008)

My musical technique is basically the same as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ860P4i ... re=related

My music is similar but maybe less complex.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 22, 2008)

midphase @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> "I'm probably the only one but there isn't one Goldsmith score that I really like."
> 
> As I said before....I learn something new about you every day!
> 
> One of these days I'll actually learn what type of music you write....then we'll have gotten somewhere!



Personally, I am afraid to hear the music of someone who does not like Goldsmith


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 22, 2008)

choco, have you heard PAPILLON or Islands in the Stream? What about First Blood? There's some awesome stuff on that. 

I'm surprised to hear that you do not like Goldsmith. Don't utter that on the JWFan.net forum or else Stefancos will kill you...


----------



## Thonex (Feb 22, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> My musical technique is basically the same as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ860P4i ... re=related
> 
> My music is similar but maybe less complex.



Adorable.


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 22, 2008)

dcoscina @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> choco, have you heard PAPILLON or Islands in the Stream? What about First Blood? There's some awesome stuff on that.
> 
> I'm surprised to hear that you do not like Goldsmith. Don't utter that on the JWFan.net forum or else Stefancos will kill you...



Nah I haven't heard thosò/ä   pÂå/ä   pÂæ/ä   pÂç/ä   pÂè/ä   pÂé/ä   pÂê/ä   pÂë/ä   pÂì/ä   pÂí/ä   pÂî/ä   pÂï/ä   pÂð/ä   pÂñ/ä   pÂò/ä   pÂó/ä   pÂô/ä   pÂõ


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 22, 2008)

Choc0 has shared much of his music with me in private... I mean, only because we're going out n' shit. It's one of the perks...

Otherwise... Everything Mike says is copied to my private diary.


This would probably be a really bad time to admit that JW's scores don't do a whole lot for me... wouldn't it... or would it? :D

I think there's a difference between recognizing someone's skill and being moved emotionally by it.

6 pages later I've got about 3-4 scores to check out. You guys rule!!!! o-[][]-o 



But seriously... I'd rather people express some passion about this subject than point out scores they felt where covering new ground. Passion leads to creation. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 22, 2008)

Speaking of passion...


I acquired a TV agent today at the biggest baddest agency in town. =o But I'm hip-pocketed until I think up some ultra amazing TV show that sells for katrillion dollars.

TV's not really my game... but hey, one thing at a time. Chip away. :twisted: Hopefully I'll have a feature agent soon. It takes people a million years to read anything right now. (anyone here wanna rep me... not rape, but rep?)

Next week my script goes to the No Country people. I bet they hate it, but you never know?


p.s. If you've got any good "dark fugged-up" TV show ideas please PM me! :D


Ok... enough patting myself on the back... of my nuts. :evil: Let's argue! 



Bring it! o-[][]-o


----------



## midphase (Feb 22, 2008)

"Next week my script goes to the No Country people. I bet they hate it,"

Now that's the spirit!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 22, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sat 23 Feb said:


> Ok... enough patting myself on the back... of my nuts. :evil: Let's argue!
> 
> 
> 
> Bring it! o-[][]-o


Oh yeah? Alright then, eat this: I think you SUCK! And I don't care about your agents and your producer wife and scripts and stuff. You may get bigger than Zimmer, you just SUCK and Zimmer SUCKS and I'm through with you both!!

Yours hatefully,
Heinz Schnitzel


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 22, 2008)

midphase @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> "Next week my script goes to the No Country people. I bet they hate it,"
> 
> Now that's the spirit!




I'm idealistic... but I'm also a realist. Everyone hates everything, unless they love it...


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 22, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> kid-surf @ Sat 23 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > Ok... enough patting myself on the back... of my nuts. :evil: Let's argue!
> ...




My wife's not a producer!!! :x 

Otherwise, I calmly agree...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sat 23 Feb said:


> My wife's not a producer!!! :x


That's more like it. No tell me you have invented those agents and you don't write any scripts, and we're cool. o-[][]-o 



> Otherwise, I calmly agree...


You see? - that's what I hate the most about you!... :evil:


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

midphase @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> What do you know?


can i presume that's a rhetorical question?



midphase @ Fri Feb 22 said:


> You're just a poseur!


well, thanks!
i'm just thrilled to discover that there's 
one more place in the world where i 
can feel secure that my
words will be taken at face-value.

d


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Yours hatefully,
> Heinz Schnitzel


Why this cheap shot at Germans? Can't you ever sign with your real name if you have so much important things to say?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

poseur @ Sat 23 Feb said:


> midphase @ Fri Feb 22 said:
> 
> 
> > You're just a poseur!
> ...



d, (or b, or q, or whatever)
You will probably be less thrilled to discover that, here - excepting for you, for yours truly, and for a couple of other guys - all statements apparently are not taken at face-value, but rather considered function of who said it. For example: when I say that rhythms, timbres, notes, and dynamics, are equally important to filmscoring - that will be either laughed at or passed as a blasphemy. OTOH, when someone says that "film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has on the book I am reading", and the name of that someone happens to be Igor Stravinsky - then that statement is an indisputable truth. But just imagine the reactions if I, instead of dear ol' Igor, would have taken credit myself for that statement...

