# Transciption and Analysis of Gladiator Cue.



## Dave Connor (Mar 21, 2020)

I originally did this to rebut the silly notion that Hans Zimmer is anything less then the premiere composer he is known to be. After finishing I decided to edit it to be far more educational in nature. Particularly for younger composers that want to be the next HZ. I think by seeing the music itself, they will realize there is far more needed in their music than just samples and a computer: A real compositional technique is what's needed otherwise everything will be (and sound) superficial. Even I was surprised at the extent of Classical procedure here, although that's what I like about his music to begin with.

To anticipate any criticism, I can only say that I analyzed it the same way I would any other piece and found it not only stood up to that approach but demanded it. The combination of a strict closed form with numerous traditional compositional procedures (along with the grafting on of other formal devices such as continuous entrances of additional voices) made it abundantly clear that everything was carefully designed to achieve the composer's exact intentions.

This music is not, The Flight Of The Bumblebee. Nor is it John Williams rewriting the Scherzo from Shostakovich's 5th - as someone suggested was model; worthy compositional technique - in a Harry Potter cue. Since I can conceive of rewriting a Russian composer's famous work, but would never conceive of a piece where the top note of a three-note structure was the lowest note in the bass clef: I am far more impressed with the bold originality of the latter than the predictable occurrence of the former.

Edit: It may be that the Gorecki 3rd may be the direct lineage of this cue. The formal structures are entirely different as well as the ranges but it’s certainly a fair comparison.

Enjoy:


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 21, 2020)




----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 21, 2020)

This is really good. I skipped through pieces, looking forward to watching it all the way through.

Cool!


----------



## mikeh-375 (Mar 22, 2020)

Good one Dave. I'm glad you pointed out the ground and especially the excellent harmonic clashes that are borne out of linear thinking rather than vertical - an essential creative paradigm to cultivate for counterpoint.

My favourite score of HZ's by far. I especially love the very operatic cue when Commodus indulges in a little parricide. Such a beautifully wrought, tragic and dramatic piece that confirms yet again your point about HZ's ability.


----------



## patrick76 (Mar 22, 2020)

Thanks for sharing. Gladiator is a great score. The particular cue you chose, while great, owes much to Gorecki's 3rd Symphony. For those that aren't familiar with it, check it out as I'm guessing it was either the temp for this scene or HZ just used it as a reference. 

Anyway thanks for doing this, I've watched about half of your vid so far, and look forward to the rest. I agree that HZ is a great composer and I enjoy the versatility and different styles of his writing.

Here is a link for the Gorecki for anyone to check out - great piece


----------



## Maximvs (Mar 22, 2020)

Thanks a lot Dave for doing this didactic video, I am really happy to see you coming out and share your talent and expertise in the field of music composition and orchestration... Kind regards, Max T.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

mikeh-375 said:


> Good one Dave. I'm glad you pointed out the ground and especially the excellent harmonic clashes that are borne out of linear thinking rather than vertical - an essential creative paradigm to cultivate for counterpoint.
> 
> My favourite score of HZ's by far. I especially love the very operatic cue when Commodus indulges in a little parricide. Such a beautifully wrought, tragic and dramatic piece that confirms yet again your point about HZ's ability.


Thanks Mike.

Yes that’s quite a dramatic cue you mentioned afte such a great performance by both actors, particularly Richard Harris. I’m sure that HZ wrote it. It’s his signature writing, and insight to picture. Love the dynamics from start to finish.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

patrick76 said:


> Thanks for sharing. Gladiator is a great score. The particular cue you chose, while great, owes much to Gorecki's 3rd Symphony. For those that aren't familiar with it, check it out as I'm guessing it was either the temp for this scene or HZ just used it as a reference.
> 
> Anyway thanks for doing this, I've watched about half of your vid so far, and look forward to the rest. I agree that HZ is a great composer and I enjoy the versatility and different styles of his writing.
> 
> Here is a link for the Gorecki for anyone to check out - great piece


I’m a fan of Gorecki‘s 3rd and was thrilled it became a worldwide crossover hit. I haven’t listened to it forever and don’t really remember any similar aspects so I will listen again. Thanks.


----------



## muk (Mar 22, 2020)

Thanks for taking the time to create this analysis Dave. I agree that Hans Zimmer is unqestionably a highly capable and inventive composer. However, in the particular piece you chose and your analysis of it, I fail to grasp the extraordinary musical ingenuity that you seem to attribute to it.

The piece is based on a ground bass, very true. I guess that is unusual in film music. Makes it an interesting choice. But it's not unusual on strictly musical terms, as a ground bass is a well established device in the history of music.

The same goes for adding one voice at a time, which you stress as somehow extraordinary. In fact, this is rather common for pieces with a ground bass (see Pachelbel's famous 'canon in d' for example, or Max Reger's Basso ostinato op. 92 Nr. 4, and countless canons on a ground bass in between).
Also, adding a new voice in the middle instead of at the top is nothing to write home about. You'll see it in practically every other fugue you'll look at. If you open Bach's 'Welltempered Piano', for example, you'll immediately find a couple of instances. And you don't have to look that high. If you browse through harmony and counterpoint exercises of a class at your local university, you'll see that it's a common device that student's happily employ. Really nothing out of the ordinary.

