# Is film music heading in the wrong direction?



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

Quoting Jerry Goldsmith below -- what do you think?

JG:



> ***Q: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT FILM COMPOSING TODAY?***
> 
> JG: I think a great deal of the two Newman brothers, David and Tommy. Also, I think another composer, Cliff Edelman, is a great talent with amazing potential. Elliot Goldenthal seems very interesting to me as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2009)

As usual, Goldsmith was correct.

And btw, John, thanks for a specific example of where Goldsmith said exactly what I have been saying: "Serving the film is our first consideration and the responsibility of all film composers."


----------



## midphase (May 27, 2009)

You know Jay....if one of us had said the same things, you'd be going on about how we shouldn't be criticizing big composers and on and on.

There are several references to one of the composers (factory of composers) which has been heavily discussed in another recent thread...it's nice to know that Jerry shared the same POV of some of us, but don't forget that the POV is the same!

Also...several mentions of film scoring as "art"


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2009)

midphase @ Wed May 27 said:


> You know Jay....if one of us had said the same things, you'd be going on about how we shouldn't be criticizing big composers and on and on.
> 
> There are several references to one of the composers (factory of composers) which has been heavily discussed in another recent thread...it's nice to know that Jerry shared the same POV of some of us, but don't forget that the POV is the same!
> 
> Also...several mentions of film scoring as "art"



Goldsmith earned that right in a way no one here has earned it with a lifetime of amazing work. If you reach the level of a Jerry Goldsmith, then I will support your right to come in here and make that kind of statement publicly.

And notice that he does not mention any composers whose work he does not like by name, only the ones he likes.

Yes, clearly Jerry thought of it as art also, but notice that he mentions craft first

"Here's a craft, an art "


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2009)

Hard to argue with perhaps the greatest practitioner of the art of film scoring in it's entire history. He _is_ the most versatile film composer ever. Who can blame him for being able to hear what's going in in so many scores these days?


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

I am not so sure, Jay. I think he's thinking aloud and starts off calling film music "a craft," then raises the stakes by elevating it to "an art." Which, in his hands, it was. 

Moreover, I believe that JG saw himself as an artist, albeit one who had mastered his craft. I don't believe that he'd have kept going into his later years if he conceived of himself merely as a humble craftsman, and I don't think that "The Omen" or "Planet of the Apes" could have emerged without a belief that it was art, not merely craft, that he was producing.

I'm curious, Jay, why you reprise your emphasis on craft quite so much. Is it because, as a teacher, you see so many people who are still at a rudimentary level of craft but with towering ambition? Or is it more that you think film composers in general exaggerate the Great Importance and Artistic Merit of Film Composing? Either seems possible!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2009)

JohnG @ Wed May 27 said:


> I am not so sure, Jay. I think he's thinking aloud and starts off calling film music "a craft," then raises the stakes by elevating it to "an art." Which, in his hands, it was.
> 
> Moreover, I believe that JG saw himself as an artist, albeit one who had mastered his craft. I don't believe that he'd have kept going into his later years if he conceived of himself merely as a humble craftsman, and I don't think that "The Omen" or "Planet of the Apes" could have emerged without a belief that it was art, not merely craft, that he was producing.
> 
> I'm curious, Jay, why you reprise your emphasis on craft quite so much. Is it because, as a teacher, you see so many people who are still at a rudimentary level of craft but with towering ambition? Or is it more that you think film composers in general exaggerate the Great Importance and Artistic Merit of Film Composing? Either seems possible!



It is precisely because I read so many would be film composers who express lofty artistic ambitions and when you listen to their work, their lack of even rudimentary craftsmanship is apparent. They are putting the cart before the horse IMHO.

I think JG would have said that he became an artist subsequent to having mastered his craft.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 27, 2009)

Sorry for some reason I seem to be crating a lot of double posts these days.


----------



## Niah (May 27, 2009)

for a minute there I thought JG...was you...JohnG ahah :lol:


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

People are always getting us confused.


----------



## lux (May 27, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Wed May 27 said:


> midphase @ Wed May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > You know Jay....if one of us had said the same things, you'd be going on about how we shouldn't be criticizing big composers and on and on.
> ...



John said it, being modest is something often pertinent to the big talent (not always). Craft is clearly a way he finds there to not name himself a big artist. But he was a big "artist". its talent, baby.

Midphase also said it. Some things are just too evident today, probably Goldsmith did not care enough to avoid speaking out of mind, sometimes that happens at a certain age, and often leads to sincerity.

big kudos to Jerry, expecially when defined himself and a few musos like John Barry, John Williams and Elmer Bernstein simply like "the old standbys"


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2009)

_Craft_ is not any kind of dirty word. There is all kinds of craft going on in composition. It's one thing to build a good solid sturdy chair (craft). It's another to make it a thing of original beauty (art).

The guys in the 1930's-1960's who you never heard of and did B movies or various uncredited things for film and TV had far more craft than a lot of even major guys working today. You notice Jerry mentioned the Newman brothers who are both very well schooled composers. It is indeed that lack of craft that is the problem. You have to be a good craftsmen to elevate something to art.


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

And no doubt it's that humble yet lovable sense in which Jay emphasises "craft." My question was aimed at teasing out why he appears generally averse to using the word "art," and I think he answered it in just about the same way you have, Dave.

And I agree, broadly -- I think you are both right that craft is an antecedent to art. 

In keeping with this notion, that craft must precede art, I think part of the trick (and a conundrum for new people) is getting enough real work as a composer to elevate one's fledgling knowledge of craft to a high enough level of mastery so that art is in fact possible.


----------



## Niah (May 27, 2009)

I belive that craf is one thing and art is another.

To me art is something that breaks the mold, it is a departure. It shatters conventions.

As for craft in my view, it is about perfecting a formula.

I have never seen art in film music, althought I could be wrong, to me film music is always behind the times especially behind contemporary art forms.

To me art is only recognized, appreciated or regarded as such years later, and by the time it reaches film it is no longer art, if that makes sense. :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

Well, if you define art as something that breaks the mould, that would rule out a lot of work by people like Bach, who was regarded as pretty old hat in his day, or Raphael, or...lots of people whose craft transcended perfunctory formula but was, nevertheless, rooted very substantially in the conventions of the day.

I believe that originality is over-prized these days; that being different and iconoclastic demonstrates a willingness to disregard authority and not necessarily a lot more. Ironically, I find many people who pride themselves on their disdain for convention ironically are slaves to it -- just its mirror opposite or the avoidance of it. 

On the contrary, some forms of expression that I call art, and that a lot of other people call art, are imbued with tradition and build very clearly and directly on those who have come before in their disciplines. This concept could be applied to many of the most revered religious works, many plays and novels, many sculptures, and a great deal of music.

So if what you are saying is that 90% of film music is pedestrian and barely sea-worthy, much less art, fair enough. But some of it rises to a different level and, in my view, is artistic.

Personally, I believe mastery of what has come before lends tremendous authority to those who break moulds; since seeing Picasso's youthful paintings (a lot like Raphael, actually), I feel much more that his later works (just saw the Chapel of War and Peace in Vallauris last week) reflect deliberate choice, rather than an automatic rejection of what has come before. Similarly, Jerry Goldsmith's work in Planet of the Apes and his very unusual orchestrations and rhythms appeal to me on an artistic level, because they are innovative, and yet retain a coherence and authority that succeeds.


----------



## Niah (May 27, 2009)

Yea I see were you are coming from. I agree with your pov

BUt I guess that I am looking on the grand scheme of things not just music but all art forms. Film music seems pretty much slave to the film, if the film is not very artistic to begin with, how can the music? Out of all films that are made how many are art or artistically inclined?

Meredith monk's films + music was showned at art galleries. but it's that what we regard as film music?

Although I admit that there's some "art" to it. but somehow the term craft feels more accurate.

Actually I don't believe that art is 100% intentional, especially when it breaks conventions, I think it's an acident, it's a discovery. Example: Steve Reich "it's gonna rain"

is steve reich and meredith monk recent works art? it's sounds more like craft since they are perfecting the language they discovered.

but overall I believe art is a concept that is very hard to define and can mean a thousand things to individuals

craft however seems much easier to define, could that be the problem?


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

To say "film generally is not art" or that a particular film _is_ a work of art, one has to define art, for oneself at least.

For my part, I believe that one can participate to one's full capacity as a composer only if one thinks hard about one's objectives as an artist. I can't imagine how it's possible to raise one's game to a level that could be described as "artistic" through sheer accident. There has to be intention and at least some calculated effort (training, studying, practicing -- something).

Here are some questions that I've asked myself that illustrate a bit where I'm coming from:

1. *Do I have any artistic ambitions at all?* -- Am I just doing this for money? If so, aren't there more certain ways to make money?

2. *Do I have a vision that I am pursuing that's independent?* -- In executing my work, do I pursue any agenda apart from the minimum that will satisfy my client? If I think my client would be better served with a different approach, do I take the trouble to explain? To make a mockup?

3. *Is my craft elevated enough so that I'm unencumbered as I pursue my artistic vision?* 
Do I have command of harmony, tonal or otherwise? Can I orchestrate? Can I play an instrument at a professional level? Can I conduct? Do I have a good understanding of my computers and software? Do I know what's been done before? If I want a sound like Composer X, do I know how to get it or how to figure it out quickly?

4. *How do I define "art" anyway?* Is it simply something many people admire for a long time? Can something simple, elevated to perfection, be "art?" If it's popular today and / or generates a lot of money, is that bad or good or neutral? If it's easy to execute, does that reduce its value (is it mostly concept with limited challenge to realise)?


----------



## clarkcontrol (May 27, 2009)

I see Art as a subset to Craft, generally speaking. There's also:

Bob Dylan would never be considered a singer's singer, he was a song-smith. Better singers, however, have weaker material, so this can balance out. Vocalists can be natural talents, so to speak. but...

RE: Orchestra, you would have to be a craftsman to be an artist, even if you break the rules.

It's like hearing a novice jazz soloist attempt to go "outside" the changes for the first time. Got to practice both the rules and breaking them. There's no disregarding what's come before, no leapfrogging allowed.

It sounds obvious when someone is faking it, or doing a rush job, etc.

Clark


----------



## gsilbers (May 27, 2009)

Re: Is film music heading in the wrong direction?

so, there is a "right" direction for film music to go to?

even if its the greatest composer says it so, sfx and dialog will tell it to lower it and deliver it faster. 

thus, places like RC add a huge advantage to production companies to deliver on time, and from my own experience...they sound good  . and from business point of view, 
they make lotsa of money.

and , just maybe my ignorance.. but doesn't almost all composers (even outside RC) have "assistants" who help out in cues? 


i admire JG and i understand his point but i go for the side of "evolution",. we didnt like going to CD, not to MP3 and ipods but there here and its just how mucis is unfolding nowadays. dont like it anymore than guys but we have accept it and move foward.. dont like. then dont take that gig. 
oh, or try to teach filmakers of the wonders of having only one composer on board, and have a "work of art" etc.. they dont care, they just want something that works on their flix and wanted it now. again, dont like it but we have to move on. work with other composers, share devices and styles and sound. ever seen how featurets of "stay" with ewan macgregor, its 3 guys doing the score at the same time.. literally, one has drums with ableton trigering samples, guitar, piano.. cool score. 
i know its the unpopular side of the story in this forum but as i said thats the (sad) truth of how music in film is unfolding.


----------



## johncarter (May 27, 2009)

JG is a bit "cliché" when he says today film music is "the orchestra playing at once and horns playing in the high register". VERY cliché . Ok most of the TV scores are like this ( especially the big shows like Cold Case / CSI / etc.. only strings pads in those tv scores, and the "technoïd" part when guys are investigating) but not film music.


----------



## gsilbers (May 27, 2009)

johncarter @ Wed May 27 said:


> JG is a bit "cliché" when he says today film music is "the orchestra playing at once and horns playing in the high register". VERY cliché . Ok most of the TV scores are like this ( especially the big shows like Cold Case / CSI / etc.. only strings pads in those tv scores, and the "technoïd" part when guys are investigating) but not film music.



maybe can jump non this cause i dont rememebr well, but from the scott smiley class (whom he adores and copied JG style) there is a section in which he mentioned a device of keeping brass,.. well t-bones in the lower registered because in those 70-80 socre there was a lot of that funk influenze (cop shows type) where big band brass was used more in film. maybe is that.. maybe not. just thinking outloud..

but a little trivia and funny story.. 

scott smiley adores JG (w/ good reason) and studied all his scores and learnt his style and almost everyhting he orchestrated was based in JG style. 
so around the time smiley orchestrated elfmans batman and was a huge hit, direcotrs/producers where all about this "sound" and told jerry goldsmith.. 
can you make it sound like that batman score.. >8o when all this time it was jerrys sound!! 
he said they talked and had a laugh.. bla bla.. 

also.. elfman was in a tight competition to land the batman gig againt Prince!! 
but once the director/producers heard the end scene with a funk song that had lirics like "here comes the evil clown.. up the stairs.... " then it was a no brainer. 


whole bunch of stories...fun class. just dont ask scott about aliens and the LSO .. ~o) :lol:


----------



## JohnG (May 27, 2009)

john, he's talking about inept orchestration, which certainly is audible in scores today, just as it was when he said it. I wish it were a cliche, in the sense of being aimed at sins of the distant past; sadly, they are all too present.


----------



## Dave Connor (May 27, 2009)

The best example of the importance of craft and that it in no way handcuffs the student (but actually allows for him to go onto even radical departures from previous territories) is Arnold Schoenberg. He taught Bach to his students religiously. Those students such as Webern and Berg went on to create some of the most groundbreaking music in history. They studied the same principles as all students since Bach and came up with totally different results in expression.