The mainstream paradigm here is that the value of a statement is function of how much the people love/hate the individual (or rather 'their perception of that individual') who said it. Basic logic, mind hygiene, are rare things - most people around are mentally scripted/wired in such a way that they are blinded by their emotional inclination to judge people rather than to weigh ideas at their face-value. That is arcane, obscure "science", some sort of alchemy, only found in old books...

Maybe that is because education is what it is, and in schools, at every level, they are missing the single most important discipline: Thinking. Now, forums, google, and wikipedia, are tools that make thinking even more obsolete. But I digress... - Yes, all scores are the same, all films are the same, and all ideas are the same - it only depends on who utters them.


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas, in all fairness, there are some pretty open-minded people on this forum. Yeah, I went after you more on a personal level but I did and do apologize. You must realize though that following or adhering to basic principles that have been established as the vocabulary for music is what most of us will defer to because we are talking about music.

I studied with composer James Tenney in college for several years and he was all about approaching music and perceiving music from different angles. When I was a mere composition student, I actually had a hard time with his musical ideology. However, when I started doing a degree in philosophy, I could see how his notions were founded and put forth.

I don't ever believe that music is solely about notes, but the predominance of a language or system that has been built, first and foremost of tones, does make for a compelling argument for the importance of notes in the music system.

Rhythm is inextricably linked to notes however is it is likò0   pÏ50   pÏ60   pÏ70   pÏ80   pÏ90   pÏ:0   pÏ;0   pÏ<0   pÏ=0   pÏ>0   pÏ?0   pÏ@0   pÏA0   pÏB0   pÏC0   pÏD0   pÏE0   pÏF0   pÏG0   pÏH0   pÏI0   pÏJ0   pÏK0   pÏL0   pÏM0   pÏN0   pÏO0   pÏP0   pÏQ0   pÏR0   pÏS0   pÏT0   pÏU0   pÏV0   pÏW0   pÏX0   pÏY0   pÏZ0   pÏ[0   pÏ\0   pÏ]0   pÏ^0   pÏ_0   pÏ`0   pÏa0   pÏb0   pÏc0   pÏd0   pÏs0   pÏt0   pÏu0   pÏv0   pÏw0   pÏx0   pÏy0   pÏz0   pÏ{0   pÏ|0   pÏ}0   pÏ~0   pÏ0   pÏ€0   pÏ0   pÏ‚0   pÏƒ0   pÏ„0   pÏ…0   pÏ†0   pÏ‡0   pÏˆ0   pÏ‰0   pÏŠ0   pÏ‹0   pÏŒ0   pÏ0   pÏŽ0   pÏ0   pÏ0   pÏ‘0   pÏ’0   pÏ“0   pÏ”0   pÏ•0   pÏ–0   pÏ—0   pÏ˜0   pÏ™0   pÏš0   pÏ›0   pÏœ0   pÏ0   pÏž0   pÏŸ0   pÏ 0   pÏ¡0   pÏ¢0   pÏ£0   pÏ¤0   pÏ¥0   pÏ¦0   pÏ§0   pÏ¨0   pÏ©0   pÏª0   pÏ«0   pÏ¬0   pÏ­0   pÏ®0   pÏ¯0   pÏ°0   pÏ±0   pÏ²              ò0   pÏ´0   pÏµ0   pÏ¶0   pÏ·0   pÏ¸0   pÏ¹0   pÏº0   pÏ»0   pÏ¼0   pÏ½0   pÏ¾0   pÏ¿0   pÏÀ0   pÏÁ0   pÏÂ0   pÏÃ0   pÏÄ0   pÏÅ0   pÏÆ0   pÏÇ0   pÏÈ0   pÏÉ0   pÏÊ0   pÏË0   pÏÌ0   pÏÍ0   pÏÎ0   pÏÏ0   pÏÐ0   pÏÑ0   pÏÒ0   pÏÓ0   pÏÔ0   pÏÕ0   pÏÖ0   pÏ×0   pÏØ0   pÏÙ0   pÏÚ0   pÏÛ0   pÏÜ0   pÏÝ0   pÏÞ0   pÏß0   pÏà0   pÏá0   pÏâ0


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> d, (or b, or q, or whatever)


yes; it's definitely "d".



aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> You will probably be less thrilled to discover that, here - excepting for you, for yours truly, and for a couple of other guys - all statements apparently are not taken at face-value, but rather considered function of who said it.


well:
that's usually the case w/forum chats, no?
typically, the words of the folks who are NOT anonymous,
whose work is actually continuously presented in
the broader target-zone of a truly public (non-verbal),
carbon-based physical realm,
are taken with a bit more "weight" by other folks working
within the same fields-of-play.
while that seems "natural", to me,
it also appears to me that
"good" ideas are..... "good" ideas.
to those receptive to them, of course.
regardless of the perception of pedigree.




aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> For example: when I say that rhythms, timbres, notes, and dynamics, are equally important to filmscoring - that will be either laughed at or passed as a blasphemy.


whereas i, a working composer, can agree on that
in many cases,
i remain personally focussed
on the effects of the "emotional", symbolic
connections between texture, tone, recording sonics &
character, plot & perspective.....
..... but, this focus is not meant (in my own "works")
to exist at the expense of the myriad tangible, workable
elements, including notes, melodies,
harmonic stillness & movement.
just fwiw.



aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> OTOH, when someone says that "film music should have the same relationship to the film drama that somebody's piano playing in my living room has on the book I am reading", and the name of that someone happens to be Igor Stravinsky - then that statement is an indisputable truth. But just imagine the reactions if I, instead of dear ol' Igor, would have taken credit myself for that statement...


indeed, an interesting statement (uttered in a quite different era of film, eh?) from
one of my own musical icons, but one with which
i most heartily disagree.....
(i had a couple of heated arguments re: "scoring-approach" with elmer bernstein,
whose work i also respect, revere, and often love.)



aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> The mainstream paradigm here is that the value of a statement is function of how much the people love/hate the individual (or rather 'their perception of that individual') who said it. Basic logic, mind hygiene, are rare things - most people around are mentally scripted/wired in such a way that they are blinded by their emotional inclination to judge people rather than to weigh ideas at their face-value. That is arcane, obscure "science", some sort of alchemy, only found in old books...
> 
> Maybe that is because education is what it is, and in schools, at every level, they are missing the single most important discipline: Thinking. Now, forums, google, and wikipedia, are tools that make thinking even more obsolete. But I digress... - Yes, all scores are the same, all films are the same, and all ideas are the same - it only depends on who utters them.


well, that's well-spoken, imo,
though i tend not to place (nor look for)
external "blame-targets" for any lack of
integrity in my own concepts & their execution.

but, it does sound a bit sad for ye to feel that way, here,
& continue to participate in comradely discussions.....
..... my own engagement on vi-ctrl has been minimal, and (¿as with you, i believe?) is anonymous,
so lives pretty completely in the realm of the verbal/conceptual, to date:
so far, no-one seems to vociferously
reject the few things i've posted.
i guess i'll find out for myself, though!

*edit / addendum:*
i do find it a wee bit odd
that so many folks complain, here,
about the much-ballyhooed films & their scores
--- like, "oscar"-nominated films, etc ---
but seem to continuously discuss so little else.

d


----------



## aeneas (Feb 23, 2008)

poseur @ Sat 23 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:
> 
> 
> > d, (or b, or q, or whatever)
> ...


Alright, I can accept that, d. As for the rest of your post, tho'... not so sure... would you post some of yer music, so I'd know what to make of what ye're saying there?... o

æ


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 23, 2008)

poseur @ 23/2/2008 said:


> i do find it a wee bit odd
> that so many folks complain, here,
> about the much-ballyhooed films & their scores
> --- like, "oscar"-nominated films, etc ---
> but seem to continuously discuss so little else.



By all means then d, start some threads about other things please.


----------



## midphase (Feb 23, 2008)

I was joking about my post since anyone who calls themselves poseur obviously has a sense of humor.

Back on track....one of the things that I didn't mention in my previous posts and that I don't think was touched on is the effectiveness of film music outside of the film (which relates to why not much sounds different).

I'm a firm believer that by taking the music outside of the film, only in rare cases does it function as a self contained work in much the same way that if you were to watch a movie without audio it wouldn't function either.

Film music is created entirely as a function of the picture, and if the picture is not much different than other films, then why should the music?

The only real times I listen to soundtracks, are for reference (ie. I'm looking to rip someone off). Otherwise aside from some isolated cues, listening to entire soundtracks for the hell of it can be a boring experience and I don't really know any non-composer (except for maybe Choco...hehe) who does that.

So maybe the principal blame for these soundtracks sounding like the same old stuff over and over shouldn't go to Hansie and the other usual suspects....but mostly to Bruckie and the other usual suspects who continue to make uninspired movies which are cloning each other!


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> poseur @ 23/2/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > i do find it a wee bit odd
> ...


well-spotted, ned.

..... still a wee bit shy, here.....

but, will (eventually) do, methinks.

d


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

midphase @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> I was joking about my post since anyone who calls themselves poseur obviously has a sense of humor.


what, ho!
and still, the accusations fly!
:wink: 

d


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 23, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> would you post some of yer music, so I'd know what to make of what ye're saying there?


Pretty bold coming from you, ain't it?

Hans No-Schnitzel-today


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 23, 2008)

midphase @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> The only real times I listen to soundtracks, are for reference (ie. I'm looking to rip someone off). Otherwise aside from some isolated cues, listening to entire soundtracks for the hell of it can be a boring experience and I don't really know any non-composer (except for maybe Choco...hehe) who does that.