So, I would argue that the use of a ground bass with voices entering one at a time is not per se something special. It is an unusual choice in film music. That's what makes it interesting, and not the musical choices per se.

Now, if we look at how this ground bass plus three strict voices is executed, that's where the musical interest lies. The short nod to the 'dies irae' is a nice find. It suits the piece and the mood it conveys. It's not terribly unusual or ingenious either (the 'dies irae' is a staple and probably one of the most often quoted pieces, especially in the realm of counterpoint). But certainly cool and nice.

The three tone motif you singled out (b flat - c - d, or c - b flat -a). Yes, it's tastefully done to add motion at the right spots. But frankly I don't see it as very special either. It's just a passing note either in upward or downard motion. One of the most common devices in voice leading. Again, something you see often in even basic harmony/counterpoint exercises. It's tastefully done, I agree. But not all too special. 

There are a few errors as well. If you look at bar 28, for example, there are parallel fifths between the two lowest notes. Parallel fifths don't matter in every context. In the very context that Hans Zimmer chose here - and that is strict voices over a ground bass - though, they do. It sounds wrong to my ears because all of a sudden you loose the fourth voice here, while the rest of the piece tries to establish a strict handling of the voices. Each voice is presented as individual line with its own individual material. At this spot, it briefly falls apart due to the parallel fifths.

If you ask me, the interest and novelty of this piece lie elsewhere. It's the unusual choice for film music. A choice that creates a sense of archaism, stubbornness, and relentlesness perfectly fitting the screen. And so does the 'soundscape'. Using the low strings register only sounds menacing and raw. (I agree with @patrick76 that Gorecki's 3. Symphony is a likely inspiration. A very wise choice if you ask me, as it led to a piece that goes together with the picture in perfection).
I don't have access to my studio speakers at the moment, but on my headphones it sounds like there are synths layered with the low strings. It is a very refined and minutely judged and built 'unrefined' sound. I think that's where the magic of a lot of Hans Zimmer's music is to be found. It's in finding and minutely creating the perfect sounds for the picture.

In conclusion, Dave, you and I agree that Hans Zimmer is a formidable film composer. I guess we just value and appreciate different qualities in his music.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

Muk, If you saw my notes, I mentioned the forms where it is traditional to add single voices such as canon as in the Pachelbel _Canon_ which you mentioned. The well known pieces considered Ground Bass models are Purcell’s Lament and Bach’s Goldberg Variations. Neither of which proceed a voice at a time but as I described in the video. At no point does Hans’ ground sound above itself, which removes it from those other definitions. Ground is the _best_ definition which as you know is the most we can hope for in music terms traditionally.

I don’t argue that simple common devices are unusual in music or even film music. What I point out is that they are _strictly adhered to_ which of course _is _unusual in film music. It isn’t that the two-beat_ cadential figure_ is a wonder of compositional technique, it’s that it is used with 100% efficiency - only once found outside of it’s lone role. That is: two quarter notes together are not found anywhere else in the section. It is this strictness that indicates the _design _of the piece, along with all the other design features which - not coincidentally - maintain this same rigid application/function. This just isn’t done in film music. Film music hints at these things for the most part. Strict forms _without_ _variance_ (which this piece is exactly and which towering revelatory compositional technique needn’t be present at all to conclude that strictness) belong to the world of abstract compostion. Not film in any consistent way.

Please remember the context of this entire enterprise - that: Hans Zimmer, _can’t write... for the orchestra. _That’s a far cry from quibbling about the definition of Ground Bass. In fact, to have that discussion about _any _composer and his use of classical forms _in or out of a film music context _would seem to me to be a discussion about someone who can _write for the orchestra. _Not someone who _can’t. _You seem to have taken up another argument on the merits or uniqueness of the devices he employed while I have essentially illustrated that he did employ them - and strictly at that.

The appropriate argument against my analysis conclusion would be to use the analysis as proof of a complete lack of compositional understanding. One needn’t come to my conclusions at all. The raw information is there to argue that it all indicates no particular ability at all. Who would swallow that though?

I will have a look at the bars you mentioned.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

I don’t have a problem with parallel 5ths unless they do torpedo things as you suggest. I pointed out that HZ used contrary motion to alleviate them. Which was simply pointing out that far too many traditional composition practices are found in this random sample of his work to be considered the blind luck of a hack.

Bar 28 doesn’t bother me at all as the 5ths are linked to 6ths above and proceed in resonance against the top held tone. And really I’m not at all prissy in listening to anyone’s music. If something jumps out at me I will try to identify the problem but one simply can’t go through life listening to music that way. What _does _jump out at me in HZ’s music consistently is the rock-solid construction and use of classical procedure. And of course I understand if his music isn’t one’s cup of tea. I simply take exception to the unfounded charge he doesn’t know what he’s doing in the least. Very silly, but I’ve given people all the ammo they need to back up their position.