An architect could build the most radical Cathedral ever seen but it's going to conform to basic laws of construction (such as gravity.) It's going to have form, space and content. Floors, ceilings, lights, doors, plumbing and the rest. Or it's going to fail (i.e. come crashing down either literally or metaphorically.)


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2009)

"doesn't almost all composers (even outside RC) have "assistants" who help out in cues?"

No.


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2009)

The problem as I perceive it is that with each new generation of composers, the bar gets lower and lower. Few if any "kids" can look beyond the previous generation fo composers (whom they idolize).

A while back, the past generation that new composers inspired themselves from included names like Steiner, Rózsa, Prokofiev, Tiomkin and so on. My generation was heavily inspired by Williams, Herrmann, Goldsmith, Schifrin and so on.

Nowadays most "kids" hardly ever go beyond Elfman and Zimmer (or BT). 

With each new wave, the compositions and orchestrations get progressively more "simplified" for lack of a better term. It's a bit like trying to compare Green Day to the MC5's, or the Jonas Bros. to the Beatles....dig?

So to some of us, it feels a bit like a downward spiral, and we don't buy the argument that "if simple fits, then go with it" because compositions with depth fit even better.

So where do we go from here? Well...my most recent approach is to try to stop the hemorrhaging and try to "guide" the filmmakers that I work with that there is more than just the same old same old. On a project I did last year, the filmmaker originally envisioned your basic drone-ish atmospheric music with little bleeps and bloops here and there. I took it upon myself to risk getting my score rejected to show how much better the film could be with music that had more depth and more thought put into it. It was a gamble which in that particular occasion paid off...but I am well aware that I could have been kicked off the project if I lost the gamble.

The point is that we all need to try and take more chances, even if that means losing some work. Just being a "yes man" is IMHO destroying our art (or craft or whatever you want to call it).


----------



## poseur (May 28, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Wed May 27 said:


> It is precisely because I read so many would be film composers who express lofty artistic ambitions and when you listen to their work, their lack of even rudimentary craftsmanship is apparent. *They are putting the cart before the horse IMHO.*
> 
> I think JG would have said that he became an artist subsequent to having mastered his craft.


interesting.
as regards film music,
i often hear it 
--- pretty much --- 
the other way 'round:
craft before art.
device before inspiration.
"what would X-composer do, here?",
over
"shazam! i think i know how this story should sound!".

whether the employed devices are schooled, or not,
is immaterial to me, personally.

in any case, craft isn't a dirty word, for me:
it can be developed in the employ of art
and can also be viewed as _personal_ craft,
a skillset derived more directly from artistic intention
than from analytical codices;
in that way,
there may be no single edifice for
the many constructs of craft that's really capable
of fully "housing" art.
i think.

in any case,
personal art & craft can develop in tandem,
each "side" vacillating between predominating over the other 
and being predominated over by the other
in fluid,
non-black'n'white, complementary "waves".
music happens in life;
life sure as hell doesn't seem to me to be
confined to either school or concept.

d


----------



## poseur (May 28, 2009)

midphase @ Wed May 27 said:


> The point is that we all need to try and take more chances, even if that means losing some work. Just being a "yes man" is IMHO destroying our art (or craft or whatever you want to call it).


wonderful!
kudos to you!
i do hope you create & find the opportunities
to see this through.
over the long haul!




midphase @ Wed May 27 said:


> On a project I did last year, the filmmaker originally envisioned your basic drone-ish atmospheric music with little bleeps and bloops here and there. I took it upon myself to risk getting my score rejected to show how much better the film could be with music that had more depth and more thought put into it. It was a gamble which in that particular occasion paid off...but I am well aware that I could have been kicked off the project if I lost the gamble.


it is possible, of course
--- without resorting to musical "stereotyping" ---
to offer "drone-ish atmospheric music"
of some depth, some thought & concept & no little skills.
i mean:
it's certainly not all _"your basic....._" blah-blah-blah, etc.
thanks for listening.

d


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

midphase @ Wed May 27 said:


> "doesn't almost all composers (even outside RC) have "assistants" who help out in cues?"
> 
> No.



No, some, but certainly not "almost all." Most busy composers will indeed have orchestrators and maybe a conductor if they are not good conductors themselves, but not actually composing the cues.


----------



## rJames (May 28, 2009)

JohnG @ Wed May 27 said:


> To say "film generally is not art" or that a particular film _is_ a work of art, one has to define art, for oneself at least.
> 
> 1. *Do I have any artistic ambitions at all?*
> 
> ...



Hey John, not to pick on you...but your post is a good spot to jump off from.

I don't think an artist asks himself any of these questions. No need. Art is. You don't have to think about creating art. If you pursue art, you will, most likely study the craft.

I don't think you need artistic ambitions to be an artist. Nor do I think you have to pursue independence. Some artists define new directions while others elevate the status quo.

Even the question of whether or not film music is heading in the wrong direction is sad to me. I would make a bet that the composers that you might criticize are doing their best. We all have different aptitudes. Everyone approaches their art in a different way. Some approach it for money, some approach it for glory. But the approach does not define the art.

Can anyone name an artist who is trying to bring down the quality of film music? This is the way they approach their art. They won't approach it the way you do. We cannot expect them to.

I'll also bet that most of whom we call great artists, from any discipline, pursued it for monetary gain. This is not to say that they didn't discover or create what we now consider the foundation of that discipline.

Bottom line, if you have to ask if you have artistic ambitions...you are trying too hard. Let it flow. If you create it, it IS art. Some art is better than other art.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

rJames @ Thu May 28 said:


> JohnG @ Wed May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > To say "film generally is not art" or that a particular film _is_ a work of art, one has to define art, for oneself at least.
> ...



Oh, brother. John G, you ask why I avoid the term "art?" This kind of nonsense is why (sorry if that offends you, rJames.)

The problem with "art" is that it is totally user definable and not quantifiable. Anyone can call themselves an artist and what they do art and there is no empirical way to measure it. The term "artist" has been rendered meaningless because too many people undeservedly self-describe themselves as such.

Craft OTOH, is definable. You either know how to orchestrate, conduct, play an instrument well, etc. or you do not.

Here is an example of what I am talking bout. A number of years I was hired to be the musical director for a singer. She wanted to sing the beautiful song, "What Are You Doing The Rest Of Your Life." The opening line is a little difficult for some singers to sing accurately. 

So she sings the first line in a half-assed manner. I say to her, "That is not correct."

She responds, "I am an artist and that is the way I feel it."

I then say to her, "No, if you can sing it as written and then decide to change it, THAT is an artistic choice. If y u sing it differently because you cannot sing it as written, that is NOT an artistic choice, that is a cop-out."

We decided not to work together

Too many nowadays are like her and that is why when I see the terms "art" and "artist" thrown around, I have a tremendous urge to run and worship the porcelain goddess.


----------



## kdm (May 28, 2009)

midphase @ Thu May 28 said:


> Nowadays most "kids" hardly ever go beyond Elfman and Zimmer (or BT).



Here outside the LA film market, it seems to be potentially worse than that. I would be surprised if too many of the locally hired composers here have even heard of Elfman or Zimmer... maybe not even BT - just derivatives of BT and other electronica musicians. Some are working on higher level corporate and even dramatic gigs than I would expect. While I'm happy for those guys for finding the work, the paradox of the impact on the market is frustrating. Most may never go beyond that market, but the directors they work for might, and they take that limited perspectives with them into higher level projects. Maybe I should stop listening to Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Brahms, Shostakovich, etc, and start listening to the top 10 electronica cuts on iTunes. :-/


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

rJames @ Thu May 28 said:


> JohnG @ Wed May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > To say "film generally is not art" or that a particular film _is_ a work of art, one has to define art, for oneself at least.
> ...



Oh, brother. John G, you ask why I avoid the term "art?" This kind of nonsense is why (sorry if that offends you, rJames.)

The problem with "art" is that it is totally user definable and not quantifiable. Anyone can call themselves an artist and what they do art and there is no empirical way to measure it. The term "artist" has been rendered meaningless because too many people undeservedly self-describe themselves as such.

Craft OTOH, is definable. You either know how to orchestrate, conduct, play an instrument well, etc. or you do not.

Here is an example of what I am talking bout. A number of years I was hired to be the musical director for a singer. She wanted to sing the beautiful song, "What Are You Doing The Rest Of Your Life." The opening line is a little difficult for some singers to sing accurately. 

So she sings the first line in a half-assed manner. I say to her, "That is not correct."

She responds, "I am an artist and that is the way I feel it."

I then say to her, "No, if you can sing it as written and then decide to change it, THAT is an artistic choice. If y u sing it differently because you cannot sing it as written, that is NOT an artistic choice, that is a cop-out."

We decided not to work together

Too many nowadays are like her and that is why when I see the terms "art" and "artist" thrown around, I have a tremendous urge to run and worship the porcelain goddess.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 28, 2009)

Anyone notice there's going to be an Alien remake? Wonder who will fill Goldsmith's shoes. I'm hoping for Graeme Revell so that there's so much suckage coming from that production that it somehow self implodes.


----------



## synthetic (May 28, 2009)

They're remaking Footloose too. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- but not the TV show, the sucky movie one (without Whedon's involvement).


----------



## rJames (May 28, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Thu May 28 said:


> This kind of nonsense is why (sorry if that offends you, rJames.)



Jay, why would you think that labeling my core philosophical beliefs as, "nonsense," offend me? 

Apology accepted.

However, I don't see how having an artist fire you for being too pragmatic proves anything.

I may have made an incorrect assumption that John's post was trying to separate the term, "craftsman," from, "artist." 

Anyone who has heard his music knows that he is a journeyman craftsman. He needs to try no harder to achieve that. My point is that to become an artist is to have other people see you that way. I don't think he was wondering if he could say to his friends in response to, "what do you do for a living?" "I'm an artist." He can do that.

You don't need to try to become an artist. If what you are doing does not fulfill your own meaning then you turn a corner. Do what you feel, even if it means losing your music director for a lack of flexibility.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

rJames @ Thu May 28 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > This kind of nonsense is why (sorry if that offends you, rJames.)



Jay, why would you think that labeling my core philosophical beliefs as, "nonsense," offend me? 

Apology accepted.

However, I don't see how having an artist fire you for being too pragmatic proves anything.

I may have made an incorrect assumption that John's post was trying to separate the term, "craftsman," from, "artist." 

Anyone who has heard his music knows that he is a journeyman craftsman. He needs to try no harder to achieve that. My point is that to become an artist is to have other people see you that way. I don't think he was wondering if he could say to his friends in response to, "what do you do for a living?" "I'm an artist." ò¾   ¢O¾   ¢O¾   ¢O‘¾   ¢O’¾   ¢O“¾   ¢O”¾   ¢O•¾   ¢O–¾   ¢O—¾   ¢O˜¾   ¢O™¾   ¢Oš¾   ¢O›¾   ¢Oœ¾   ¢O¾   ¢Ož¾   ¢OŸ¾   ¢O ¾   ¢O¡¾   ¢O¢¾   ¢O£¾   ¢O¤¾   ¢O¥¾   ¢O¦¾   ¢O§¾   ¢O¨¾   ¢O©¾   ¢Oª¾   ¢O«¾   ¢O¬¾   ¢O­¾   ¢O®¾   ¢O¯¾   ¢O°¾   ¢O±¾   ¢O²¾   ¢O³¾   ¢O´¾   ¢Oµ¾   ¢O¶¾   ¢O·¾   ¢O¸¾   ¢O¹¾   ¢Oº¾   ¢O»¾   ¢O¼¾   ¢O½¾   ¢O¾¾   ¢O¿¾   ¢OÀ¾   ¢OÁ¾   ¢OÂ¾   ¢OÃ¾   ¢OÄ¾   ¢OÅ¾   ¢OÆ¾   ¢OÇ¾   ¢OÈ¾   ¢OÉ¾   ¢OÊ¾   ¢OË¾   ¢OÌ¾   ¢OÍ¾   ¢OÎ¾   ¢OÏ¾   ¢OÐ¾   ¢OÑ¾   ¢OÒ¾   ¢OÓ¾   ¢OÔ¾   ¢OÕ¾   ¢OÖ¾   ¢O×¾   ¢OØ¾   ¢OÙ¾   ¢OÚ¾   ¢OÛ¾   ¢OÜ¾   ¢OÝ¾   ¢OÞ¾   ¢Oß¾   ¢Oà¾   ¢Oá¾   ¢Oâ¾   ¢Oã¾   ¢Oä¾   ¢Oå¾   ¢Oæ¾   ¢Oç¾   ¢Oè¾   ¢Oé¾   ¢Oê¾   ¢Oë¾   ¢Oì¾   ¢Oí¾   ¢Oî¾   ¢Oï¾   ¢Oð¾   ¢Oñ¾   ¢Oò¾   ¢Oó¾   ¢Oô¾   ¢Oõ¿   ¢Oö¿   ¢O÷¿   ¢Oø¿   ¢Où¿   ¢Oú¿   ¢Oû¿   ¢Oü¿   ¢Oý¿   ¢Oþ              ò¿   ¢P ¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P	¿   ¢P
¿   ¢P¿   ¢P¿   ¢P ¿   ¢


----------



## rJames (May 28, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Thu May 28 said:


> Let me be specific about your "core philosophy." The very idea that somehow bad work is more acceptable because "the composers that you might criticize are doing their best" and that they are not intentionally "trying to bring down the quality of film music" is the problem. This is not kindergarten, the end result matters more than the composer's sincerity.
> 
> Good artistic intentions are all well and good but when it comes to film scoring, you either have the skills or you do not and if you do not you better be honest with yourself about it and hire someone who does to help you or you are going to screw up the score.