It's not boring if you have an imagination. 8) Weird that you don't know any non composers who listen to film music, I know a few in real life and if you go to any film music message board like FSM or something a good portion of those people don't compose.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 23, 2008)

Have a look at all the social networks or e.g. last.fm to see there are quite a few soundtrack lovers who couldn't even play an A on a keyboard if you ask them to.


----------



## midphase (Feb 23, 2008)

Interesting...I guess I can only go by my personal experience. I feel that many soundtracks nowadays which get released on CD (or iTunes) are mostly a vanity thing for the composer rather than an actual good source of income for the composer and label...but maybe I'm wrong.

Interestingly enough, I was approached by the producer of my last film to release the soundtrack on CD...and I pretty much talked him out of it since I would feel really bad asking my mom to go buy one of my CD's!


----------



## Daryl (Feb 23, 2008)

midphase @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Interesting...I guess I can only go by my personal experience. I feel that many soundtracks nowadays which get released on CD (or iTunes) are mostly a vanity thing for the composer rather than an actual good source of income for the composer and label...but maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I was approached by the producer of my last film to release the soundtrack on CD...and I pretty much talked him out of it since I would feel really bad asking my mom to go buy one of my CD's!


However, the Publisher has a obligation to attempt to exploit the music outside of the film, and a soundtrack CD is one way they can do this, when they have no intention of doing anything else, apart from collecting half of your Royalties. :evil: 

D


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 23, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Yep, it's meaningless to me whether or not a score works outside the film. Who are the people saying it's important that it does? Exactly --> COMPOSERS. :D Nobody else cares.



Hmmm, I'm not sure if every 300th or less Amazon.com buyer is a composer... must be an awful lot of us then... and it's not only titles that are around since 2 or 4 weeks in the charts:

#284 in Music - There Will Be Blood
http://www.amazon.com/There-Will-Blood-Jonny-Greenwood/dp/B000XA50MK/ref=pd_ts_m_29?ie=UTF8&s=music (http://www.amazon.com/There-Will-Blood- ... F8&amp;s=music)

#356 in Music - Atonement
http://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Dario-Marianelli/dp/B000TKW3E2/ref=pd_ts_m_36?ie=UTF8&s=music (http://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Dario-M ... F8&amp;s=music)

#416 in Music - Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse Of The Black Pearl
http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Caribbean-Curse-Black-Pearl/dp/B0000A1RJI/ref=pd_ts_m_41?ie=UTF8&s=music (http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Caribbean ... F8&amp;s=music)

And that's within music category where they track Pop, Rock, Goa, Country, Jazz, Billboard, everything! Astonishing to you? Madness?!

PolarBear

PS: Of course we have to seperate people into two categories: "Soundtrack (Various Artists)" listeners and "Score" listeners. I only pointed out for the latter, which this [topic] EDIT -> discussion is about.


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> I agree Kays...
> I've long blamed the directors and producers (in general). Mostly the producers and studios the higher we go.


understood, somehow.
but: there remains, imo, much that is good in film-music.
and, if your "blame" is true:
takes 2 to (really) tango, no?
the composers
--- and the onslaught of the "music haus" approach to scoring ---
MUST be complicit, in this, to varying degrees.




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> But it's to the point now where indie guys are trying to cop studio looking films (meaning -- junk for dollars).


more so than ever, i think:
esp. wherever indie filmmakers' primary aim is to reach the broadest audience possible,
in opposition to simply making the best films they can make,
for creative, aesthetic & artistic purposes, within their budgets.




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Nobody is ever going to convince me that this is the brainwashed mindset I need to adopt. That I should stand in line to write and/or direct the next piece of factory crap while plastering a mannequin smile to my face. Or, trying to mimic crap, only, done with a lower budget and less than famous actors.


me, i don't think there's any concerted effort at "brainwash" going on, here,
just the same-old-same-old "art-(or-is-it entertainment-)meets-commerce" conflict,
amp'ed waaaaaaaay the f••• up by the medium's huge outreach
& the number of bucks involved.
as far as i can tell,
it's up to you to decide what you're gonna do,
what you'll create,
which restrictions you'll accept or reject,
what you'll sacrifice to do so,
and how.
¿no?



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> There's still a few people left in the Hollywood world that think like me.


methinks there may be more than a few with similar focii, frankly,
though (sadly) not all of them are "working" w/consistency;
then again, neither are the remaining schmoes, so.....



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> In general, they're the ones doing the films in which composers actually get to "create". They're the ones doing the films the filmmaking community concludes are "good". They're the ones doing the films I like to see. They're the one's who will create films that matter past opening weekend.


very idealistic of you;
being & working in h-wood?, my feelings in those specific regards are:
not everything is what it seems to be.




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Seems like most composers dream of scoring the biggest films there are. (Star Wars / LOTR etc).


well, not i.



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Seems like most spec cues you hear are aimed at big to huge.


not mine. 