I hope you understand that I don’t disagree with your points in the main - all of which I would think are supremely obvious to any composer. The idea of Merciful is it’s direct simplicity and relentless moving forward. Quite literally an army is coming for the protagonist. An overwhelming force that is brutal and primitive. That’s all in the music (and in the famous title track.) So this is not the Goldberg Variations. It is both menacing in the story and the glory of the few defining notes of D minor in music. In that sense, I think it’s brilliant.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2020)

You could put that sheet of music in front of anyone who went to Berklee while they're fast asleep and wake them up with a start.

The reason is the close notes that low - a blatant violation of the Lower Interval Limits law that we all ignore over time (because it's highly dependent on how loud they are, whether they're contrasting timbres, etc.).

That was the first thing I noticed, before even hearing it.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

Nick, I just as easily could have posted a link of the cue - not done any analysis at all - and simply said, _I think this rocks. _Which is really sort of the bottom line.

My response is - in equal part - to generalized criticism (which by nature is unsupported) with specific examples that support my conclusions. I would do the same on a Sports blog (although even there people wouldn’t tend to say, _He can’t play baseball.) _They would categorize the criticism according to _hitting, fielding, speed, power_ etc. Beethoven was criticized as, _not able to write counterpoint. _Which I don’t think you would hear today considering his tour de force’s in that area. The criticism was specific is my point and should be with HZ, JW, or you or me.


----------



## Iswhatitis (Mar 22, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> I originally did this to rebut the silly notion that Hans Zimmer is anything less then the premiere composer he is known to be. After finishing I decided to edit it to be far more educational in nature. Particularly for younger composers that want to be the next HZ. I think by seeing the music itself, they will realize there is far more needed in their music than just samples and a computer: A real compositional technique is what's needed otherwise everything will be (and sound) superficial. Even I was surprised at the extent of Classical procedure here, although that's what I like about his music to begin with.
> 
> To anticipate any criticism, I can only say that I analyzed it the same way I would any other piece and found it not only stood up to that approach but demanded it. The combination of a strict closed form with numerous traditional compositional procedures (along with the grafting on of other formal devices such as continuous entrances of additional voices) made it abundantly clear that everything was carefully designed to achieve the composer's exact intentions.
> 
> ...



You picked a bad example as this sounds like it was written on a midi keyboard and triggering VI samples. Hans is a very good composer for film but no where near the league of a John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Elmer Bernstein, Henry Mancini, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, Franz Waxman and other great orchestra writers.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> You picked a bad example as this sounds like it was written on a midi keyboard and triggering VI samples. Hans is a very good composer for film but no where near the league of a John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Elmer Bernstein, Henry Mancini, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, Franz Waxman and other great orchestra writers.


I didn’t make a comparison of Hans to any of those composers any more than I did to Beethoven whom I also mentioned. You just confirmed the point I _have_ been making by saying, _Hans is a very good composer. _That is exactly my point. The musical example - whatever it’s ultimate quality - was a random example and easily proved that point - so I can’t agree with you on that.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

Here is a question though: Of all those composers you mentioned, who would you prefer over Hans Zimmer to score, The Dark Knight? (You may include Beethoven as well.)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 22, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> Which is really sort of the bottom line.



Yeah, I got that.

And in case it's not clear - I think it is, but just to make sure! - I'm not criticizing the tight spacing, I'm saying it works here.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 22, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yeah, I got that.
> 
> And in case it's not clear - I think it is, but just to make sure! - I'm not criticizing the tight spacing, I'm saying it works here.


Oh for sure, you were clear on that. The melody note of a three-note structure is the bottom note of the bass clef. Wow. (A list of composers who never did that is above btw.)


----------



## mikeh-375 (Mar 23, 2020)

What the example does show is some compositional procedure that may elucidate some. Technique used to instigate and then power an idea whilst not being too beholdent to the rules.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 23, 2020)

One of the less tiny problems I have with this kind of ‘analysis’, Dave, is that it bestows qualities of almost geniuslike invention and bold creativity as well as lofty terminology on things which are, in essence, _inevitabilities_ intrinsic to the style, logic and nature of the chosen musical idea(s). I mean, if you decide to write a dark-ish cue on a ground bass in the minor — yes, that choice itself may be slightly unusual in contemporary film music, but to find reason in it, as you do, for unrestrained awe does seem a little over the top, I feel — and provided you’re a composer of enough substance, craft and knowledge, then this, it would seem to me, is the kind of music you’re going to end up with. I fail to see anything exceptional here. Sure, it’s a great enough piece and all that, I’m certainy not suggesting otherwise, though I am also of the opinion that this isn’t among Hans’ many well-deserved tickets to immortality.