I assume your words, "this is not kindergarten," is just meant to inflame...so I'll ignore them.

When did I mention, "bad work being acceptable?" Please quote from my words, if you would quote me.

"...the end result matters more than the composer's sincerity." in whose judgmental eyes. Yours, the audience, the director? I was discussing art, you are discussing a commercial product.

In order for great art to thrive, we must allow bad art. I didn't hire that hack composer for the film that you think has a hack score. I'm not telling you it is great art. But I will say that a composer has the artistic right to score what he feels in the way he feels it. Some day that hack may be recognized as a genius for his groundbreaking work.

You (and I) need to face this simple fact. Our aesthetics will not determine who will be recognized as a great artist in the future.

I was only making a point about how to approach art. My point was not about what makes good film music.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

rJames @ Thu May 28 said:


> 1. I assume your words, "this is not kindergarten," is just meant to inflame...so I'll ignore them.
> 
> 2. I was only making a point about how to approach art. My point was not about what makes good film music.



1, No, I meant what I said, which is for children "trying your best" is acceptable but it is not for film scorers.

2. This thread is about film music, not "Is Art heading in the wrong direction?"


----------



## rJames (May 28, 2009)

So, Jay, I may not respond to John's post in this thread without you redirecting me to the topic sentence?

Sorry. I hadn't read that part of the rule book.

And I must say that I find many of your statements outright disingenuous. To say you are sorry just before you insult my thoughts is disingenuous. To say that you bring an analogy of kindergarten to the discussion is not meant to inflame is disingenuous.

Did I mistake this forum for kindergarten? Nope.



JohnG said:


> I am not so sure, Jay. I think he's thinking aloud and starts off calling film music "a craft," then raises the stakes by elevating it to "an art." Which, in his hands, it was.
> 
> Moreover, I believe that JG saw himself as an artist, albeit one who had mastered his craft. I don't believe that he'd have kept going into his later years if he conceived of himself merely as a humble craftsman, and I don't think that "The Omen" or "Planet of the Apes" could have emerged without a belief that it was art, not merely craft, that he was producing.
> 
> I'm curious, Jay, why you reprise your emphasis on craft quite so much. Is it because, as a teacher, you see so many people who are still at a rudimentary level of craft but with towering ambition? Or is it more that you think film composers in general exaggerate the Great Importance and Artistic Merit of Film Composing? Either seems possible!



I too wonder why you reprise your emphasis on craft quite so much.


----------



## poseur (May 28, 2009)

[error]

d


----------



## poseur (May 28, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Thu May 28 said:


> 2. This thread is about film music, not "Is Art heading in the wrong direction?"


hmmmm.
so, we can't talk about the artistic nature of film-_*music*_ in this thread?
i started out kinda confused,
and remain in that state.
i was under the mistaken impression that
both music & film can be approached & achieved, artistically.
???
d


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

rJames @ Thu May 28 said:


> JohnG said:
> 
> 
> > I too wonder why you reprise your emphasis on craft quite so much.



I have already answered that now several times.

And my apology is sincere in that I am sorry it was necessary to possibly offend you if I stated what I believe to be the truth about your statement. Unfortunately, one cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 28, 2009)

Sorry, double post. Does this forum have a delete post option?


----------



## lux (May 28, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 28 said:


> Anyone notice there's going to be an Alien remake? Wonder who will fill Goldsmith's shoes. I'm hoping for Graeme Revell so that there's so much suckage coming from that production that it somehow self implodes.



:lol:


----------



## lux (May 28, 2009)

poseur @ Thu May 28 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > 2. This thread is about film music, not "Is Art heading in the wrong direction?"
> ...



exactly


----------



## midphase (May 28, 2009)

"i dunno man,,, iam listening to cool ass scores in movies as well as in TV. so maybe its just a style or phase we are going to"


Thanks for illustrating my point These "cool ass" scores that you seem to like compared to even vintage Elfman (Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish) are not what I would consider hard to achieve or challenging even in the loosest term of the word.

I'm not implying that if a score is not a virtuoso composer's tour-de-force is crap, but the depth and character of...say a Powell score just can't compare to a Herrmann score (my guess is that even he'd agree to that).

The problem is that the new generation of composers lacks that deeper frame of reference. They listen to one of the Bourne scores and think to themselves "That's a cool as score!" 

(I'm not criticizing Powell, I happen to like his work. I'm just raising a flag when he becomes the only influence on a new composer's work).


----------



## lux (May 28, 2009)

What is surprising with John Powell is that he has the bourne stuff and the X3. Totally different planets and leagues from the same composer. X3 is a nice and detailed orchestral score (well, perhaps not detailed like some masterpieces, but still pleasantly detailed) with some very cool themes (the dark phoenix above all). I've had much fun listening to it several times. Cant say the same with bourne that i'm not a fan of, even if it is something we are asked every day, ad nauseam. 

I wonder where's the real nature of the composer. Sure that i will receive at least one dozen of "both" as followups i would say thats not my opinion.


----------



## _taylor (May 28, 2009)

midphase @ Thu May 28 said:


> "i dunno man,,, iam listening to cool ass scores in movies as well as in TV. so maybe its just a style or phase we are going to"
> 
> 
> Thanks for illustrating my point These "cool ass" scores that you seem to like compared to even vintage Elfman (Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish) are not what I would consider hard to achieve or challenging even in the loosest term of the word.
> ...



Just playing devils advocate here, but whats wrong with that? Why do flags need to be raised? Whats wrong with "cool ass" music? I don't know. Film music shouldn't be cool or fun? Maybe those people inspired by Powell or Hans to get into film scoring will seek out the stuff that inspired those guys and so on and so fourth. 

Things are going to shape and evolve. Some may be into it, some may not. In 60 years who knows what film scores will sound like. There are no rules.

I think it's a great time for film music.


----------



## JohnG (May 29, 2009)

There are two camps in this thread, with a fundamental disagreement. 

On the one hand, there are some who think that there is an absolute standard (more on this below) against which a score's artistic merits could be measured.

Opposing that point of view is what might be called a relativist one, that states, more or less, that "everyone can apply his own standard" or that "there are no absolute standards." Another response, related, I think, is a view that "whatever works, works" or "the new guys are doing something that's valid and the old guys with their 'standards' are just old hat." Not far away is the hard-to-rebut "you can't argue with success." 

But, taken to an extreme, the "success talks" perspective leaves all judgment up to the public, and by that standard, wouldn't "Livin' La Vida Loca" beat most film music since the dawn of time?

I am not for a moment leaving the world's judgment out of it -- I think it's essential -- but just not sufficient for anyone seeking to create something worthy and lasting -- art. 

So what?

The reason this matters to me as a composer is that I find that *when I hold my own work up to a "higher," more artistic standard, I write better*. And further, interviews with Hans Zimmer, who probably leads the vanguard of the new way of conducting business, reveal an acute consciousness of the past and of standards, so I don't think this question is just for stodgy traditionalists.

A specific example:

"I'm using some metal percussion here because it sounds cool or something made me reach for it. Now that I think of it, I intuitively selected this percussion because this particular fight scene is the culminating one, with colossal blows being delivered."

So then I ask, "What would John Williams do? What would James Newton Howard do? What would Elfman, or Rosza, or Strauss or Newman or Zimmer or whomever do?" 

Often the answer is something like -- "take it all the way; if you are going for brutal, make sure EVERYTHING is brutal." Or, "great but there are a lot of competing agendas earlier in the scene so what about some contrary lines in the strings for that?" So this process of comparing my work to the standards of others changes the way I write and clarifies it and usually makes it a lot better than merely trusting instinct. For a few minutes of music, instinct is great, but if you have a 70 minute score and four or five weeks, it's easy, if you trust to instinct alone, to end up with mush or a random collection of pretty good ideas, none of which has been honed.

Craft is a huge part of one's ability to do any of this. Ignorance -- of how to voice a chord for maximum punch or of cool new synth techniques or microphone / recording technique or not knowing how to create shimmer with the strings in divisi -- always weakens and never strengthens, in my view.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." -- William Faulkner

TS Eliot discouraged automaton-like following of tradition, writing, "if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, 'tradition' should positively be discouraged." Absolutely.

However, he goes on to argue (persuasively, I believe) that a knowledge of tradition is "nearly indispensable" to anyone who wants to continue to write "beyond his twenty-fifth year." In other words, anyone who wants to grow up as an artist must acquire knowledge of tradition, not easily or casually, but "by great labour."

He writes, at the conclusion of the essay, that the poet must know tradition in order to rise above it, because one's creative output is made in the context of the cumulative opus of other composers / poets / artists:

_"There are many people who appreciate the expression of sincere emotion in verse, and there is a smaller number of people who can appreciate technical excellence. But very few know when there is expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet. The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. And he is not likely to know what is to be done unless he lives in what is not merely the present, but the present moment of the past, unless he is conscious, not of what is dead, but of what is already living."_

-- TS Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html


----------



## rJames (May 29, 2009)

Great research and thought process, John. 100% on all points.

Last night, while I slept, my subconscious worked on this problem a little. It came up with this. All the craft in the world won't make one an artist. (that is a bit of an extreme statement since, in my own philosophy anyone who attempts creatively constructing something has created art) But more importantly; craft is the shoulders of the giants we stand on to create the art of our time.

No one should deny this...but also no one should deny that sometimes there is a spark of art that is undefinable. Something like the spark that strikes a young Mozart who has not mastered his craft but is barely in the midst of its study.

I also did a little research into the issue and came up with this thought from RG Collingwood, an unknown to me philosopher who lived till 1943.

According to RG Collingwood (Principles of Art) what
distinguishes the artist from the craftsman is that
the craftsman has a precise notion of what s/he is
constructing.

The artist, in contrast, performs his/her creations
to learn what they become.? And in learning what they
become, the artist informs him/herself about something
previously unknown to the artist.

I'm not saying this is a definitive statement by any means. But it begins to clarify the issue.

John's research on Zimmer illustrates this attitude. What would happen if...?

Furthermore, RG Collingswood's description of art is precisely the study plan of EIS. Spud Murphy challenges each student to think in a new way. He tricks the student into creating something and then forces us to understand what we have created and mold it into whatever we need for the task at hand.

What Jay failed to admit yesterday is that there are artists who are at all levels of their art. There are beginning artists. Is their work not art because they are not 70 years old and have had the good fortune of a life path that starts with good DNA and a healthy diet, winds through and beside great mentors and ends with befriending a few Hollywood film directors?

When your child brings home their art project from kindergarten and holds it up for an approving look from their dad, is that not art? ...just because it is not of the same magnitude as, "Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies?"

Art is a reaching out. It is a leap into the unknown. It is an outward expression of the soul (whatever that is).

Art is a daily struggle to the top of the peak of craft and then leaping off into the void. Tomorrow's peak will be higher, no doubt; but todays leap will take you into art.

Nonsense.


----------



## TheoKrueger (May 29, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri May 29 said:


> _"There are many people who appreciate the expression of sincere emotion in verse, and there is a smaller number of people who can appreciate technical excellence. But very few know when there is expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet. The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. And he is not likely to know what is to be done unless he lives in what is not merely the present, but the present moment of the past, unless he is conscious, not of what is dead, but of what is already living."_
> 
> -- TS Eliot, Tradition and the Individual Talent http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html



Great find! 8)


----------



## rgames (May 29, 2009)

Here's how I think of it:

Craft: techniques that can be taught and practiced (the tools)
Art: the result of creative application of craft (the product)

These are concepts that apply across all of humanity's endeavors: music, science, athletics, etc. The greater the creativitiy, the greater the art.

We all know musicians with amazing chops but who produce uninspiring performances: lots of craft; no art. Einstein was not particularly good at mathematics (for a theoretical physicist, mind you) but he dreamed up some game-changing ideas: sub-standard craft, but good art. Tiger Woods has phenomenal technique and outstanding ability to dream up amazing shots: good craft; good art.

The bottom line is that craft helps, but it is ultimately creativity that leaves a mark on history.

Regarding the discussion at hand, I think we're in a time where craft is overemphasized. We have developed tools to the point that film music has become an almost "paint-by-numbers" endeavor for many films. We spend too little time with the fundamental musical material (the essence of the creative process) and too much time on production (the craft). This is true of most modern music, I think, for film or otherwise. In many films, production is emphasized so much that it's hard to tell where the music is (how many film scores could never be written in piano reduction?).

I think the music world is experiencing its own version of the industrial revolution: suddenly we can produce product at an amazing rate, and that focus on production leads to a de-emphasis on inidividuality and creativity. Same thing happened with automobiles, houses, etc.

So does that focus on production (i.e., craft) bode poorly for film music? I think so, but only in the short term. We'll eventually become bored with it and get back to an emphasis on creativity.

But that's the essence of style, right? When people look back at this period in music, they'll use everything we complain about as the basis of the definition of the "style" of the time.

rgames


----------



## JohnG (May 29, 2009)

rJames @ 29th May 2009 said:


> ...craft is the shoulders of the giants we stand on to create the art of our time.
> No one should deny this...but also no one should deny that sometimes there is a spark of art that is undefinable.



This is a little like something poseur posted a while back, when he wrote, in expressing a level of skepticism about intellectualized analysis: 

"I don't believe that the basic, childlike impulse to compose should be overlooked as an absolutely primary factor worthy of work & development." 
-- poseur

And your RG Collingwood also touches on the need to make a leap, without "permission" when striving for art.

Notwithstanding the poetic appeal of this leap idea, I remain persuaded that one needs the 10,000 hours of work labouring over the techniques and knowledge discovered by others before one is able to contribute something really magnificent. You need to make the leap, but you need to have put in the time and effort.