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Yep, it's meaningless to me whether or not a score works outside the film.


to me, that's tantamount to saying that it's meaningless whether or not 
a script works outside the film;
aesthetically successful music, on its own,
might be seen to be about the integrity of its intention & execution;
looked at in this light, i prefer to be able to hear the full intention
& character of a film through its score..... w/musical integrity intact
and..... errrrmmmm..... "enjoyable",
without the picture.



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Who are the people saying it's important that it does? Exactly --> COMPOSERS. :D


well, of course!
on one hand, you seem to be complaining about the lack of
aesthetic passion & commitment, while on the other you're attempting to
de-ball many of those who sweat over those very things.....
?????
are ye just on a rant?




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> Nobody else cares. Not even directors. They may say they do but that's just to seem cool to the composer crowd.


in my experience, that is clearly not always true.



kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> The fact is, all they care about is that it works in the film... even the really smart/hip/cool directors.


along with them, i only care about what "works" in the film:
but, composers are filmmakers, too, ya know:
many of the directors i've worked with, lately, are babes-in-the-woods
compared to many composers, barely having many clues at all about the 
function of score (vs. its "appearance"),
and
--- if i've done my job well ---
i damn well better feel that the music stands on its own.

and, dude:
as far as i'm concerned,
there hasn't been either a "hip" or a "cool"
in my (admittedly addled) memory that was worth its (even alternative) media-value..... certainly not as 
benchmarks for quality & lasting value.




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> One last thing... I find it amusing how successfully the studio people have brainwashed so many creatives into believing that aiming for BIG MONEY through copy-catting is the way to go. I guess that's the way you do it, you make it seem "cool" to be their bitch.


well..... it's all about what we want, eh?
i don't want that.
but, i also don't apply the word "creative" to anyone
whom i don't feel deserves it.
maybe i'm a di••head,.
..... hmmmm.....




kid-surf @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> this town rocks! =o


indeed:
ha!

d

ps:
forgive me if i appear to be argumentative with you;
i do seem to agree with the core of the attitude & approach you've
been presenting in your posts, here.....


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

80% of film scores today are by-the-numbers uninteresting aural wall paper IMO. I review film scores for a magazine so I have to hear a lot of them and they all sound the same after awhile. 

A couple notable exceptions from last year were:

David Shire's Zodiac (very cool retro '70s score- very intellectually approached)

Jonny Greenwood's There Will Be Blood (again, a more academic, concert world approach, heaven forbid) I give PT Anderson credit for having the BALLS to let Greenwood score his movie this way

Alexandre Desplat's Lust Caution- nice score, a little more soundscape than his normal stuff but nice nonetheless

Carter Burwell's No Country For Old Men- even though there doesn't seem to be any music in the film, there is. Where I have no idea but apparently he did compose "music". another intellectual approach. Very cool.

Conclusion- some composers actually get a chance to be creative and approach a score with their MINDS which usually yields a more interesting result as opposed to the touchy-feely scoring with emotions approach that is utterly bereft of real narrative meaning and substance half the time and only serves to manipulate the audience by patronizing them and TELLING Them what to feel.

'nuff said.


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> 80% of film scores today are by-the-numbers uninteresting aural wall paper IMO. I review film scores for a magazine so I have to hear a lot of them and they all sound the same after awhile.


afaik, 80% is not equal to "all".
gotta love that extra 20%! 

d


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 23, 2008)

The soundtrack release is ALL Greenwood which is what I based my review and my opinion in the post above on, not the Part or Brahms.


----------



## poseur (Feb 23, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sat Feb 23 said:


> The soundtrack release is ALL Greenwood which is what I based my review and my opinion in the post above on, not the Part or Brahms.


thanks.

d


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 24, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Yippee, statistics!! Can I play?
> 
> Eighty percent of ANY genre's music sounds pretty much the same and boring. Eighty percent of books are boring. Eighty percent of ANYTHING, including this thread, is boring.
> 
> ...



ROTFL!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 24, 2008)

I've heard 10% from some of my mentors. I think I agree. That said, I try to be game enough to stay open to new works/art, just in case I miss out on the rare good ones.


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 24, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> 80% of film scores today are by-the-numbers uninteresting aural wall paper IMO.


Is that because they are an aural wall paper or because there are 1 of the 80%? So if it was the single or one of a very few soundtracks that feature an aural wallpaper sound... would your opinion hold true? Isn't that then a bit what I asked aeneas above, being unique making things interesting for the sake of differentation itself, no matter if creativity was involved?




dcoscina @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> David Shire's Zodiac (very cool retro '70s score- very intellectually approached)


Just had a quick preview on Amazon and therefore can't really rate it, so I'll ask the more informed: Would he stand out from the 80% scores that were released in the 70's? Is it that he only combined 80% from there with 80% from now more or less successfully? Does 2x 80% make 160% creativity?

Of course, there can't be 100% mutual distinct, as the mathematicans would say, scores. Which leads me to another question, that might be even somehow religous: How do we discern the good 20% from the 80% mediocre or bad stuff? If everything would really not sound the same, a hundred percent, could we tell we are in the bad, the medicore or the good class (a mathematical problem!)?