This dogged determination of yours to want to lift Hans Zimmer into the pantheon of greatest composers ever, keeps puzzling me, I must say. Why do you persist with that? And why do you take it to such absurd lengths? Yes, I get that you’re deeply annoyed with those who deny Zimmer the craft, expertise and skills that set the bonafide composer apart from the charlatan — and I agree with you that such denial is a very ignorant, childish, stupid and disrespectful view to take in light of Hans Zimmer’s many astounding qualities and amazing achievements — but presenting Hans as a sort of _Supercomposer Universalis_, a composer who is in full command of every conceivable musical technique of the past and the present, as you’re so often inclined to do, doesn’t seem to me to be the wisest (and certainly not the most convincing) answer to these stupid remarks either. Basically because it’s just as untrue as what those people are suggesting. HZ is HZ, no less, but also no more.

Especially when you want us to hear things in Zimmer’s music which I, and several others, don’t think are there, the wheels under the chariot of your crusade come a little unstuck, I find. And if you insist — as you do throughout your analysis — on sticking lofty textbook names to musical elements (which are, let’s be modally honest for a stepwise second, no more than your common basic bricks of composition) or present them as proof of Zimmer’s unique musical gift and comprehensive musical expertise (when, in reality, these elements amount to what pretty much any consummate professional would come up with) you loose me completely, I’m afraid.

I also think, as a final ‘by the way’, that you’re not doing your idol any favours with this approach because it invites a look at his music through a lens that suits neither the music (well, not to the music’s advantage anyway) nor the chosen manner of scrutiny. Nor, for that matter, the art of true musical analysis itself.

_


----------



## Iswhatitis (Mar 23, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> I didn’t make a comparison of Hans to any of those composers any more than I did to Beethoven whom I also mentioned. You just confirmed the point I _have_ been making by saying, _Hans is a very good composer. _That is exactly my point. The musical example - whatever it’s ultimate quality - was a random example and easily proved that point - so I can’t agree with you on that.


What I should have stated more clearly is that Hans is a very good MIDI sequencer composer for VI. His orchestrations are mezzo mezzo. Those other composers I mentioned are brilliant composers not just very good. Hans is not in their league as he writes theme park music for film unlike the other truly great composers. Though I would much prefer a Hans Zimmer score to say Michael Giacchino who could not find an original melody if his life depended on it. When Hans goes on tour in Europe to play music from his scores, I feel like that’s a joke. I would never pay to see him and an orchestra to play the theme to Driving Miss Daisy or Gladiator. His music does not stand out on its own enough like John Williams so once you take away the film it’s not worthy of a music only orchestra concert. Hans unfortunately writes with too much simplicity and repetition. His scores sound like they were written on a midi keyboard by an untrained pop writer, which they were.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 23, 2020)

re-peat said:


> One of the less tiny problems I have with this kind of ‘analysis’, Dave, is that it bestows qualities of almost geniuslike invention and bold creativity as well as lofty terminology on things which are, in essence, _inevitabilities_ intrinsic to the style, logic and nature of the chosen musical idea(s). I mean, if you decide to write a dark-ish cue on a ground bass in the minor — yes, that choice itself may be slightly unusual in contemporary film music, but to find reason in it, as you do, for unrestrained awe does seem a little over the top, I feel — and provided you’re a composer of enough substance, craft and knowledge, then this, it would seem to me, is the kind of music you’re going to end up with. I fail to see anything exceptional here. Sure, it’s a great enough piece and all that, I’m certainy not suggesting otherwise, though I am also of the opinion that this isn’t among Hans’ many well-deserved tickets to immortality.


Piet, as I said, the ultimate analysis of the writing [above] as to it’s compositional attributes should be _supremely obvious _to _any composer. _You just demonstrated it is that obvious to you. Which of course it is to me. The fact that I’m impressed or even delighted that a random sample showed Hans relentlessly demonstrating use of Classical procedures (no matter how simple and straightforward) is due to the fact that it proves my point: _Hans Zimmer can write for the orchestra. _Not that he _demonstrates compositional abilities on par with Beethoven. _

As you well know, Beethoven’s Bagatelle’s are used to teach _Form. _These are not towering works of genius but of course highly instructive. It was not the content that I was highlighting (which I referred to as _hip_) as much as the telltale signs of _informed writing. _To repeat: Any composer having a look at the music should easily be able to understand what level of compositional technique is in use (and also whether the piece _requires _anything beyond what’s there - it doesn’t.) Also, anyone of a certain maturity should be able to easily overlook any excesses in my enthusiasm and simply evaluate the music objectively for themselves. Can anyone conclude that the music or even my presentation of it indicates that the author _can’t write? _

I have no such inclination to _lift Hans into the pantheon of greatest composers. _Not remotely. That would be an extra-musical inclination seems to me. I’m too analytical to do that with _any _composer - including John Williams (whose close friend André Previn pestered him endlessly to stop writing, _silly film music.) _So, no - that is not a drive I have. It’s more akin to someone saying, _that guy can’t ride a bicycle _and me saying, _yes he can. _If I take particular pleasure in demonstrating that fact and it strikes someone as _over the top - _I completely understand. Hopefully they also completely understand that the fellow can indeed pedal himself to the store.