Part of the reason Mozart showed genius at such a young age is that he was driven to put in his own 10,000 hours by about age 8, or something very young. And, of course, he was a genius. With a laugh like Woody Woodpecker, according to the movie.


----------



## JohnG (May 29, 2009)

rgames @ 29th May 2009 said:


> suddenly we can produce product at an amazing rate, and that focus on production leads to a de-emphasis on individuality and creativity.



agree with you, Richard. I think that's part of what Jerry Goldsmith was on about in the interview quoted at the outset of this thread.


----------



## Waywyn (May 29, 2009)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 28 said:


> Anyone notice there's going to be an Alien remake? Wonder who will fill Goldsmith's shoes. I'm hoping for Graeme Revell so that there's so much suckage coming from that production that it somehow self implodes.



Hehe, ... besides that I think the movie in general can't be redone in terms of atmosphere and creepyness-factor. We will see some more realistic splatter effects which the movie doesn't need to be told anyway, .. but that's about it I assume.


----------



## lux (May 29, 2009)

Waywyn @ Fri May 29 said:


> choc0thrax @ Thu May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone notice there's going to be an Alien remake? Wonder who will fill Goldsmith's shoes. I'm hoping for Graeme Revell so that there's so much suckage coming from that production that it somehow self implodes.
> ...



yeah, I agree. I was wondering what happened in the commercial background story of this plot, because it looks like one of the most squeezed and crapped all around during the years.


----------



## esteso (May 29, 2009)

kdm @ Thu May 28 said:


> Maybe I should stop listening to Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Brahms, Shostakovich, etc, and start listening to the top 10 electronica cuts on iTunes. :-/



I think that's probably a good idea!


----------



## esteso (May 29, 2009)

midphase @ Thu May 28 said:


> The problem is that the new generation of composers lacks that deeper frame of reference. They listen to one of the Bourne scores and think to themselves "That's a cool as score!"
> 
> (I'm not criticizing Powell, I happen to like his work. I'm just raising a flag when he becomes the only influence on a new composer's work).



Hmm, what's wrong with that? I think it's great that some composers have a deep and wide base to draw on. But I don't really care when I listen to a score, I take that score on it's own merit. It's about serving the flic right? Not about trying out your counterpoint chops. I think that "Spy Game" would sound ridiculous with a Hermann score. This is the new millenium and we have a new sound for it.

Adapt and thrive.


----------



## esteso (May 29, 2009)

spitt @ Thu May 28 said:


> Just playing devils advocate here, but whats wrong with that? Why do flags need to be raised? Whats wrong with "cool ass" music? I don't know. Film music shouldn't be cool or fun? Maybe those people inspired by Powell or Hans to get into film scoring will seek out the stuff that inspired those guys and so on and so fourth.
> 
> Things are going to shape and evolve. Some may be into it, some may not. In 60 years who knows what film scores will sound like. There are no rules.
> 
> I think it's a great time for film music.



OK, just saw your post 30 seconds after I posted my "What's wrong with that?" post.

I like the way you think!


----------



## billval3 (May 29, 2009)

lux @ Thu May 28 said:


> What is surprising with John Powell is that he has the bourne stuff and the X3. Totally different planets and leagues from the same composer. X3 is a nice and detailed orchestral score (well, perhaps not detailed like some masterpieces, but still pleasantly detailed) with some very cool themes (the dark phoenix above all). I've had much fun listening to it several times. Cant say the same with bourne that i'm not a fan of, even if it is something we are asked every day, ad nauseam.
> 
> I wonder where's the real nature of the composer. Sure that i will receive at least one dozen of "both" as followups i would say thats not my opinion.



Funny...I actually think I like the Bourne music better than X3. Even better is Paycheck. To me X3 sounds too much like everyone else. Yes, it may show more "craft" in a traditional orchestrational sense, but it's not as fresh or "cool ass" to borrow someone else's term! :wink: 



esteso @ Fri May 29 said:


> Hmm, what's wrong with that? I think it's great that some composers have a deep and wide base to draw on. But I don't really care when I listen to a score, I take that score on it's own merit. It's about serving the flic right? Not about trying out your counterpoint chops. I think that "Spy Game" would sound ridiculous with a Hermann score. This is the new millenium and we have a new sound for it.
> 
> Adapt and thrive.



I agree with this. Once can be influenced by the likes of Hermann (or Jerry Goldsmith, for that matter), but that doesn't mean that their style will suit a film being made today.


----------



## lux (May 29, 2009)

billval3 @ Fri May 29 said:


> lux @ Thu May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > What is surprising with John Powell is that he has the bourne stuff and the X3. Totally different planets and leagues from the same composer. X3 is a nice and detailed orchestral score (well, perhaps not detailed like some masterpieces, but still pleasantly detailed) with some very cool themes (the dark phoenix above all). I've had much fun listening to it several times. Cant say the same with bourne that i'm not a fan of, even if it is something we are asked every day, ad nauseam.
> ...



i disagree as a whole


----------



## Conor (May 30, 2009)

rJames @ Fri May 29 said:


> According to RG Collingwood (Principles of Art) what
> distinguishes the artist from the craftsman is that
> the craftsman has a precise notion of what s/he is
> constructing.



!



rJames @ Fri May 29 said:


> The artist, in contrast, performs his/her creations
> to learn what they become. And in learning what they
> become, the artist informs him/herself about something
> previously unknown to the artist.



!!!

This, I will have to remember.

I view Art and Craft as symbiotic partners. The Artist waves his hands around and talks to himself excitedly and tries wild combinations of ideas and makes leaps of faith. The Craftsman hears one of these things, and says "that actually WORKS," and makes it work.

It's a false dichotomy of course, but I find that envisioning myself in one role or the other at a given moment helps keep me focused and moving forward, and consciously switching from one role to the other can occasionally cure writer's block.

--Conor


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 30, 2009)

I agree that Art and Craft ARE symbiotic partners. Personally when I think of the term "artist" I envision a solitary person making a personal statement. For composers that artistic vision may need to be modified to join with other artistic visions - especially that of the music director and producer where large projects are mutual efforts targeting a cumulative artistic statement rather than a personal one. The very nature of joining artistic visions can be somewhat counter-intuitive to personal artistic goals but in the end (at least in this industry) its not about personal goals but a team effort especially if one is planning to stay working in the industry.

In my opinion, problems arise when the basic motivation from a producer standpoint is to follow a formula derived from a true innovation. Innovations in production values may have worked great at one time so it seems that the natural conclusion would be to copy that formula to emulate the success of the original innovation. Each copycat venture trying to take a true innovation and attempting to improve upon the formula - bigger, louder, more explosions, etc - begin to wear on audiences who still vote with their dollars - either they invest in the experience of watching the movie or they don't. Producers get it when revenues suffer so then the search for the next real innovation commences. 

My point is that as long as there is a market, producers will continue to be emboldened to lean upon copycat productions until the formula itself stops working - when people stop paying to watch. - then it seems that the genuine search for real innovation begins (and of course, the whole copycat trend also begins anew). To me, the real power of Hollywood is the audience - no audience, no Hollywood - which is why the formulas that worked so well in 80s and 90s would die a slow painful death in today's market.


----------



## TheoKrueger (May 30, 2009)

Where is film music heading towards?

I think that film music is simply heading towards the future while we compare it to the past and find it lacking.

But if you look around you nowadays, the past isn't quite fitting.

There's violence, sci-fi, sex, provocation and broken taboos everywhere. What music can you put to that stuff other than a 21st century compositions made by 21st century living people that can express the feelings on screen, because they understand and are part of the world around them.

Most composers are tied to their past, but for the new composers there is no past. They are building their lives based on today, on now. Our present will be their past. Our past is history.

Funny eh? The "present" we give them now will be their past in the future  

Everything is faster today too, our minds are faster, reality is faster for us. (Ok, maybe not so after 5 pints, but still, stress is the disease of today as an invisible force pushing us to do better, faster, more efficient by comparison). All these reflect on our personalities and creations.

500 years ago when people wrote classical and romantic stuff (which after taking their course evolved into the film music of today and yesterday) they didn't even have electricity, computers, cars and crazy noises from trucks and televisions. You listened to the wind, the rain, looked at the fire and everything natural. Silence was a way of reaching inside, to the loneliness of the individual and expressing it through your staff. Today loneliness is masked by an all encompassing noise, however discrete that noise may be at parts of the world. They did have deadlines though, i would suppose! 

Today we see so much garbage around us and its all trying to find a way in our home, our heart. What paris hilton ate at the friggin restaurtant. Trash. Liars 24/7 on television. Trash.

I believe we are influenced by what is around us. The world is changing, the content of art is changing. The other guy (who some of you might have heard) put a stray dog on exhibition and left him to die there. Art Today: Dead dogs on exhibition. Who are we?

Perhaps the world hasn't really got dirtier, but the media is a very efficient way of spreading out the world's dirt, wars, propaganda and trouble to all the rest of the world. We share our good and bad, but we've seen so much of it.

The world is in moral demise. I find it highly likely for film music to follow shortly.

Sorry for the long post. Just trying to find some sort of connection that would make sense. Its all relative (ok, i got that line from someone else 8) )

Cheers,
Theo


----------



## JohnG (May 30, 2009)

Very vivid and persuasive, Theo. I enjoyed reading your thoughts about morality and the current state of things. You practically had me saying, "Yeah, forget the past! Down with the past!"

Except that the past is still here, in a way, as part of the present.

Not only that, but the "noisy movie" that is now a convention is rapidly progressing to the status of old hat / boring.

As soon as the world generates a new orthodoxy, it's up to some audacious artist to break free and show a new way. Right now, moral relativism and heavy irony are the norms, but a recent film, "Watchmen" that in many respects seemed tuned right into the current zeitgeist of noise, sex, and violence disappointed mightily, as did the newest rendition of Terminator. I realise that every individual story has its caveats but, at least to a certain extent, the effort to pander to what is assumed people want fell short in those two cases at least.

I am curious to see how Pixar's new film, "Up," fares. It breaks a lot of moulds -- quiet in places, genuinely sad, not fundamentally ironic (far from it, in fact, although there are of course some jokes that are ironic), and very personal, at bottom. "Up," in my view, represents real audacity, nowadays, even though it's arguably old school.


----------



## poseur (May 31, 2009)

CobraTrumpet @ Sat May 30 said:


> I view Art and Craft as symbiotic partners.


i'd agree with that, in general.
obviously, i guess.
though, the great qualifier would be that
this kinda might simply describe my _persona_l approach to music in general,
which includes film-music;
the boundaries & functions of each can be vastly different, of course,
but the underlying principle for my approach
remains much the same.



CobraTrumpet @ Sat May 30 said:


> It's a false dichotomy of course,


i think that it may be a false dichotomy,
but only until we 
--- 'posers, that is --- 
treat it otherwise.....



CobraTrumpet @ Sat May 30 said:


> but I find that envisioning myself in one role or the other at a given moment helps keep me focused and moving forward, and consciously switching from one role to the other can occasionally cure writer's block.


i'm all too aware of my own craft-oriented shortcomings;
and, i'm all too aware of my own artistic shortcomings, as well.....
most often, though,
i seem to vacillate between the 2 so quickly that
the shared borders seem to blur.....

d


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 1, 2009)

JohnG @ Sun May 31 said:


> As soon as the world generates a new orthodoxy, it's up to some audacious artist to break free and show a new way. Right now, moral relativism and heavy irony are the norms, but a recent film, "Watchmen" that in many respects seemed tuned right into the current zeitgeist of noise, sex, and violence disappointed mightily, as did the newest rendition of Terminator. I realise that every individual story has its caveats but, at least to a certain extent, the effort to pander to what is assumed people want fell short in those two cases at least.
> 
> I am curious to see how Pixar's new film, "Up," fares. It breaks a lot of moulds -- quiet in places, genuinely sad, not fundamentally ironic (far from it, in fact, although there are of course some jokes that are ironic), and very personal, at bottom. "Up," in my view, represents real audacity, nowadays, even though it's arguably old school.



Thank you John, I enjoy reading through your threads and replies.

I saw the trailer of Terminator 4 today, words like poorly written and mediocre come to mind for the trailer at least. I also find strange that I saw a rating of 4/5 stars somewhere on the net. Makes me wonder what the new standards are in the industry. I hope that the full movie balances out those scenes on the trailers. The feeling it evoked was a generous 3/5 at least, if we want to reserve the 5/5 for something that is truly good.

It is reasonable to me, even though not completely acceptable, that if there are no more really good movies coming out anymore that the "5 stars" rating starts appearing for lower quality movies.

I look forward to seeing "Up" as it sounds very inò   ¢ õ   ¢ ö   ¢ ÷   ¢ ø   ¢ ù   ¢ ú   ¢ û   ¢ ü   ¢ ý   ¢ þ   ¢ ÿ   ¢¡    ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡	   ¢¡
   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡    ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡   ¢¡    ¢¡!   ¢¡"   ¢¡#   ¢¡$   ¢¡%   ¢¡&   ¢¡'   ¢¡(   ¢¡)   ¢¡*   ¢¡+   ¢¡,   ¢¡-   ¢¡.   ¢¡/   ¢¡0   ¢¡1   ¢¡2   ¢¡3   ¢¡4   ¢¡5


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm arriving to the party late in the game but I always enjoy reading these sorts of threads. The posts strike me as utterly sincere...whether I agree or not. Though I mostly agree...

I believe Theo (you) got right to the crux of the matter pointing out that it's nearly impossible to (nobody in this town will let you) write sophisticated music for blunt/deliberate films. Clearly that wouldn't fit the film anyway. So, until someone MAKES that sort of film...? 

