# Theory in the "NO MELODIES" film music today



## villalobos (Apr 16, 2014)

The other day I thought why Today, Film music is missing MELODIES in the soundtracks. It's all a funny theory, and all I can do is Guess  I might be totally WRONGGGG !

Years ago, the composers didn't have any technology. Just a simple Piano. They had to show the CUEs to the directors playing the piano and trying to explain how would be with the orchestration etc. So, I guess that the Director and producers had to "HEAR" something that they like, something they can follow and "sing". They just heard a PIANO. I guess again if the composer played a piece with no melody, the director wouldn't approve the CUE since he wouldn't like it.

Now and TODAY, and I'm including myself, we can show something amazing (Big Percussions, Bass synth lines, Pads and Hits) that really works with the Scene. The DIRECTOR is blow away for how it sounds and how cool the movie is going to be. He loves it, but no "quite" melody on it. 

I know we all work different, and melody will be always the "KING". I just wanted to share the funny THOUGHT. 

Best.


----------



## RiffWraith (Apr 16, 2014)

You make a valid point. I think that technology has changed film music... on the one hand for the better, on the other for the worse. There still are melodies and themes in film music, but a) not as much as their used to be, and b) many times these thematic elements are masked by busy over-the-top orchestration, which includes busy over-the-top percussion, among other things. 

Not every film can be like LOTR, and not every film can be like Jurassic Park, but at some point, I think that things will come full circle, and film music will get back to what it used to be in terms of more themes and "singable" melodies. At least, that is what I am hoping for.

Cheers.


----------



## Ed (Apr 16, 2014)

That's a really good point actually that I hadn't considered. It's certainly not the entirely of the reason but a good one.


----------



## KEnK (Apr 16, 2014)

Computer- Bad
Pencil- Good


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 16, 2014)

If you write at the keyboard you will be limited by your playing technique. Unless you are Prokofiev or Stravinsky, and even some were critical of them as far as being constrained by the piano. it stands to chance it will hinder your writing. But it does depend on the genre of music you are composing. I would say for orchestral music, if possible, work in notation programs or with manuscript. It's very liberating.


----------



## StephenForsyth (Apr 16, 2014)

KEnK @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Computer- Bad
> Pencil- Good



hitting a cello with a pencil certainly sounds better than hitting one with a computer.


----------



## G.E. (Apr 17, 2014)

I think you are spot on.Just my personal opinion but I think the music suffers because of this.It works great for the film but it makes it much less enjoyable for soundtrack collectors like myself because this type of music doesn't stand very well on its own.

I hope this "no melodies" trend will go away soon.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

Great point! If the music and its set of notes aren't interesting, the piano usually won't suffice, and it's true that computer music-making makes everything so much more experimental in a very direct way that you instantly know when something's missing that you can layer anything with "something" quick, an effect, plugin, a propulsory boom to cover that (up?)...

We are in a direct generation of musicians skilled at the computer as a musicial instrument, very important of course, but the brain unfortunately is also that one gigantic elephant in the room, the one musical instrument that needs the most fundamental practice that usually is much less considered than we think and takes more time than the rest...

The inward-outward process from start to finish i believe, is squashed...

Now also, you can observe for yourself that a good amount of stories made for the past 8-10 years don't necesserily lend themselves to melody in the traditional sense...

I think the trick is also sometimes to realize that the modern characters we have today in cinema & television seem to require what i call "realistic" melodies. Melodies with less notes, less hummability, but with enough character in its performance and sound choice that it still makes it recognizable and relevant to our era.. I think, it's a subtle process in music & melody-making where you really want to come from within the character instead of a traditional superhero theme that sort of idealizes or self-aggrandizes the thing in the most objective and superlative thing...

Same with the chord progressions, everything needs to come out more patiently and more slowly, instead of all over the place with like 15 transitions in 10 secs with runs, glissando, vibrato playing like trills, and 762 notes in that first minute of the piece...

That itself, takes tremendous skill & talent when done right for sure, but try to do that now...

Melody is still important, that's certain, but i think one point is also that they're also harder to search and make for a composer from a compositional standpoint based on all the points i mentioned above...

That's why probably to recall "Batman Begins" the initial "Bruce Wayne/Batman" theme that mr.Zimmer had intended didn't work, too many notes, and probably took away the realism and genuine conflict/dualism that the character was facing within...

I think the Batman Trilogy soundtrack wasn't just a trend, it really seemed to be a transition, a masterclass for how a lot of modern characters could be scored ever since... 

Same example with Man of Steel, every C. Kent and Superman tune in that score are so simple that they were actually probably extremely hard to make in space & time, but somehow they seem extremely appropriate, not just for the characters, but all of us now and I'm sure could work with a lot of characters in other contemporary film projects...

A lot of people associate necessity of many notes to go hand-in-hand with complexity of the character, whereas unfortunately that's not necesserily true, that would be too easy...

We are very attached to how the hummability of those expressive concert melodies sounded 20 years ago understandibly, but i think we still have yet to see a new John Williams, or any other Hollywood maestro score where they're faced with the kind of story, editing, aesthetically modern-made movie that ressembles what for example Hans Zimmer had to do so far where they could also set a new example and direction of what's to come in the future years, (Skyfall from the great T.Newman comes close i think...) otherwise let's invent it to the best of our skills & talent ourself... 

Alexandre


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

Oh and!... 
A discussion i stumbled upon recently that i loved and relevant to the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrcuw9D92_s


----------



## handz (Apr 17, 2014)

G.E. @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> I think you are spot on.Just my personal opinion but I think the music suffers because of this.It works great for the film but it makes it much less enjoyable for soundtrack collectors like myself because this type of music doesn't stand very well on its own.
> 
> I hope this "no melodies" trend will go away soon.