What I _have _done (and which I consider a completely scientific comparison) is compare Hans’ large orchestra _minimalist _writing to those of John Adams and Phillip Glass in the works, Harmonielehre and Aknaten respectively. I think it was an end title segment from one of the Batman films where the texture contained their signature repetitive string figures and was at once, more _modern - _by virtue of the abundance of synthesized and percussive elements. And so therefore, far more arresting and exciting while containing modulatory currents that were stunning, inventive, and again - not found in those two composer’s works. So yes, I will make comparisons of that nature the same as I would the chromatically descending trombone passage in a coda of Schumann’s 1st Symphony to those used by Wagner in Tannhauser 15 years later. These are objective observations whatever my enthusiasm level (which doesn’t disqualify them does it?)

The genesis of my rather staunch defense of forum-member Hans Zimmer was upon his entrance here. I thought it was great fortune that someone who was at the top of the profession that so many here hope to succeed in, would deign to hang out with such a humble crowd. This would be a fount of expertise available to beginner and seasoned pro alike. Immediately however, he was personally attacked regarding everything from his finances to his personal integrity. Just the ugliest internet slurs you can imagine. The indictment of his musical abilities is a regular occurrence but once again, they are unreasoned, bordering on vitriolic. So I shoot those down but I do it with musical examples. My little analysis (and I would like to see a better one objectively as to the structure; it’s tightness and the accuracy of terms used) was to show his ability in _part-writing. _Not to suggest it was on par with Bach’s Chorales but rather ample evidence that he, _can write for the orchestra._

Please answer this question, because I think it’s a telling issue: What composer from _any _era would you prefer to have written, The Dark Knight score? You see, I think Hans is the _perfect composer _for that score and indeed preferable to Goldsmith, Williams, et. al. Which is not an argument about his _facility in composing for the symphony orchestra_ but his artistry, creativity, and outright musical ability - in a given context. Is that _over the top? _Not to me - not in the least. Those other composer actually lack in certain musical areas he specializes in just as he does there’s. It is this balance of perspective I take issue with and which indeed does fuel my argument - which is less about HZ than the folks who exalt pure compositional technique over artistry. An artistry that need not be in possession of a technique not always needed - and indeed that brings something to the table preferable in a specific setting.

There is a much larger issue here than HZ’s writing chops. Do people dismiss Erik Satie for his utterly stripped down simplicity? As you know he was wildly popular and admired by all the symphonists and indeed foreshadowed a Pop sensibility in music. This is the essence of what I’m pointing out. Satie didn’t need to be Strauss to be considered a good or even great _composer. _Hans Zimmer doesn’t have to be John Williams to be a great composer either. I think The Dark Knight is a great score - great music. Not the B minor Mass but great on it’s own terms. So if I say I think Hans is _great - _why not? All things are relative. I don’t think Hans or anyone else needs to be exalted unreasonably. I just don’t think he should be put down unreasonably either.

I can assure you that if someone said that you _can’t write. _I would defend you vigorously and consistently. I would point them to some of your piano works as good examples of solid writing. Would that make you my idle? No, not in the least. Hans is not that to me at all and I think that’s a bit silly for you to suggest that. I’ve explained the genesis and arc of my defense of his abilities so I won’t rehash that. As to the _analysis, _would you say I succeeded in showing that Hans _can write? _Would you really say that illustrating someone stringing together all those cool voicings is presenting the composer in some _bad _or derogatory light? I love it when Bill Evans does that or Hans and anyone else. (We may differ on the value of simple, thoughtful writing but that would surprise me coming from you.) And please consider that my description of what Hans did in that piece was that his writing was _thoughtful. _That’s hardly assigning qualities that - in reality are absent in the music - to it in some disingenuous way. The composer who wrote that piece thought his way all the way through. In the end, that is my analysis of the piece.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 23, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> What I should have stated more clearly is that Hans is a very good MIDI sequencer composer for VI. His orchestrations are mezzo mezzo. Those other composers I mentioned are brilliant composers not just very good. Hans is not in their league as he writes theme park music for film unlike the other truly great composers. Though I would much prefer a Hans Zimmer score to say Michael Giacchino who could not find an original melody if his life depended on it. When Hans goes on tour in Europe to play music from his scores, I feel like that’s a joke. I would never pay to see him and an orchestra to play the theme to Driving Miss Daisy or Gladiator. His music does not stand out on its own enough like John Williams so once you take away the film it’s not worthy of a music only orchestra concert. Hans unfortunately writes with too much simplicity and repetition. His scores sound like they were written on a midi keyboard by an untrained pop writer, which they were.