To answer your question, John. Film music is heading the very direction the screenwriters are made to lead it...due to a seemingly unavoidable smash-and-grab studio/indie philosophy, or orthodox. Said another way, NOISY scripts/pitches catch people's attention and get made. Great, subtle scripts rarely get MADE...much less bought, much less optioned. It is getting to be absolutely ridiculous out there, particularly with the new breed of young executive that actually responds best to ON THE NOSE "craft". These are the same kids who don't want to work for anything and are utterly entitled. They know it all and you can't convince them otherwise.

A well respected screenwriter said this to me, "You have to employ HAMMERS in your scripts now a days, nobody understands subtlety or subtext anymore, they'll read right past it and tell you it's not in the script". And that, "If you DO write it, they'll rip it out in favor of their crude, deliberate ideas" Also said, "The studio system will suck the voice out of the best screenwriter". This is coming from a sought after guy with a sea of credits and many deals presently at several studios.

I swear to god man, I was going over a film idea the other day, over the phone, with a producer (who I really like), suddenly the line got quiet, I'm like "hello...?" He's like "No, I'm here...I'm just picturing the trailer and poster. That's what concerns me."

And on the TV side -- They eat up 'irony' (cable). Just sent my TV agent my latest idea. Guess what, the concept is built on irony. Why? Because I want to sell a TV show. There really are only two [types of] scripted shows on TV. The ironic cable show, and the specialist (surrounded by his posse who aren't as smart as him) Network show. I've had plenty of audacious TV ideas, problem with those is that you can't ever get everyone on board. They are bound to be too audacious for "someone"...unless, you are a "made" guy.

Same with film ideas, I've had some audacious film ideas. They become such a hard sell that even the indie world is scared by them. 10 years ago a film like Fight Club was a studio film at 60 Mil. Memento was made as an Indie. Matrix wouldn't sell today. Nor, Chinatown, The Godfather, LA Confidential, Usual Suspects, etc. etc. etc. [I could name hundreds of great films]. That market has disappeared. Same with TV; Six Feet Under wouldn't sell today, nor Sopranos, etc etc etc....

At this point "Indie" folks are looking for a less expensive studio film (what!?), so, why would I (anyone) waste time in that market...less money, more obstacles (i.e. writing under budget, etc). After all, studios now want you to come in at 30 Mil much of the time. To be audacious now a days, as a writer/director, you really must luck into a scenario with an independently wealthy investor that is CRAZY enough to let you create art for the sake of beating his chest, not money, otherwise forget it.

The bottom line [as I see it] is; Everyone is hyper vigilantly looking for any reason at all to say "no". It is virtually impossible to create a good (much less great) film under those conditions...

...Which ultimately trickles down to the music...

Point being: It all starts on the front-line, as to what a writer or director can get away with in this climate. This directly dictates what scores can be written.


*sorry no time to edit


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 1, 2009)

BTW - John...

Sorry to hear your pal's show got canceled.

I'm sooooo not interested in Network TV. Those shows are becoming utterly absurd. The new line-up is plain goofy (no offense to anyone). Talk about template concepts, it's all the same show with an ever so slight tweak. 

In fact, I find that new show Mental to be offensive, not to mention ridiculous. My Own Worst Enemy was bad enough. Network TV is really scraping their rock bottom. So...what sort of music does one write for that? 

I've said it before, I was born in the wrong decade. The mid &0's were a great time for film as were the mid/late 90's. Now we're back to the 40's/50's nonsense.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 2, 2009)

kid-surf @ Mon Jun 01 said:


> I'm arriving to the party late in the game but I always enjoy reading these sorts of threads. The posts strike me as utterly sincere...whether I agree or not. Though I mostly agree...
> 
> I believe Theo (you) got right to the crux of the matter pointing out that it's nearly impossible to (nobody in this town will let you) write sophisticated music for blunt/deliberate films. Clearly that wouldn't fit the film anyway. So, until someone MAKES that sort of film...?
> 
> ...



The laws of the universe must have been suspended. I totally agree with everything you have written here.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 5, 2009)

BTW -- didn't someone mention T4 in this thread? That it sucked and had no story? Or was that somewhere else?

We'll, imagine if you'd written a story then later found that the studio tore it out. Then imagine that the studio made it difficult for the director to do his job - If you catch my drift...

There's so many "experts" in this town who never have written a word of screenplay and/or wouldn't know which end of the camera to look through, yet they are making creative decisions based on...? That's one way movies go to hell regardless of how many explosions they stuff in, in place of story.

I'd feel so much better if that were just me being negative. It's status quo...


So...How does a composer make sense of (fix, help?) a film like that?


----------



## poseur (Jun 5, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> *There's so many "experts" in this town who never have written a word of screenplay and/or wouldn't know which end of the camera to look through, yet they are making creative decisions based on...?* That's one way movies go to hell regardless of how many explosions they stuff in, in place of story.
> 
> I'd feel so much better if that were just me being negative. It's status quo...
> 
> ...


well, uhhh.....

see your own text, above, which i highlighted:
apply to music.
then,
expand the % of available "experts" by a factor of..... somewhat beyond 'whatever',
since apparently nearly everyone in the film industry is an expert on music,
from gaffers, best boys, makeup artists & p.a.'s to high-level studio accountants & executives.....
..... and all of their significant others.
aren't they?
not only in real life; as well, the internet tells me so.
8-()

of course, it's not *all* "bad", but.....
it does seem to have become increasingly more difficult for many 'posers
to maintain their hard-won "lines" of aesthetics, intent & musical integrity.....

d


----------



## poseur (Jun 5, 2009)

weird repetition in the forum software, again:
post deleted.

d


----------



## JohnG (Jun 5, 2009)

poseur @ 5th June 2009 said:


> apparently nearly everyone in the film industry is an expert on music



I once was presenting some music to a producer with the editor in the room. It was around lunch time and the editor's girlfriend walked in. She was asked her opinion about the music.

At least she was really good looking.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 5, 2009)

JohnG @ Fri Jun 05 said:


> poseur @ 5th June 2009 said:
> 
> 
> > apparently nearly everyone in the film industry is an expert on music
> ...



hehe.... comedy gold - if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## rJames (Jun 7, 2009)

I think we can blame this whole problem of film music heading in the wrong direction (i.e. composers role in the process) on Eric Persing.

Raise your hand if you've ever been tempted (and succumbed) to lay one finger firmly upon a keyboard playing Atmosphere or Omnisphere.

I think the problem is that the patches are too evocative. Can we put the reins on these new tools please?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 7, 2009)

rJames @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> I think we can blame this whole problem of film music heading in the wrong direction (i.e. composers role in the process) on Eric Persing.
> 
> Raise your hand if you've ever been tempted (and succumbed) to lay one finger firmly upon a keyboard playing Atmosphere or Omnisphere.
> 
> I think the problem is that the patches are too evocative. Can we put the reins on these new tools please?



You're joking, but there is some truth in this. I took some flak on some forum, maybe here, because I wrote that I would never use an RMX MIDI loop/patch without changing it in some ways to make it my own because I just wouldn't feel like a composer if I did. 

I remember years ago a very busy TV composer, who did some very nice work on some other shows, was scoring a really good show 90% using stock patches out of a Korg Wavestation SR like "Pharoah's Jig."

I lost a lot of respect for him and I would rather quit and sell shoes or a living at that point rather than do that. Similarly, if you listen to Rhianna's "Umbrella" you hear stock Apple Loops with no attempt to modify them or disguise them. 

But I suspect that someone will now come in here and say that I am letting my ego get too involved, if it does the job, why not, etc. The bottom line is that it just goes against my sense of craft.


----------



## poseur (Jun 7, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> You're joking, but there is some truth in this. I took some flak on some forum, maybe here, because I wrote that I would never use an RMX MIDI loop/patch without changing it in some ways to make it my own because I just wouldn't feel like a composer if I did.
> 
> I remember years ago a very busy TV composer, who did some very nice work on some other shows, was scoring a really good show 90% using stock patches out of a Korg Wavestation SR like "Pharoah's Jig."
> 
> ...



agreed, completely..... somehow!
(it's not eric's fault, really, what other folks do with the toolkits.....)

high-speed preset-mentality
--- esp. in service to "industry", and industrial approaches to music --- 
goes against both my sense of craft,
& against my feelings for artistic intention & execution.

in fact,
the license for my early (perforamnce-oriented)
sample-discs disallowed for
use-of-the-samples either as the primary-core for a composition,
or without modification.
(it was worded a bit more clearly than that,
if my memory serves me well.....)

in any case,
i still rue the days that each of those discs were
released into the "marketplace";
i made a connected series of grievous errors, imo.

¿live & learn?
one can hope, & work towards those goals, anyways.....

d


----------



## José Herring (Jun 7, 2009)

Guys why fight it?

Just saw Terminator 4. Though much better than T3. T4 played it pretty safe. Though well done Elfman's score was probably the most conservative score I've heard him do. Everything was in the pocket all the time and frankly it's the first score that I've heard him do where I could tell what they temped it with. Namely the first Batman Begins score.

All this got me thinking. And, my conclusion was, why fight it.

It's not really our field. If we want to be movers and shakers the real field to be working in to do that is our own field. Doing concert music and doing records.

Goldsmith was right. Though I wouldn't go so far as to call it pure avarice but rather just plain business sense. Why be risky when you know that T4 is going to make 1/2 billlion dollars if you just play it safe.

We can whine all day long about it, but it really isn't likely to change.

I feel the approach will change film music for a long time. Don't know where it's heading, but I know where it's heading away from. It's heading away from the traditional way of doing things. Maybe it's headed more towards a production way of looking at things ala records, sound design and rhythmic based music with a lead line. Not sure. But, it seems that the days of carefully applying our time honored skills are kind of coming to a close. People just ain't buying it any more. Doesn't even seem like they're buying the traditional orchestral sound either. Everything seems processed now. Everything.

Maybe we just need to change with it.

Jose


----------



## JohnG (Jun 7, 2009)

Somewhere in Barchester Chronicles (I think "The Warden" ), Trollope dismisses Dickens as a hack, saying, "if you paint for the masses you must paint in bright colours," or words to that effect.

Trollope didn't write like Dickens, even though maybe he could have. It wasn't him.

Jose, while I accept that you may be right about a profound change, I don't think it's possible really to bend oneself completely to whatever trend is going on without losing one's mojo. As I assume you do, I incorporate what's going on to some extent, but to have anything worth saying, one has to keep working one's own feel -- what's cool and interesting and challenging to oneself. 

Maybe people will get bored with loops and loud, noisy movies some day? "Up" beat out everyone two weekends running and I'm taking some solace from that, as it's a very personal film.

Then again, I thought rap would be a flash in the pan.


----------



## poseur (Jun 8, 2009)

josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> Guys why fight it?


well..... there's fighting, and then there's fighting.
in any case, we can only direct what we each do, as individuals.
just like the path we've taken as composers & musicians.




josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> It's not really our field.


whether deluded or not,
i certainly act on the basis that this is, indeed, within my field.



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> If we want to be movers and shakers the real field to be working in to do that is our own field. Doing concert music and doing records.


wanting to be a "mover and a shaker" is an odd goal, imo.

but, i do concerts, occasionally tour, & am involved in quite a few music recordings;
i'll continue that, selectively..... and, as i can.
it's important, for me.
in addition to that,
i think i'm gonna accept, now,
my first-ever offer of a non-filmic orchestral commission,
from a european symphony orchestra..... which came as a very nice "surprise".



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> Goldsmith was right. Though I wouldn't go so far as to call it pure avarice but rather just plain business sense. Why be risky when you know that T4 is going to make 1/2 billlion dollars if you just play it safe.


music is my life.
and, music is my business;
i need to know that my own business has some dignity,
will (finally) prove worthy of my own respect, & will reflect
some flow of actual integrity..... regardless of the circumstances:
music for film, and otherwise.



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> We can whine all day long about it, but it really isn't likely to change.


or..... we might "whine all day",
but actually do things a bit differently..... which is, in itself,
a kind of change we can certainly effect,
and might have the potential to offer wider-ranging consequences.



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> I feel the approach will change film music for a long time. Don't know where it's heading, but I know where it's heading away from. It's heading away from the traditional way of doing things.


imo:
the core of worthwhile tradition in music lies in its creativity & vitality,
and vital, creative imperative.



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> Maybe it's headed more towards a production way of looking at things ala records, sound design and rhythmic based music with a lead line. Not sure.


..... which is, in fact, another extension of another traditional set of directions.
???

ime, anyways, it's proven nearly pointless to me to draw such lines in the sand;
indeed, your pejorative references, above, lack meaning without
truly consensual definitions.
i guarantee, in fact, that what you & i define as "sound design",
within the musical context,
will be very, very different.
in my fairly broad world of music,
"sound design" is often an integral portion of composition.....
..... regardless of the source of its orchestration.




josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> But, it seems that the days of carefully applying our time honored skills are kind of coming to a close. People just ain't buying it any more. Doesn't even seem like they're buying the traditional orchestral sound either. Everything seems processed now. Everything.


i'm not so concerned with "processing" as i am with creative result;
i'll remain "open" to change , as long as i can.
being "open" doesn't always necessitate constant, fast-moving change, though.

but, i'm not so much a fan of what i hear as being either cheap'n'nasty
or over-analytical (re, scoring devices) "solutions" in scores,
when individualistic & personal creative integrity is not
in some audible way brought to bear.



josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> Maybe we just need to change with it.


decide for yourself, which paths you'll take.....
inclusion & integration still seem like major themes, over here,
so long as i can hear it, & feel it.

no harm intended;
i'm rambling, again.....

d


----------



## lux (Jun 8, 2009)

josejherring @ Sun Jun 07 said:


> Guys why fight it?
> 
> Just saw Terminator 4. Though much better than T3. T4 played it pretty safe. Though well done Elfman's score was probably the most conservative score I've heard him do. Everything was in the pocket all the time and frankly it's the first score that I've heard him do where I could tell what they temped it with. Namely the first Batman Begins score.



aaaaaawwwwwww :cry: :cry: :cry: 



> Why be risky when you know that T4 is going to make 1/2 billlion dollars if you just play it safe.