Let's assume we're ballooning somewhere in the fog. We don't know where we are, we don't know the direction we're going, we don't see the sun, a hopeless situation. Suddenly there's another balloon coming along, so we're shouting: "Hey there, HEY! Where are we?!" While the other balloon is fading away in the fog again already the answer we hear is: "In a balloon." You know why that balloonist had to be a mathematician? The answer was 100% correct but completely useless to us.

So - we just can discern the creative stuff from the rest because we *know* the rest pretty good. Unless the creative parts become *the rest* and therfore boring.

Hopefully not too mathematical an answer...
PolarBear


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

Every score sounds the same *to you*... Perhaps, there was no intention for those scores to stand out *to you*. What would make a filmscorer want his score to stand out *to you*? Why would it be important, for a filmscorer, that his/her score stands out *to you*? o


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 24, 2008)

Well if one reads a little here and there in the thread one could easily get the impression that this *you* is a virtual *us*.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

PolarBear @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> Well if one reads a little here and there in the thread one could easily get the impression that this *you* is a virtual *us*.


Define *us*. Or, define a virtual *us*.


----------



## kid-surf (Feb 24, 2008)

What I've learned from this thread is that there are those compelled to create personal works and those who aren't. Those who feel false mimicking another's work and those who don't.

I find that interesting to know... Different strokes...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

kid-surf @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> What I've learned from this thread is that there are those compelled to create personal works and those who aren't. Those who feel false mimicking another's work and those who don't.


When you say "those" - are talking about filmscorers, or about cameramen? They both serve the filmmaker and the film. The former is moving the music so it follows the director's instructions and the film, the other is moving the camera so it follows the director's instructions and the action on the set. Why should a filmescorer feel compelled to create 'personal works' while serving the filmmaker and the film? Is he/she supposed to do that? A professional filmscorer should be compelled to do only what he/she is paid to do, right?


----------



## PolarBear (Feb 24, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Define *us*. Or, define a virtual *us*.


Comeon, you had better chances to be aneus.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Every score sounds the same *to you*... Perhaps, there was no intention for those scores to stand out *to you*. What would make a filmscorer want his score to stand out *to you*? Why would it be important, for a filmscorer, that his/her score stands out *to you*? o



Aeneas, despite the fact i'm trying to stay out of the thread, i have to say that this is a trollish statement. Could be said of pratically all the topics on this board including a judgement and it is cheap rethorical.

Personally I truly feel you can produce better contributions to this thread without flaming up. Same of course applies for those who reply to you with names and shots (...).


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 24, 2008)

I just want to say as a moderator here, as is Lux, we do not always agree. I look over the posts on this thread and I see an engaging conversation with many views. The sheer number of views and posts bear this out.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

well, the mod status wasnt officially involved in my post. I assume my opinions as a member first. As a moderator mostly i do remove spam/porn stuff...(oh well, i remove the spam and collect the porn...)


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

lux @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Every score sounds the same *to you*... Perhaps, there was no intention for those scores to stand out *to you*. What would make a filmscorer want his score to stand out *to you*? Why would it be important, for a filmscorer, that his/her score stands out *to you*? o
> ...


I am sorry you have this perspective on my previous post. My post was not "trollish", it was not "cheap rhetorical", and it actually tried to present the core of the matter, as I see it. Here are the inferences of my previous post - explicitly, so you can understand: 

Every score sounds the same *to you*, because *you* look at it through inappropriate lens. First, that score was not made for *you*, but for the filmmaker - so it's irrelevant how it sounds *to you*. Second, that score was not supposed to be judged outside the film - so it's doubly irrelevant how *you* judge it outside the film. Third, if a score sounds *to you* indistinguishable from the others, that is probably *your* problem, and not the score's problem. It's like buying a book, look at the little black letters, and say: "Sheesh, those little black letters look all the same to me. No excitement in looking at them. The printing company did a lousy job." No, the printing company did the exact job it was paid for. If *you* don't like the look of the letters - their lack of variation in color, shape, and size - then the problem is in *your* head, and not in the letters or in the book. 

Now you, lux, explain to me HOW these above fit into your "cheap rhetorical" and in your "trollish"? I'd say that your accusation is trollish, and if you want, I will explain why I consider it so.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

Ok, I see, but this is still simply obvious relativism. And could be still said of about every discussion here including a judgement.

We have two possibilities. One is that you posted an obvious consideration because you want to remind me of about how much everything is relative. And that wouldnt be much useful, expecially because, as you can often read from me, i keep my judgements as personal. I talk about me because usually posting in a public forum means speak publicy, so i'm involved as a reader.

The other possibility is that youre trying to use bold obvious statements to provoke a reaction.

I'll believe in what you say, i have no reasons not to do it. So i have to say the we're in the 1) case. Then accept my apologies.