Well, I think Hans is much more than a midi-guy. I dare say Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan think so too by a considerable margin more. They put their films in his hands. You have to know what it means for a director to do that. Obviously the issue of his abilities doesn’t enter in so much as how to approach the film. Those directors seem quite pleased. My opinion can be dismissed outright but no one could get me to dismiss these directors judgement of his or anyone’s artistry and talent. They are the best of their generation.

Giachino is like Hans or anyone else: he has his strengths and weaknesses. I think his writing for Lost is some of the best in TV history. See everyone, I’m over the top with everyone who’s music I admire.

The last concert I attended was Mahler’s 2nd with the LA Phil and Zubin Mehta. Just great. Classical concerts make up most of my concert attendance. I did go to see Hans and it was such great fun. Brought a guitar player friend who was knocked out by Hans’ guitarist. I don’t lose sleep over this kind of thing. If someone says Ringo is a crappy drummer - they’re going to hear from me though.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 23, 2020)

Btw, Piet, the terms I used are identical to what I would use to analyze Twinkle Twinkle Little Star or Pendecki’s St. Luke’s Passion. I’m not going to reinvent musical terms for a minute-plus of any music. A cadence is a cadence right? Contrary motion the same? Parallel is parallel? And so on. If you think I didn’t wholly anticipate this kind of criticism - I did. I assumed ultimately, that people would go with the bare information instead of quibbling about attendant lesser issues. And really, you are the last person I thought would stumble over these things and not go with the heart of matter.

You conceded the use of the term _Ground_ and it’s rarity in film though right? You are speaking to the inherent quality or invention of the musical devices I mentioned - which is fair - but the terms themselves? You are perfectly aware that a student composer can get all the features of Sonata form correct and write absolute drivel right? That doesn’t change the fact that his insipid, banal, _subordinate theme_ was in fact just that - according to standard music terminology.

I didn’t have the time, the room or inclination to argue against myself or qualify such statements as, _That’s Beethoven _(the descriptive pillar used to describe development of a germ idea.) Did Hans reuse his basic material and develop it? Yes. In a simple way - yes. Is the piece simple - yes. Is this the work of someone who can’t write - no. Really, my basic point which I believe you also conceded - is indeed made by my analysis - which as I said, is the same as I would do on any music. I was only surprised at how the piece seemed to be analyzed best in a traditional way as opposed to saying, _this is great!...this is genius! This is awesome...this thing here... whatever the hell its called!_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 23, 2020)

Question: why is this even an argument?


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 23, 2020)

For those who may be following along. Particularly younger composers. A story to illustrate the kind of interest and enthusiasm for straightforward works of a certain simplicty:

During a break in recording the score for the film Daddy’s Home 2, the lead orchestrator walked up to me to discuss a cue of mine we had just recorded. [Orchestrators will take your midi orchestration and fill them out according to their craft, taste, and forces available in the orchestra. They don’t want people sitting on their hands if they can just as well double something and indeed enhance the music. Trouble is, these guys always want to add something and I tend to orchestrate very specifically and may not like the change.]

So... he mentions the very last chord of my cue which sustained and faded at the end saying, _I tried to re-voice that chord in several different ways but couldn’t find a better way than you did it. _To which I replied, _That chord was all about getting the cello into the upper register. _To which he replied, _Exactly!_

Now, this is two nerdy orchestra guys discussing the arrangement of four tones in the strings on a whole-note... as if they were brushstrokes on the smile of the Mona Lisa. But that’s what we do! We revel in the simplest dumbest musical thing as if it’s of great importance. Why? Because all music is a continuum of either strong or weak ideas and a single poorly executed idea is a decrease in the percentage of the quality of the whole. Those add up - fast. It is also _lazy _which is a considered a crime in music. Worse, it calls attention to itself and will be easily heard by the discerning.

My enthusiasm in the discovery of numerous known compositional procedures in the Gladiator piece is the very same as in the story above. ‘Merciful’ is just very solid without any excess fat and not a single lazy note. In fact it pays off beautifully (as well as it could have) at its ending before the next section. Bravo!

That orchestrator/conductor (who has orchestrated over 200 films) and I have had countless similar conversations. They brim with a heightened awareness of these little moments that contribute incalculably to the whole. It’s a bit like looking into a microscope at what is actually occurring. A type of scientific inquiry. Well, it’s like hearing the music, then eventually seeing the score. All musicians worth their salt marvel at simple things equally with the complex. All great composers make abundant use of the simple texture, and those textures are analyzed in the identical manner as complex ones. Equal enthusiasm for both, amounts to a singular enthusiasm for music itself.


----------



## re-peat (Mar 23, 2020)

I’m of the opinion that an attempt at presenting a more complete picture of the musical phenomenon that is Hans Zimmer, isn’t very well served by isolating his ability to absorb compositional techniques from the classical tradition (or from any other musical tradition for that matter). Such an ability is acquired, or at least should have been acquired, by any well-educated and self-respecting composer, and is as such not noteworthy in my opinion, and it is certainly not a defining ingredient, I would say, of what, still in my opinion, sets Zimmer apart and often above several of his colleagues and all of his imitators.