I dont think its any different than in the past. And, in the past, announced blockbusters had the hell of a music. Cowardy is not something that came out of big businesses. Cowardy is a subtle way of thiking and living that is spreading among the entire business world, was it related to audio, picture or whatever.

I think Goldsmith is absolutely genuine when pointing out how this way of thinking applied to artists sounds mean and poor. If people with fantasy have a coward approach (i mean that coward that they mask it as a "realistic" new age of mind), what is supposed to do people without any fantasy?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 8, 2009)

John G, Lux and Poseur I agree with you completely. Don't get me wrong. But there's what I want and there's a reality.

Jerry G. was talking specifically about traditional orchestral scoring practices vs. non-traditional practices. Personally I found the argument a little limited.

Look, it's a commercial field. We can think all day long about "me, me, me, I, I, I what I feel, what I want, ect...." But, at the end of the day we're writing for an audience. An audience that unfortunately doesn't know or care that much about orchestral music or it's traditional practices. At the end of the day they just want to feel that emotional bang. Sometimes that's orchestra, sometimes that's sound design, sometimes that's rock guitar, whatever it takes to do it.

I think if we can find creativity in that frame work then I think we'll be happy. But, if we keep moaning about yesteryear then we'll be pretty unhappy. Trust me. I know. I've spent plenty of days moaning about yesteryear and being pretty unhappy about the state of things.

Jose


----------



## lux (Jun 8, 2009)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> John G, Lux and Poseur I agree with you completely. Don't get me wrong. But there's what I want and there's a reality.
> 
> Jerry G. was talking specifically about traditional orchestral scoring practices vs. non-traditional practices. Personally I found the argument a little limited.
> 
> ...



i see what you mean. I'm not sure, though, that Goldsmith's thought is esclusively related to orchestral pratices, considering that he's been a good user with synths.

i also believe, considering what i've listened to music-wise on this forum, that none of us guys writing on this thread (included you) is remotely pointing any finger against hybrid pratices, synthetic scores, minimalistic, experimental, dance or whatever label we like to assign it. Contributing with a bit of fantasy and ,mostly, "good taste", is something unrelated to the genre we deal with.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

We are at an place in the evolution of film music where technology and access to the tools of the trade have made a big impact on the art (of putting together a film).

Anyone can afford an HD camera AND anyone can afford an orchestra in a box. (or maybe all they need is Omnisphere or a Korg Wavestation)

This is bound to lead to change. And survival of the fittest.

When someone on this forum pointed out Goldsmith's Planet of the Apes score it made me wonder if it isnt' Goldsmith's way of saying, "try this with a synthesiser!!"

I caught a bit of "Let there be Blood," on TV and thought, "you can't do that with samples."

I think that both are examples of creative response to environmental pressure.

Artists get put into a box by their clients. Our job is to fight our way out with a creative solution that fulfills what the client needs using our vision.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

I think what Goldsmith was on about was the diminishing craft and respect for it, which has less to do with whether it is orchestral or not. After all, he was a pioneer in mixing electronica with orchestral elements.

What Jerry feared more, and I fear is that:

1. Producer/directors want to always play it safe.

2. Producer/directors no longer care about a composer's skills as long as they get the end result they desire. The consequence is that every keyboard player in a successful band is suddenly a film scorer, whether they have any craft in or sense of putting music to picture.

3. Audiences are now conditioned to loud, empty, films that require little or not effort on their part to understand and feel and because they make money, that is what will get made.

The fact is IMHO that comedies i.e. are dumber. Crude is the new witty. Action movies are louder and darker than ever. Remember when a Bond film was actually fun? 

There are still terrific dramas being made, especially in Europe, and are scored well, but their profits are not very large and one can only wonder how log they will continue to be made in any significant numbers.

I m sorry to say to those of you who maintain that it is not worse, just different, but I see it as devolution and I am glad that I am old enough that I will not see just how low a level it will eventually sink to.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

The good thing about evolution is that it is purely objective.

I didn't have a good enough relationship with Jerry to pretend to know what he was thinking. Just making a point that he really stretched the boundaries of orchestra in film.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> The good thing about evolution is that it is purely objective.
> 
> I didn't have a good enough relationship with Jerry to pretend to know what he was thinking. Just making a point that he really stretched the boundaries of orchestra in film.



The dictionary says that evolve means "develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."

No one who is knowledgeable about film music can possibly argue that it's path follows that definition.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree with Jay's interpretation of what Mr. Goldsmith was saying. The "devolution" of which he speaks has been hastened by two forces, a loss of craft (both its existence and respect for it) and the ease with which something that's sonically cool can be produced by someone with little or no real craft.

Unfortunately, this change shifts decisively the balance of power in getting gigs to the person with the best networking skills, especially for entry-level gigs with less-experienced decision-makers who have never experienced working with a knowledgeable composer. 

Naturally, this has always been somewhat true, and of course some minimum level of craft is needed, but salesmanship and zing seem increasingly to dominate knowledge.

Notwithstanding all that, I still write as if lives will be lost if I don't get my cue right. This makes me, no doubt, a real treat to be around.

And, last, I am really counting on John Lasseter (Pixar head, now head of creativity at Disney). I think he is making meaningful films and I am very excited to see how well that model -- of excellence and real caring -- is succeeding in the marketplace.


----------



## nikolas (Jun 8, 2009)

*WHY FIGHT IT?*

Because we are totally selfish individuals who come to a point that money doesn't seem to be enough. I've been extremely lucky in my life to not need money so far (which came my way through various gigs, scholarships, etc...) Thus I took the very "sane" and happy route of doing a doctorate! I doubt I'll make any real money out of that particular choice, but it sure makes me feel fine about myself and about my "status". 

I'm extremely happy, selfish and lucky to be able to do that. And this is why I keep doing pretty much what I please, trying to develop my own sound, striving partly away from the normal commercial sound and pretty much living in my own little world.

No doubt there's always the "why fight it?" road, but I do think that there's plenty of reasons to fight "it". And I'm happy to know there are people fighting it (as poseur said there's fighting and there's... fighting. )


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> The dictionary says that evolve means "develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."
> 
> No one who is knowledgeable about film music can possibly argue that it's path follows that definition.



Now, you're just being silly!

Jay, you take too simplistic a view of evolution. I'm pretty sure you know what I am saying but just want to be argumentative.

And you are quite right, I am not knowledgeable about film music. But it doesn't alter the fact that film music will evolve without your consent.

You can't look at a moment in time to view evolution. Will there be a species of film music that defies logic? Most likely.

@ John Maybe those who have mastery of craft need to learn how to produce something that is sonically cooler than those who don't have the craft. (maybe they need to evolve)


----------



## José Herring (Jun 8, 2009)

Understood Nikolas,

But it's not just about money. It's about connecting with 5 billion people here on planet Earth. Maybe it's better to sit alone in your studio and write the music that you want to hear. I'd love to be sipping wine all day writing chamber music for my friends. But, really it's not what people want.

If people want big, bang, boomy in their films I think we as artist who want to get paid are obligated in part to give them big, bang, boomy.

I know that I won't be winning many fans here saying this. I'm also going back on years of thinking the exact opposite. But, now that I'm a lot older I start to think, just give the people what they're willing to hear. Perhaps then they might also except some of my personal stuff too. But, if I take the snobby route of assuming that I know what's best for them, and that this business is all about what I need, then I may just end up not ever doing anything that gets recognized.

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > The dictionary says that evolve means "develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form."
> ...



You equate change and evolution. They are not necessarily the same. Somethings change but do not evolve, they devolve.

And why are you writing opinions about a subject where by your own admission you are "not knowledgeable?" An opinion on any subject by someone who is not knowledgeable on the subject is worthless to anyone but the holder of the opinion.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> You equate change and evolution. They are not necessarily the same. Somethings change but do not evolve, they devolve.
> 
> And why are you writing opinions about a subject where by your own admission you are "not knowledgeable?" An opinion on any subject by someone who is not knowledgeable on the subject is worthless to anyone but the holder of the opinion.



Change is a part of evolution, devolve is a cycle of evolution. Evolution is the long view. Open your mind a little bit, Jay.

I've made two basic additions to this thread. One was on the definition of art and one was to make the point that everything evolves.

I don't think I've made any comments about the state of film music today.

and; its a public forum, I have a permission slip from Frederick, sometimes an outside voice can bring a little sanity to the discussion.

Both of my thoughts on these subjects could easily be used to support your thesis. And yet...


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> > You equate change and evolution. They are not necessarily the same. Somethings change but do not evolve, they devolve.
> ...



It is not a closed mind that makes me unwilling to define change and evolution identically, it is semantical precision, which is something you play a little fast and loose with for my taste.

You do indeed have every right to post your opinions and I have every right to dismiss them as being irrelevant since you are not knowledgeable on the subject being discussed.

And lord save us from your kind of "sanity."


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

Here's you putting words in my mouth


Ashermusic said:


> You equate change and evolution. They are not necessarily the same. Somethings change but do not evolve, they devolve.


Here's me clarifying.


rJames said:


> Change is a part of evolution, devolve is a cycle of evolution. Evolution is the long view.


Here's you misquoting me again.


Ashermusic said:


> It is not a closed mind that makes me unwilling to define change and evolution identically, it is semantical precision, which is something you play a little fast and loose with for my taste.


Indeed, your response has come down to arguing semantics.


Ashermusic said:


> You do indeed have every right to post your opinions and I have every right to dismiss them as being irrelevant since you are not knowledgeable on the subject being discussed.


I did not say that I wasn't knowledgeable when it comes to defining evolution or art. But I did say that my comments were not limited to film music.


Ashermusic said:


> And lord save us from your kind of "sanity."


Over the top???

At this point, I guess, my posts are only serving to illuminate your credibility.

Funny, because in my first post today I was going to write that you and I probably agree 99%.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, Jay. You have lost my respect which yesterday was considerable.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Here's you putting words in my mouth
> 
> 
> Ashermusic said:
> ...



Semantic matter, because if we do not agree on the definitions, we are discussing different things. Which brings me to...

This was a specific discussion on where film scoring was heading that you trying to sidetrack into a general musing on the nature of art and its evolution.

Guys like myself, John, and Jose have endeavored to keep it grounded in practical reality, as this is both our passion and our occupation. That is our concern and that is where I am coming from.

Why not start a different thread devoted to what you seem to care about, the philosophy of art and the nature of its evolution?

If this causes me to lose respect in your eyes, I can live with it.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Semantic matter, because if we do not agree on the definitions, we are discussing different things. Which brings me to...
> 
> This was a specific discussion on where film scoring was heading that you trying to sidetrack into a general musing on the nature of art and its evolution.
> 
> ...



Alright, so you'll ignore the fact that you're misquoting me. again (and again and again)

Can you possible remember so far back (or check the thread) to see that I was responding directly to John's post about art where he posed the questions;
1. Do I have any artistic ambitions at all?
2. Do I have a vision that I am pursuing that's independent?
3. Is my craft elevated enough so that I'm unencumbered as I pursue my artistic vision?
4. How do I define "art" anyway?

Is that gonna be OK with you? I can't imagine why you got all caught up in what I had to say anyway.

"on the nature of art and its evolution." What? Are we living in the same reality? Was I talking about the evolution of art? Holy shit. I'm gonna have to check my meds. I think my wife has been upping my dose. (you check with your wife too please)

If I remember correctly, you were denying the fact that film music is evolving. 

Will anyone back you up on that?

I hope that John and Jose will come over to rescue you from your untenable position.

Please...film music is not evolving. I guess I'll have to step back from my outrageous contention.

A vast array of new tools, accessibility to the masses. I don't know why I would contend that these things might cause a slight acceleration. 

I promise to be better next time I visit your forum. OK?

Look Jay, don't be an ass. My music has been on the big screen. Just because I don't tout myself as an expert on film music history, doesn't mean I can't have a meaningful opinion.

Step back.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

I am indeed arguing that while film music (and films in general) is changing, it is overall not evolving, but devolving, which was Goldsmith's opinion.

From this thread:

Jerry Goldsmith:
"That's the way it seems to go on for an hour and ninety minutes, and with that music it doesn't seem to make any sense either. They're just loud movies. It just gets so discouraging." 

Midphase:
"The problem as I perceive it is that with each new generation of composers, the bar gets lower and lower. Few if any "kids" can look beyond the previous generation fo composers (whom they idolize). "

Kid-Surf:
"Film music is heading the very direction the screenwriters are made to lead it...due to a seemingly unavoidable smash-and-grab studio/indie philosophy, or orthodox. Said another way, NOISY scripts/pitches catch people's attention and get made. Great, subtle scripts rarely get MADE...much less bought, much less optioned. It is getting to be absolutely ridiculous out there, particularly with the new breed of young executive that actually responds best to ON THE NOSE "craft". These are the same kids who don't want to work for anything and are utterly entitled. They know it all and you can't convince them otherwise." 

Jose:
"But, it seems that the days of carefully applying our time honored skills are kind of coming to a close. People just ain't buying it any more."