We have also a third possibility. That i'm not understanding because of language difference what you say. in this case, as i asked before, i would appreciate more linear and understandable comments for a non native speaker 

Luca


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 24, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Yippee, statistics!! Can I play?
> 
> Eighty percent of ANY genre's music sounds pretty much the same and boring. Eighty percent of books are boring. Eighty percent of ANYTHING, including this thread, is boring.
> 
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: That should kill the thread. No?!? (o)


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

lux @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> So i have to say the we're in the 1) case. Then accept my apologies


No, we are not in your 1) case, but apologies accepted. 

Think twice, even thrice, before labeling something in a negative manner, and everything's gonna be just fine.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

sure, we are in case 3) then. Still my apologies are valid.

In this case i'm still waiting though for an explaination in an understandable form. In italian would be of course appreciated, but i assume it would take a bit too long. In english without complex figurations would be easy enough for me.

grazie
Luca


----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

lux @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> i'm still waiting though for an explaination in an understandable form.


I don't think I can get more explicit than that: "It's like buying a book, look at the little black letters, and say: 'Sheesh, those little black letters look all the same to me. No excitement in looking at them. The printing company did a lousy job.' No, the printing company did the exact job it was paid for. If you don't like the look of the letters - their lack of variation in color, shape, and size - then the problem is in your head, and not in the letters or in the book."


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 24, 2008)

Let me see if I can help.

Let's presume we have a listener with the name of "Bob"

Would this be correct?

Every score sounds the same to Bob, because Bob looks at it through an inappropriate lens. First, that score was not made for Bob, but for the filmmaker - so it's irrelevant how it sounds to Bob. Second, that score was not supposed to be judged outside the film - so it's doubly irrelevant how Bob judges it outside the film. Third, if a score sounds to Bob indistinguishable from the others, that is probably Bob's problem, and not the score's problem. It's like buying a book, look at the little black letters, and say: "Sheesh, those little black letters look all the same to me. No excitement in looking at them. The printing company did a lousy job." No, the printing company did the exact job it was paid for. If Bob doesn't like the look of the letters - their lack of variation in color, shape, and size - then the problem is in Bob's head, and not in the letters or in the book.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> lux @ Sun 24 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > i'm still waiting though for an explaination in an understandable form.
> ...



Ok, lemme put that way. You refused to be put into case 1), but this statement, unless i'm missing something language wise, tells about how the perspective changes things. So, relativism again. This could be said of about every judgement. And, assuming we all usually put a judgement in almost every concept we express, this should kill every discussion everywhere. So Kid-surf is guilty of being relative. And thats should not be considered obvious?

Sorry but i honestly still think we're into case 1).

Luca


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

Craig Sharmat @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Let me see if I can help.
> 
> Let's presume we have a listener with the name of "Bob"
> 
> ...



Yeah Craig, the concept was clear already in the early stage.

Problem is that is obvious. And putting the obvious into bold font with smilies means that you are posting something obvious with the idea of adding something fresh, or that you are delibrately trying to obtain a reaction.

this looks *to me* o 

Luca


----------



## Daryl (Feb 24, 2008)

Or even simpler. Every score is using orchestra and is basically tonal. Bob knows nothing about music, but he knows an orchestra when he hears it. Therefore all orchestral scores sound the same. QED......

Actually there is a serious point here. There are many styles of music which don't even use a Western scale, and because I am rather ignorant about them, the music played often sounds very similar to me. However, to the musicians involved, the pieces are as night and day, so the fact that they sound the same says more about my ignorance than the music itself.

D


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 24, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> Every score sounds the same *to you*... Perhaps, there was no intention for those scores to stand out *to you*. What would make a filmscorer want his score to stand out *to you*? Why would it be important, for a filmscorer, that his/her score stands out *to you*? o



Great post. Based on this logic no one here should ever post their opinions or feelings on the way something strikes them... ever. Thanks for clearing that up. 

That will sure free up my time to write music.


----------



## lux (Feb 24, 2008)

I have a case 4).

And i could be have been wrong till now. Double apologies in this case.

The bold, despite the international praxis, could not be intended as louder remarks (something to capture attention on a relevant and fresh argument) but just as hierarchical usage. So, the obvious statement, without the bold, looses its flame potential. I say obvious things all the time, so i'm not out of it.

But, probably, a different usage of text formatting is due to avoid misunderstandings in this specific case

Luca


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 24, 2008)




----------



## aeneas (Feb 24, 2008)

@kid-surf: I was nitpicking a bit on your title, I hope it doesn't bother you, it's meant in a positive way.  



lux @ Sun 24 Feb said:


> Problem is that is obvious.


@lux: What is obvious? - That everything is relative? That, of course, is, obviously, obvious. o 

But I was not addressing the 'relativity' of it. I was addressing the 'perspective' and the 'expectation'. -
*Perspective A: *If you consider a cue in the context of the film sequence, then chances are that you will understand why the cue is there, and why does it sound the way it sounds. So you have a specific 'expectation' about that cue, expectation that, probably, will be fulfilled.
*Perspective B: *If you take the cue out of its film sequence and consider it as an independent entity, chances are that you won't understand it and why does it sound the way it sounds. That's what I would call an inappropriate 'expectation' about that cue.