Hence my jumpy right eyebrow while watching your analysis, Dave, because in trying to reveal Zimmer’s composing chops to the viewer and waxing lyrically about them whenever you felt you had come across an example of them, you ended up highlighting a side of the composer which I consider (a) not particularly interesting and (b) not in the least indicative of Zimmer’s true identity and uniqueness as a musician and composer.

You can look, I suppose, with an analytical eye at Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B Goode”, or “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” or the Sex Pistols' “God Save The Queen”, or Aphex Twin’s “Blue Calx”, or Brazilian samba, or one of Satie’s Gnossiennes or, yes, most of Hans Zimmer’s music, but in all these cases, and there are billions more, any such analysis, no matter how thorough, will never reveal what’s truly special, truly impactful and truly remarkable about these musical creations and expressions. Quite the contrary: seen through an analytical lens, all this music inevitably shrivels and shrinks down to bland nothingness. As if there’s nothing there. But that’s not the music’s fault, it’s the inappropriateness and the many limitations of traditional musical analysis which are the sole reason for this disappointing outcome. I mean, how do you analyse the blues? Or swing? Or that weird but oh so pleasant primal feeling in your belly that you get from good rock? Or the sound of a Moog or an Oberheim? Or the irresistible hypnotic enchantment of good minimal music? How do you analyse all that and, more to the point, why would you?

I find analysis useful — up to a point anyway — if you wanna have an inside look at, say, the finale of Mozart’s Jupiter symphony. In such a case, analysis finds something to get its teeth into, and the result will be illuminating. Good on Analysis, I say. (And after all, it’s mainly that type of music that led people to lay down the principles of musical analysis in the first place.) Or, say you wanna trace all the inventive ways in which Rachmaninov plays with the Paganini-motif — submitting it to all sorts of cunning musical transformations, distortions and masquerades — then, again, yes, analysis can be a useful aid.

But analysing the introduction of Hans Zimmer’s “Am I Not Merciful”? Really? There’s almost nothing there to analyse, and everything that is there and which justifies this music's existence remains mostly invisible to analysis anyway. So again: why?

I don’t have a crystal ball but I predict that Hans Zimmer won’t be remembered for the ingenuity of his voice leading or his ability to write for the orchestra or whatever other technical facility he may have enriched his musical vocabulary with along the way. Not that I question the quality and solidity of any of it, most certainly not, but all of that is fairly standard stuff and, especially when considered in a wider historical context, not really the sort of musical accomplishment that holds oblivion at bay. (Even Williams’ often-marvelled-at technical prowess pales instantly and considerably when looked at by someone who is informed and aware of everything that musical history has to offer us.)

Now, oblivion *will* be held at bay in Zimmer’s case — one doesn’t need a crystal ball to see that — and the composer is undoubtedly assured of several paragraphs in any serious and unbiased music history book, but for entirely different reasons, in my opinion, than the ones you seem to prefer to draw our attention to.

What it comes down to is that I feel you appear to have a fascination with those aspects of Zimmer’s art which can be validated, so to speak, on a theoretical basis (as if you feel that such a validation is somehow required). But it’s precisely those aspects which I happen to consider the most uninteresting and certainly least individual elements in his music.

Today, HZ may be an institution and part of the establishment, but for a long time he wasn’t and I have a feeling that his current success and prestige still makes him feel uncomfortable at times and question himself, his art and his status. Because at heart, he’s everything the establishment isn’t. He loathes complacency and conformism. He’s a rebel, a madman, a misfit, a Vivian Stanshall, a maverick, a punk, an iconoclast and the definitive anti-snob. The kind of musician who prefers to send what he picked up from Vivaldi through a distortion pedal, rather than slavishly obey the rules of good voice leading and correct counterpoint. Not that he can’t do good voice leading or decent counterpoint if he sets his mind to it, but that’s not really what defines and excites him as a musician, I’m inclined to think. And I also have a feeling that when presented with an attempt at high-brow analysis of his music, he would look at it with a mixture of wild surprise and embarrassment but also not without some irritation at being taking pseudo-seriously again for all the wrong reasons; barely recognising the work that was being dissected as his own, or its composer as himself.

_


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 24, 2020)

Again Piet, all very fair and I don’t disagree. Even so, every kid who ever strapped on a guitar and learned a Chuck Berry tune did some level of _analysis_ if not a traditional one. It isn’t just that it’s a benign procedure but common and helpful - to us all hopefully.

I think the Merciful cue is a terrific dramatic cue and as I said, _primitive. _Also clever in it’s exploitation of a few notes in Dm. I like the way it unfolds (it’s construction) and where it gets to (the Korngold bit.) None of that however would motivate me to _analyze _it. Of course you’re right that formal terms ascribe a seriousness and perhaps quality that may not be there at all - as in any piece of music. But we all should know that and doing so was not my goal. My goal was to say that any random sample of the music of this composer is going to show that he is a capable writer and not some clueless hack. _Merciful‘s _order and simple logic easily dispels that _silly notion _as I’ve come to call it.