JohnG:
"I agree with Jay's interpretation of what Mr. Goldsmith was saying. The "devolution" of which he speaks has been hastened by two forces, a loss of craft (both its existence and respect for it) and the ease with which something that's sonically cool can be produced by someone with little or no real craft." 

Now you can continue to define this as "evolution" if you wish. I do not. And if we cannot agree to use the same definition of "evolution" i.e how the dictionary defines it, then there is simply no point in discussing it further. 

Everyone here is of course free to reach their own conclusion as to whether my position is untenable. I have wasted enough time arguing with you.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

I am indeed arguing that while film music (and films in general) is changing, it is overall not evolving, but devolving, which was Goldsmith's opinion.

From this thread:

Jerry Goldsmith:
"That's the way it seems to go on for an hour and ninety minutes, and with that music it doesn't seem to make any sense either. They're just loud movies. It just gets so discouraging." 

Midphase:
"The problem as I perceive it is that with each new generation of composers, the bar gets lower and lower. Few if any "kids" can look beyond the previous generation fo composers (whom they idolize). "

Kid-Surf:
"Film music is heading the very direction the screenwriters are made to lead it...due to a seemingly unavoidable smash-and-grab studio/indie philosophy, or orthodox. Said another way, NOISY scripts/pitches catch people's attention and get made. Great, subtle scripts rarely get MADE...much less bought, much less optioned. It is getting to be absolutely ridiculous out there, particularly with the new breed of young executive that actually responds best to ON THE NOSE "craft". These are the same kids who don't want to work for anything and are utterly entitled. They know it all and you can't convince them otherwise." 

Jose:
"But, it seems that the days of carefully applying our time honored skills are kind of coming to a close. People just ain't buying it any more."

JohnG:
"I agree with Jay's interpretation of what Mr. Goldsmith was saying. The "devolution" of which he speaks has been hastened by two forces, a loss of craft (both its existence and respect for it) and the ease with which something that's sonically cool can be produced by someone with little or no real craft." 

Now you can continue to define this as "evolution" if you wish. I do not. And if we cannot agree to use the same definition of "evolution" i.e how the dictionary defines it, then there is simply no point in discussing it further. 

Everyone here is of course free to reach their own conclusion as to whether my position is untenable. I have wasted enough time arguing with you.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

Jay, we are here to state our opinions.

I disagree with Jerry Goldsmith on this point. I think film music is evolving. Things sometimes devolve as they change and in the long run it is called evolution.

Are you really so pessimistic about the future of film music to think that an artistic quality will not rise to surpass whatever you see as the current state of the art?

There was only one Jerry Goldsmith. Currently there is a Thomas Newman. Doesn't he count? I'm sure you could fill in the list of quality composers that are currently working better than I.

It is untenable to think that film music has stopped evolving. That is just ridiculous!

I respect Jose, but don't believe for a minute that, "the days of carefully applying our time honored skills are kind of coming to a close."

And so, John agrees with Goldsmith. I think (and I am making a leap here) that the reason for the thread is a true questioning of the statement. I don't believe for a moment that he believes that craft + "the ease with which something that's sonically cool ...produced so fast,"is not better than "sonically cool," by itself.

And yes, I'll disagree with Kays as well. "*Few, if any[/b}, kids can look beyond the previous generation..." This forum is proof that is not true.

And I definitely don't want to drag Kid in to this... :D 

If I have to stand alone, I will. Film music is evolving. To deny it is untenable.

Mostly you are trying to lead a group in doing what you constantly rail against. To critique those that you can't even compete with.

When your name gets on a couple of decent movies, then we'll be listening. There, how's that for being dragged down to your level?*


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> Jay, we are here to state our opinions.
> 
> I disagree with Jerry Goldsmith on this point. I think film music is evolving. Things sometimes devolve as they change and in the long run it is called evolution.
> 
> ...


*

"Are you really so pessimistic about the future of film music to think that an artistic quality will not rise to surpass whatever you see as the current state of the art?"

Yes.

"There was only one Jerry Goldsmith. Currently there is a Thomas Newman. Doesn't he count? I'm sure you could fill in the list of quality composers that are currently working better than I."

Yes, but the ratio of great to poor is diminishing and worse yet, the demand for the better is diminishing.

You are entitled to disagree with Goldsmith, and the rest who agree with him, whoever, and say so.

I in turn am entitled to say that stacked up against those people, your opinion isn't worth much.*


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 8, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> I'm glad you can end with an insult. I hope you feel a little better about yourself.
> 
> But I'll wait for those you've quoted to chime in for themselves. (I'll give you Jerry Goldsmith since he can't change his mind any more)
> 
> ...



You seem to think that I am taking some pleasure in this. I am not.

What I think you do not get is that this is not an abstract discussion for me and some others here, this is about our passion and our occupation. I have lost potential jobs to terrific composers over the years and while I was not happy, it motivated me to endeavor to get better. Now as often as not when I lose a job it is to someone who has no level of craft at putting music to picture or experience but perhaps played in some rock band a producer liked.

So when you wrote, "Even the question of whether or not film music is heading in the wrong direction is sad to me. I would make a bet that the composers that you might criticize are doing their best. We all have different aptitudes. Everyone approaches their art in a different way" it pissed me off royally. 

What should we care if they are "doing their best" or what their "aptitude is?" It is an inane statement! If they do not know how to do film music in a craftsman like way, they should not work.

But work they will, and guys like you who frankly just don't know better will proclaim it "evolution." 

It is a crock.


----------



## rJames (Jun 8, 2009)

I'm not sure I know how, but I'd like tò	S   £W	S   £Wž	S   £WŸ	S   £W 	S   £W¡	S   £W¢	S   £W£	S   £W¤	S   £W¥	T   £W¦	T   £W§	T   £W¨	T   £W©	T   £Wª	T   £W«	T   £W¬	T   £W­	T   £W®	T   £W¯	T   £W°	T   £W±	T   £W²	T   £W³	T   £W´	T   £Wµ	T   £W¶	T   £W·	T   £W¸	T   £W¹	T   £Wº	T   £W»	T   £W¼	T   £W½	T   £W¾	T   £W¿	T   £WÀ	T   £WÁ	T   £WÂ	T   £WÃ	T   £WÄ	T   £WÅ	T   £WÆ	T   £WÇ	T   £WÈ	T   £WÉ	T   £WÊ	T   £WË	T   £WÌ	T   £WÍ	T   £WÎ	T   £WÏ	U   £WÐ	U   £WÑ	U   £WÒ	U   £WÓ	U   £WÔ	U   £WÕ	U   £WÖ	U   £W×	U   £WØ	U   £WÙ	U   £WÚ	U   £WÛ	U   £WÜ	U   £WÝ	U   £WÞ	U   £Wß	U   £Wà	U   £Wá	U   £Wâ	U   £Wã	U   £Wä	U   £Wå	U   £Wæ	U   £Wç	U   £Wè	U   £Wé	U   £Wê	U   £Wë	U   £Wì	U   £Wí	U   £Wî	U   £Wï	U   £Wð	U   £Wñ	U   £Wò	U   £Wó	U   £Wô	U   £Wõ	U   £Wö	U   £W÷	U   £Wø	U   £Wù	U   £Wú	U   £Wû	U   £Wü	U   £Wý	U   £Wþ	U   £Wÿ	U   £X 	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X		U   £X
	U   £X	U   £X              ò	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X	U   £X 	U   £X!	V   £X"	V   £X#	V   £X$	V   £X%	V   £X&	V   £X'	V   £X(	V   £X)	V   £X*	V   £X+	V   £X,	V   £X-	V   £X.	V   £X/	V   £X0	V   £X1	V   £X2	V   £X3	V   £X4	V   £X5	V   £X6	V   £X7	V   £X8	V   £X9	V   £X:	V   £X;	V   £X<	V   £X=	V   £X>	V   £X?	V   £[email protected]	V   £XA	V   £XB	V   £XC	V   £XD	V   £XE	V   £XF	V   £XG	V   £XH	V   £XI	V   £XJ	V   £XK	V   £XL	V   £XM	V   £XN	V   £XO	V   £XP	V   £XQ	V   £XR	V   £XS	V   £XT	V   £XU	V   £XV	V   £XW	V   £XX	V   £XY	V   £XZ	V   £X[


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2009)

rJames @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> I'm not sure I know how, but I'd like to end this amicably.
> 
> I believe you have totally misunderstood my position. I guess that's not the best start is it?
> 
> ...



I have no personal animus towards you and I am sorry if you now do to me. You have indeed "stuck my neck out to make some statements" and as they were IMHO foolish and frankly insensitive to those of us who try to compose for a living (which, I believe you do not, you are a graphic designer by trade, correct?) you got it snapped off.

That "Film music will head where film music will head." is undeniably true. That there will be quality composers doing quality work is also undeniably true. Whether Goldsmith's fear, and mine, that the overall level of film music craft will continue to get lower, only time will tell. 

If it does, then once again IMHO, then the change will be devolution, not evolution. I do not know how to make it any clearer than that. You are of course free to reject it.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2009)

Dave Connor @ Mon Jun 08 said:


> There is a point that Jerry made that is irrefutable: If an orchestra is written for in a manner based upon what can be done in a mockup, than it's expressive abilities have been gutted.
> 
> That would be the same as if VSL released a new String package that had no legato instruments: you wouldn't buy it (or a VI synth with half the features of the version you own now.)
> 
> Jerry was decrying the fact that many composers today do not know how to drive that particular car we call the orchestra. He was right of course and no tortured logic can get around that simple fact. It has nothing to do with taste or current trends: those are separate issues entirely.



Agreed.


----------



## rJames (Jun 9, 2009)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 09 said:


> I have no personal animus towards you and I am sorry if you now do to me. You have indeed "stuck my neck out to make some statements" and as they were IMHO foolish and frankly insensitive to those of us who try to compose for a living (which, I believe you do not, you are a graphic designer by trade, correct?) you got it snapped off.
> 
> That "Film music will head where film music will head." is undeniably true. That there will be quality composers doing quality work is also undeniably true. Whether Goldsmith's fear, and mine, that the overall level of film music craft will continue to get lower, only time will tell.
> 
> If it does, then once again IMHO, then the change will be devolution, not evolution. I do not know how to make it any clearer than that. You are of course free to reject it.



Well then, it does seem as if we agree. For the short time the level of the craft gets lower, we can call it devolution if you like. Over the long run (I am fairly confident) that it will evolve. (tortured logic??)

I was a graphic designer but the availability of an orchestra to the masses has allowed me to make a career change.

And even though a midi mockup cannot compete with a live orchestra, it can entice a producer to record it live (I'll vouch for that).

I am a beneficiary of the availability of these tools and am now making a very comfortable living making music, my first love. I write 15 hours a day.

I started my musical career at the ripe age of 50. So, please don't lecture me on insensitivity to those trying to make a living.

The basic difference between me and you may just be a version of pessimism vs optimism. I have taken the change in paradigm as an opportunity.

Twenty years ago, I would never have gotten the chance to make music with an orchestra. 

I also take into consideration, while performing my art, that it is tough to compete with live orchestra and nigh impossible to entice someone to record it live, so I turn to the tools that cannot be duplicated by an orchestra and see if I can bend them to my will so that no one will be able to compete with me in a field that I can invent myself.

I don't delude myself that I will be working in film music per se. I have found a home in an ancillary market...still writing for picture. But, you will not convince me that film music is devolving. Taking a turn, sure. Film music is evolving around and through the orchestra. The orchestra will not be replaced. TV will not kill movies and video will not kill the radio star.

Jerry Goldsmith, may he rest in peace, is wrong. That is my direct answer to the question posed by this thread.

Now, maybe we can just let this part of the thread rest in peace.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2009)

One final point: there is a big difference it between writing "for picture" and writing "to picture." There are guys who are good at one but not the other.

Personally, when I find myself disagreeing with someone on the level of a Goldsmith, I ask myself, "What does he know based on his vast knowledge and experience that I am missing?"

Peace, and once again, I have no personal animus to you.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 9, 2009)

Arghhh, another double post.


----------



## rJames (Jun 9, 2009)

[quote:e56f51df5f="Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:28 am"]One final point: there is a big difference it between writing "for picture" and writing "to picture." There are guys who are good at one but not the other.

Personally, when I find myself disagreeing with someone on the level of a Goldsmith, I ask myself, "What does he know based on his vasò	p   £aÕ	p   £aÖ	p   £a×	p   £aØ	p   £aÙ	p   £aÚ	p   £aÛ	p   £aÜ	p   £aÝ	p   £aÞ	p   £aß	p   £aà	p   £aá	p   £aâ	p   £aã	p   £aä	p   £aå	p   £aæ	p   £aç	p   £aè	p   £aé	p   £aê	p   £aë	p   £aì	p   £aí	p   £aî	p   £aï	p   £að	p   £añ	p   £aò	p   £aó	q   £a¸	q   £a¹	q   £aº	q   £a»	q   £a¼	q   £a½	q   £a¾	q   £a¿	q   £aÀ	q   £aÁ	q   £aÂ	q   £aÃ	q   £aÄ	q   £aÅ	q   £aÆ	q   £aÇ	r   £a„	r   £a…	r   £a†	r   £a‡	r   £aˆ	r   £a‰	r   £aŠ	r   £a‹	r   £aŒ	r   £a	r   £aŽ	r   £a	r   £a	r   £a‘	r   £a’	r   £a“	r   £a”


----------



## Illuminati (Jun 14, 2009)

Oopps double post.. Cool


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 16, 2009)

> Scripts are mainly key point bulletins and more visual oriented.



Actually, they are much more than that.  Have you read any (good) scripts or are you judging by the shitty films that often result from good scripts.