More generally: 
*Perspective A: *You can judge things for what they are, trying to understand WHY they are the way they are - and chances are that you will like them for doing what they are supposed to do.
*Perspective B: *You can judge things for what you 'expect' them to be - and chances are that you will be disappointed.

Capisci adesso? :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 24, 2008)




----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 24, 2008)

dcoscina @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Every score sounds the same *to you*... Perhaps, there was no intention for those scores to stand out *to you*. What would make a filmscorer want his score to stand out *to you*? Why would it be important, for a filmscorer, that his/her score stands out *to you*? o
> ...


You know what would REALLY free up your time? Stop reading what he says. And stop ENGAGING HIM!!!

Then a promising thread idea might not degenerate into 7 pages debating such wank fodder such as - What's the true definition of the word "the."

Help us out here. Please.


----------



## poseur (Feb 24, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> You know what would REALLY free up your time? Stop reading what he says. And stop ENGAGING HIM!!!
> 
> Then a promising thread idea might not degenerate into 7 pages debating such wank fodder such as - What's the true definition of the word "the."
> 
> Help us out here. Please.


i don't have "history", here, so please 
do take that into account:

while the subject of
*"every score sounds the same to me"*
does not exactlyò0ô   q90ô   q:0ô   q;0ô   q<0ô   q=0ô   q>0ô   q?0ô   q@0ô   qA0ô   qB0ô   qC0ô   qD0ô   qE0ô   qF0ô   qG0ô   qH0ô   qI0ô   qJ0ô   qK0ô   qL0ô   qM0ô   qN0ô   qO0ô   qP0ô   qQ0ô   qR0ô   qS0ô   qT0ô   qU0ô   qV0ô   qW0ô   qX0ô   qY0ô   qZ0ô   q[0ô   q\0õ   q]0õ   q^0õ   q_0õ   q`0õ   qa0õ   qb0õ   qc0õ   qd0õ   qe0õ   qf0õ   qg0õ   qh0õ   qi0õ   qj0õ   qk0õ   ql0õ   qm0õ   qn0õ   qo0õ   qp0õ   qq0õ   qr0õ   qs0õ   qt0õ   qu0õ   qv0õ   qw0õ   qx0õ   qy0õ   qz0õ   q{0õ   q|0õ   q}0õ   q~0õ   q0õ   q€0õ   q0õ   q‚0õ   qƒ0õ   q„0õ   q…0õ   q†0õ   q‡0õ   qˆ0õ   q‰0õ   qŠ0õ   q‹0õ   qŒ0õ   q0õ   qŽ0õ   q0õ   q0õ   q‘0õ   q’0õ   q“0õ   q”0õ   q•0õ   q–0õ   q—0õ   q˜0õ   q™0õ   qš0õ   q›0õ   qœ0õ   q0õ   qž0õ   qŸ0õ   q 0õ   q¡0õ   q¢0õ   q£0õ


----------



## aeneas (Feb 25, 2008)

PolarBear, 'relativity' is one thing, and how you 'relate' to it is another one. :wink: 

Obviously, kid-surf used this title as an incentive (he's a screenwriter, remember?) - while his intention, clearly stated afterwards, was to invite people to post what scores do they find interesting, outside "mainstream hollywood style" (whatever that might be). However, nitpicking on an inciting title is not such a big sin, is it? o


----------



## lux (Feb 25, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 24 said:


> @kid-surf: I was nitpicking a bit on your title, I hope it doesn't bother you, it's meant in a positive way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@lux: What is obvious? - That everything is relative? That, of course, is, obviously, obvious. o 

But I was not addressing the 'relativity' of it. I was addressing the 'perspective' and the 'expectation'. -
*Perspective A: *If you consider a cue in the context of the film sequence, then chances are that you will understand why the cue is there, and why does it sound the way it sounds. So you have a specific 'expectation' about that cue, expectation that, probably, will be fulfilled.
*Perspective B: *If you take the cue out of its film sequence and consider it as an independent entity, chances are that you won't understò1   q$1   q%1   q&1   q'1   q(1   q)1   q*1   q+1   q,1   q-1   q.1   q/1   q01   q11   q21   q31   q41   q51   q61   q71   q81   q91   q:1   q;1   q<1   q=1   q>1   q?1   q@1   qA1   qB1   qC1   qD1   qE1   qF1   qG1   qH1   qI1   qJ1   qK1   qL1   qM1   qN1   qO1   qP1   qQ1   qR1   qS1   qT1   qU1   qV1   qW1   qX1   qY1   qZ1   q[1   q\1   q]1   q^1   q_1   q`1   qa1   qb1   qc1   qd1   qe1   qf1   qg1   qh1   qi1   qj1   qk1   ql1   qm1   qn1   qo1   qp1   qq1   qr1   qs1   qt1   qu1   qv1   qw1   qx1   qy1   qz1   q{1   q|1   q}1   q~1


----------