As I said, I edited it for educational purposes and can’t imagine it could have a deleterious effect on the younger folks, but perhaps even be an eye or ear opener. Even if they only learned one or two new musical terms or just witnessed someone else's take on destructing 32 bars of music. Conveying enthusiasm - if not unjustified praise - for the underlying principles of music also can’t be a bad thing either I figure. I often have younger musicians toting their laptops around on my mind as a group that could too easily miss the very thing they’re trying to get at.

Cheers


----------



## Iswhatitis (Mar 24, 2020)

Dave Connor said:


> Again Piet, all very fair and I don’t disagree. Even so, every kid who ever strapped on a guitar and learned a Chuck Berry tune did some level of _analysis_ if not a traditional one. It isn’t just that it’s a benign procedure but common and helpful - to us all hopefully.
> 
> I think the Merciful cue is a terrific dramatic cue and as I said, _primitive. _Also clever in it’s exploitation of a few notes in Dm. I like the way it unfolds (it’s construction) and where it gets to (the Korngold bit.) None of that however would motivate me to _analyze _it. Of course you’re right that formal terms ascribe a seriousness and perhaps quality that may not be there at all - as in any piece of music. But we all should know that and doing so was not my goal. My goal was to say that any random sample of the music of this composer is going to show that he is a capable writer and not some clueless hack. _Merciful‘s _order and simple logic easily dispels that _silly notion _as I’ve come to call it.
> 
> ...


The big budget movie business is not about Art it’s about commerce. No studio needs artists they simply need hacks. Hans is a good hack at what he does for someone with no classical training. Is he a modern day Mozart? Not even remotely. He’s a studio hack who got very lucky to make all the money he has made. His scores are completely serviceable. But I have no interest in listening to a HZ score by itself. John Williams, John Barry and Jerry Goldsmith are/were truly spectacular film composers. HZ is not in their league as without a midi sequencer HZ can’t compose a lick. HZ scores are perfectly fine for movies because Hollywood is just a big factory 🏭 plunking our remakes, redos, and like kind products.

I don’t think any of HZ scores will be remembered 100 years from now though he’s made a fortune. I respect Hans for being a hard worker and being so successful but I never feel like his scores are masterful, they aren’t. I never say to myself I wish I had talent like Hans. I don’t because he isn’t that talented. He’s not Strauss, Beethoven, etc... Nor is Hans a rebel or a punk or some break the mold writer. He’s a good midi sequencer hack composer for the studios who got very lucky to be so successful, that’s all. 100 years from now music schools will still teach Beethoven and Mozart, Mahler and Strauss, no one will mention HZ. He gets a lot of attention from composers who wish they could be top studio writers that like Hans don’t have real classical training so they emulate Hans since they struggle to find their own voice, that’s all.

Where I give Hans credit is utilizing samplers and computer DAW gear to be able to write for film when a lot of his competition were classically trained composers who did not need to rely on technology to compose for orchestra and film. But as a composer of melody, harmony, rhythm, and structure, he’s just a hack.


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 24, 2020)

That was quite a screed Iswhatitis.

We have different definitions of _Hack. _The piece I posted is far too orderly and well considered to be _hackwork. _When people hack away at something the connections are ragged, disconnected, disjointed etc., right? Also, there would be a lack of symmetry and lack of consistency since nothing was planned at that outset: _You’re hacking away and whatever remains at the end is the final product - _right? The cue I posted - at the very least - shows, a _plan._ The symmetry is undeniable and is maintained. It’s a very simple structure but film in general doesn’t allow for even that much order because, _when the car starts, the music starts and when it stops - so does the music. _In any case would you really say that this cue is _disorderly? _Things that are hacked away have no particular rhyme or reason and would obviously wilt under any sort of analysis. In all arts and crafts that would be true.

As I said, Hans is not Goldsmith and Goldsmith is not Hans. Same with Williams. I would never want to replace Williams on the original Superman. I would never want to replace Hans with _anyone _on The Dark Knight (nor Elfman on Batman.) I don’t understand the need to indict any of these composers abilities who are just the right choice depending on the film. Of all the composers mentioned HZ is way ahead of them as far as sound invention (Goldsmith the exception although it wasn’t his calling card in the same way.) Obviously there’s room for Hans Zimmer and the entirety of his musical makeup. In his case, that’s room at the top.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 24, 2020)

Iswhatitis said:


> The big budget movie business is not about Art it’s about commerce.



It's about both. There's a lot of shite out there, no question, in fact a lot of films make me wonder why they were made. But there are dozens of examples of big budget films that aren't just commercial. All the Harry Potter films, for example.



Iswhatitis said:


> I respect Hans for being a hard worker and being so successful but I never feel like his scores are masterful, they aren’t



Check out the opening to "Genius."


----------