Keep in mind that the best scripts never get made as a rule. They are what's known as "writing samples" to Hollywood. In that:

Producer/Studio: "Wow...I love this script! It's amazing! The best script I've read in my life! What a "voice" you have! Gush, gush, gush!!!"

Writer: "So...you'll buy it...and make it?"

Producer/Studio: "No...but how would you like to write a movie about _____?"

Writer: "I feel like I've already seen that"

Producer/Studio: "You have...this is the sequel...!!! You're perfect for it. And it pays."

Writer: "How much?"

Producer/Studio: "More than your dad makes in two years..."

Writer: "Did I tell you how much I liked the original?"

Producer/Studio: "You did? We both hated it...but it made money, so it's a great movie."

Writer: "Can I get dirty with the script, so that it's not so one-note, on the nose, and ordinary?"

Producer/Studio: "Of course, we hired you BECAUSE of your unique voice, your take on things."

Writer: "Cool...I'll have a 1st draft in a month"


ONE MONTH LATER:

Producer/Studio: "We've read your 1st draft and think it's absolutely amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now here's 30 pages of single spaced notes regarding everything that needs to come out."

Writer (skimming through the notes): "Hmmmm. Some of these notes contradict themselves. (continues flipping pages). It almost looks as if you want me to take the story out of it...???"

Producer/Studio: "Exactly...and you'll replace it with more set-pieces. See...audiences get bored if something doesn't explode every 4 minutes 38 seconds...Marketing department tells us this."

Writer: "Ok...I guess I'll strip the story out and force in more explosions in awkward spots that make little sense and have absolutely no motivation...in place of story"

Producer/Studio: "I can see the poster...An explosion inside a bigger explosion! The trailer will be a gigantic 30 second explosion! If that won't get butts in seat I don't know what will!" 

TWO WEEKS LATER:

Producer/Studio: "We've read the new draft...GREAT JOB!!! It's perfect! I've never seen so many explosions in one script! Now, you're fired...Joe-Blow A-list star (or director) wants his guy to take a crack at it."


That's the studio world. Please don't blame the writer for shitty films. It really is out of their control, particularly at the studio level. It is a miracle any studio film is good, much less great. Once in a great while the stars align.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 16, 2009)

kid-surf @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> > Scripts are mainly key point bulletins and more visual oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's common for people to bash a script solely from watching the finished, tampered with product.

I always liked this article: http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp06.Crap-plus-One.html (http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp06. ... s-One.html)


----------



## Illuminati (Jun 16, 2009)

Oopps double post.. Cool


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 16, 2009)

Don't worry about it - Kid's favourite pastime is venting about the screenwriting life. He's so awesome he doesn't need someone else to argue with. A rare trait - shared only by kid, drunken roaming vagabonds and Chuck Norris.


----------



## rJames (Jun 16, 2009)

kid-surf @ Tue Jun 16 said:


> Actually, they are much more than that.  Have you read any (good) scripts or are you judging by the shitty films that often result from good scripts.
> 
> Keep in mind that the best scripts never get made as a rule. They are what's known as "writing samples" to Hollywood. In that:
> 
> ...


I like it! How about in the next scene we see the new writer giving the A-list star a blowjob? Then they both have a cigarette while they talk about how the job was never really going to the first writer in any case but that it was all a ruse to get some new ideas flowing.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 16, 2009)

ILL -- Don't get bent, brutha. Clearly I was being tongue in cheek, hence the --> 

Regardless, what you see at the cinema is, time and again, not what the writer wrote. So, what you see at the cinema is only evidence of what the script "became"...many times, only after several writers tried to get writing credit on the many rewrites. The way the WGA arbitration system is set up it, more or less, pits writer against writer as they try to "credit jump" in order make more $.

Point being: There are politics involved that aren't apparent when sitting down with your popcorn at the cinema. To "attribute" that to a writer is simply being (no offense man) naive to the actual process of creating a studio film. It is what it is... 

So, I'd suggest you (if you wish to educate yourself as to what I'm describing) read a couple good script to see just how layered and thorough a good script is. Besides, a composer should know just how to read (decipher good from bad) scripts anyway, to know if the film they're scoring is any good. Why? That way the "story" is apparent or not, and you won't find yourself dazzled by glossy imagery. (whereby "passing" on a good story in favor of gloss -- the director with the best story sense is the guy who can take you places)

We can't label a studio film 'unadulterated', is all. It's the exact opposite.

Otherwise, what argument? This is a discussion...feel free to discuss.

*And I didn't even mention that the 2-6 week thing will never go away, and for very good reason. Why? Because there's guys talented enough to deliver great work in that time frame. That's why they get the big bucks. That's the big leagues.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 16, 2009)

Choc0 -

Haven't seen that article. I'll read it. BTW -- My pastime is surfing and/or knitting you mittens.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 16, 2009)

rJames -- we can add that scene, why not...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 16, 2009)

Good article Choc0. Sums up the politics nicely...

Yep, like they said, read the script before you assume that to be the issue.

Now I'll quote them:

*"A film you see in the theater tells you nothing about the original screenplay that propelled that film into production.

Nothing.

People (including critics) who speak about a screenplay based on the film in theaters are demonstrating their ignorance of the business."*



Hey, knowing how this business works is never a bad thing for a composer.


----------



## rJames (Jun 17, 2009)

In a similar vein but related to film music...Erich Korngold once said, "A movie composer's immortality lasts from the recording stage to the dubbing room."

I guess it is just the nature of a collaborative art where the goal is to appeal to the largest audience possible.


----------



## JohnG (Jun 17, 2009)

rJames @ 17th June 2009 said:


> "A movie composer's immortality lasts from the recording stage to the dubbing room."
> -- Erich Korngold



Korngold exaggerates; it doesn't last quite that long...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 17, 2009)

That's funny...yep, short lived.

To bookend my screenplay talk and tie it back to music:

On studio films; you know there were far more writers on it than the ones who got credit when you see 2-3 names credited. It's common for writers to "take a pass at" (do work on) a script and either not receive credit due to WGA standards or simply not want credit because they don't believe the film is good - don't want their name on it. In other words, if you see 2-3 names credited, there may have actually been 6-8 writers on it in various degrees and stages.

Not so ironically; these are the blockbusters which never are up for best screenplay and otherwise win few awards (other than technical). But they do make hugh sums of money.

Not so ironically; the films that are up for best screenplay are often written by "1" guy/girl. Normally the director, and actors, and composer, are up for oscars as well.

Not so ironically; the best scores often reside in films with "1" screenwriter, as opposed to a throng of writers. The math seems to add up in that regard.

So, I do believe that the script directly effects the score - and/or what the composer can therefore add to the project on an emotional/primal level. Which goes back to the topic at hand.

But that's only my opinion...

On a positive note; Despite all the lameness in the industry, there's plenty of jobs that are worse. I wouldn't choose to do anything else. You? o-[][]-o


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 17, 2009)

A thought for Choc0 --

There's a book called Save The Cat which is the latest Hollywood handbook. The author implores writers (same could be said for composers) to be "bullheaded" in some regard. Meaning, fighting for their creative vision. In that, if we rolled over on everything, we'd not see any decent films get made and would simply be left with "what studios asks for" instead of "what studios didn't know they needed/wanted...until you've done your song-and-dance regarding the reasons this film MUST get made"

Keep in mind that; I'm bullheaded about film, in that, I'd hate to see it fully turned into an "amusement park type thrill-ride". Away from the industry I'm far less opinionated. How would anyone here know that side of me/us unless we hang out? This forum isn't about being "off", so to speak...thus, I'm normally "on" when I post here. Seemingly the whole point of this type of forum.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 19, 2009)

Cool. I'd bet it gets made. Good luck w/that. 

You may already know this, but: No one can accuse you of nepotism if you eventually write a couple on your own. Writing teams are a great thing - unless they break up. Then the folks who were so nice to you suddenly want you to write something to prove that you were/are the brains of the operation. If you're making a go at a career in that regard, I'd stash that bit of info in the back of my brain. 

On the positive side: You'll have the best reps in the world...


----------



## JohnG (Jun 20, 2009)

What are people's thoughts on producing music with a team, by contrast with a single composer -- better? wòƒ   ¤Ñƒ


----------



## The_Juggler (Jun 20, 2009)

You seem all to whine too much, just do the best you can and settle nothing less then a becoming the greatest film composer in the world.

It seems that you guys talk and talk and talk too much.


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 20, 2009)

Exactly, a forum is the last place we should be talking about things.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 20, 2009)

Choc0 -- Agreed, at this stage, it'd be 'not smart' to not put his name (c0-written by - you need some credit) on your script, whether he actually wrote on it or not. With his name; people will read it with their guard down, assuming it's great. Without his name; people will put their guard up, assuming it's crap. Typically...

Just, crack it out asap. Comedy goes in cycles (that market isn't indefinite, it's got an expiration date, though, no industry suit person will mention that). Drama/Action never really changes and has longer longevity. 

When I mentioned writing something solo...I meant down the road. When he's off shooting something, you may have time to crack something. In my view, it'll make you a better/faster writer when you do collaborate if nothing else. You have an 'in' so why not maximize?

I may only be reiterating what you already know, though sometimes it's good for artists to communicate amongst themselves away from those who insulate them.

Good luck with it...


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 20, 2009)

JohnG @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> What are people's thoughts on producing music with a team, by contrast with a single composer -- better? worse? benefits?



Good question. I too am curious what people's thoughts are on that. 

OT but: I eventually want to co-write a script with someone. I feel I'd learn a lot even if I'm evenly matched talent-for-talent. I imagine we, after having done it many times by our lonesome, learn a great deal about our own process...and in a way that wouldn't be possible any other way.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 20, 2009)

The_Juggler @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> You seem all to whine too much, just do the best you can and settle nothing less then a becoming the greatest film composer in the world.
> 
> It seems that you guys talk and talk and talk too much.



Are your mathematic skills really that lacking?

Rudimentary math will explain the amount of time folks spend discussing. I'll speak for myself and tell you that I'm currently working on 4 projects all at the same time. I'm plenty busy creating. If you can't do both, get the F' outta here...


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 20, 2009)

kid-surf @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> The_Juggler @ Sat Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem all to whine too much, just do the best you can and settle nothing less then a becoming the greatest film composer in the world.
> ...



Lol.

Kid, a writing partner could potentially expand your horizons. It's great to sit around your living room drinking and throwing ideas around with someone. I know sometimes when we discuss ideas for a film I'll end up thinking I've come up with most of the good ones but eventually I'll often realize that I wouldn't have come up with them if it weren't for him. Often he acts as a catalyst.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 20, 2009)

Yeah, I do that now, only I use my wife (not that she loves it). Likewise, she is often my catalyst to better ideas/concepts. What I'm interested in is seeing what the difference would be on the page. I think it would pinpoint my weaker areas. I may eventually co-write something with a writer pal of mine who's essentially the yin to my yang. We've joked about it...presently we're both too busy.

Yet, I don't like the idea of splitting the money, so who knows when this will go down. 

Although, comedy is kind of a different beast. I almost feel it's essential for a comedy to be written that way. More testing of ideas to make sure they play as intended.

Some day...yes.


----------



## dcoscina (Jun 20, 2009)

If I wanted to work on the craft of composing good music, film would not be an arena I would enter to do so these days. The expectations are the lowest common denominator because the clients largely have the ears of goats.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 20, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> If I wanted to work on the craft of composing good music, film would not be an arena I would enter to do so these days. The expectations are the lowest common denominator because the clients largely have the ears of goats.



ROTFL!


----------



## Ashermusic (Jun 21, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sat Jun 20 said:


> Thanks Jay, I wish I were joking. It's really too bad because the poor composer often gets blamed for being untalented when it's the musically illiterate twits behind the proverbial wheel that govern the music choices. I heard that even poor Elliot Goldenthal had this trouble on the new Michael Mann PUBLIC ENEMIES. We all know how ballsy and adventurous Goldenthal can write but what is on the commercial release CD is a far cry from his inspired '90s work like Alien3 and even the other Mann film HEAT. :(



I was laughing at the "ears of goats" comment.

Once again, you cannot really judge a score, much less the composer, until you hear it with the film.


----------



## The_Juggler (Jun 21, 2009)

90% of you guys just are amateurs, the real pro's are those who come in once in a while and throw something useful out, but the most of you whine too much, acting like dr. phil around here.

just *TAKE MASSIVE ACTION!*

tALKing ain't do you any good, just my 2 cents! 

:D


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 21, 2009)

The_(nut-sack)_Juggler 

You may very well be some high level pro for all I know...though you grammar reads like a diapered child's scribbles, so I have every doubt.

Here's the deal: What some anonymous coward types about anyone here is irrelevant. Tip: Note that in your coloring book.

So let me get this straight: This site is designed for "real pros" to drop by and offer rank amateurs like yourself "useful" info out of the goodness of their heart - otherwise amateurs like yourself need not speak. Sum it up? Well, these pros should charge money for this service considering it's a one way street.

How 'bout you throw "something useful" out. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to hear specifics about your "MASSIVE ACTION!" directive. Or is that the extent of your wisdom? Kinda like the wizard of OZ - nothing behind the curtain.

BTW -- I know this will come as a shock, but...I promise, there's no gun against your head, turn the fucking channel. Nope, not interested in you acting as my agent or manager, got it covered. 

You're obviously a unique breed of genius. Good luck changing the world! o-[][]-o <---please don't tattle to your mom, that's milk.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Jun 22, 2009)

dcoscina @ Sun Jun 21 said:


> but what is on the commercial release CD is a far cry from his inspired '90s work like Alien3 and even the other Mann film HEAT. :(



Did you get to hear it, our are you just talking about a rumor? Cause I'm pretty excited for the score.


----------