Same here. It works in movie, but same was with old scores with great melodies. Dont understand this new trend. Watched a movie recently, had one really nice theme, surprise, but destroyed by epic drum patterns. Sucks.


----------



## G.E. (Apr 17, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Oh and!...
> A discussion i stumbled upon recently that i loved and relevant to the subject:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrcuw9D92_s



It honestly breaks my heart to see James Horner being held back from doing what he does best because somehow it's considered "old fashioned".Melodic themes would still work very well in any movie if done right but it's not the audience who thinks it's old fashioned.It's the film makers and composers.

I could understand why someone like Michael Bay would think like this because he doesn't even know the difference between special effects and story.Apparently having a story is also old fashioned.So it would only makes sense for the music to be as non-memorable as his movies.

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/155659/

But I'm disappointed to see that a lot of people follow this trend.I for one am against it,but I'm a nobody.Who cares what I think ? Hollywood knows best.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

G.E. @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> It honestly breaks my heart to see James Horner being held back from doing what he does best because somehow it's considered "old fashioned".Melodic themes would still work very well in any movie if done right but it's not the audience who thinks it's old fashioned.It's the film makers and composers.
> 
> I could understand why someone like Michael Bay would think like this because he doesn't even know the difference between special effects and story.Apparently having a story is also old fashioned.So it would only makes sense for the music to be as non-memorable as his movies.
> But I'm disappointed to see that a lot of people follow this trend.I for one am against it,but I'm a nobody.Who cares what I think ? Hollywood knows best.



That's where people skills, and creating an intimate relationship with your direcors & producers "hopefully" come in handy, it's not a manipulative thing, but a way to know each other, to build trust and confidence that interaction both help each individual reaching the heart of this thing called the "movie"...

So it's about talking about things that are not even music-melody-related...


----------



## H.R. (Apr 17, 2014)

You wanna know how wrong can this go? Listen to everything Marco Beltrami did in the past 2 years!


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

I recently got the Varese Sarabande 35th year anniversary album which contains a whole bunch of their chosen favourite cues from the previous 5 years releases. A lot of the music just passed me by, but two cues in particular really touched me - James Horner's cue 'Horizon to Horizon' from 'Black Gold' - a typically sweeping gorgeous theme beautifully written and orchestrated, and John Ottmann's cue 'They'll Remember You' from 'Valkyrie' - which is as stunning a choral piece as I have ever heard in any film.

Stunning themes do still exist, but they are perhaps less frequent now than they used to be. I grew up listening to the music of John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, John Barry, Elmer Bernstein et al, and their music runs through my musical bones and DNA.

Perhaps I am old fashioned too in the music I write myself. I'm happy to be so, and also to let other composers explore the brave new world of more sound design oriented media music. There still seems to be room for everyone, and when talented composers are allowed to write their melodic best, like James Horner and John Ottmann above, they can still produce music every bit as moving and stunning as the music of years ago.


----------



## AR (Apr 17, 2014)

Hehe, since I'm in the same situation right now I share my thoughts. Working on a today's movies has gotten a little bit harder since filmmakers trying to achieve a more "viewer-is-inside-the-movie" effect. That pretty much gives you less room for composing strong thematical stuff. Imagine a car chase scene. Including your so cal "main theme" in that scene would sound so 90's. we use more like motifs nowadays.


----------



## Jetzer (Apr 17, 2014)

Most modern movies don't allow melodies. It just doesn't work, movies have changed. 

We are sometimes talking about scores that are 50 years old. Look how much the world, the movies and music has changed since then. The same amount of change will happen in the next 50 years, perhaps even more. 

I'm interested in what's next. Excited what people will come up with. I love the old scores, but I also like some of the new electronic ones. Sometimes I like them a lot.


----------



## lucky909091 (Apr 17, 2014)

One problem going ahead with this develpment is that more and more "amateur" or "semi"-profs climb into the ring.

They do not have any clue about professional composing and creating melodies. Their craft is to make some sounds, sequenzes or just ambiences out of the computer.

And the directors do not really realize that. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

It should be noted that there are still lots of scores that do have melody, but as JH says those kinds of movies are different.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 17, 2014)

Some do. You just have to be lucky enough to work with them. :wink:


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Some do. You just have to be lucky enough to work with them. :wink:



Exactly! And precisely, one thing that hasn't been mentioned i think is James Horner specifically said one obviously does not want to be typecast for having only one specific sound, but really with experience you do get a style, and I believe that the stronger your musical ideas that you build in your portfolio from whatever context which made them come to life, in private or professional, the better chance you have of attracting the type of directors looking for that strong opinionated music and well, coming after you...

So with the right talent and combination of skills, (music & non-music skills) just spread your musical genes as much as you can, everywhere you can, and make them laser-beam quality so the right filmmakers notice...

Alex


----------



## Ed (Apr 17, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Some do. You just have to be lucky enough to work with them. :wink:



I dunno, I really prefer to work on a more sound design score. I like the idea of creating a sonic landscape that envelopes you, rather than bashes you over the head with tunes and themes all the time. 

Look at Breaking Bad, would John Williams style big tunes work there? Or how about on True Detective or Hannibal? What a disaster that would be! But you know that, Ned  I think there's often too much thematic material in The Walking Dead tbh.

While I like "tunes", I like music in movies because its like the music is the "sound" of that universe somehow, and so a more sound design bed can make it all gel a lot better than a more traditional approach of - big score cue - silence - big score cue - silence. etc. I mean look at Hannibal, its basically wall to wall music, some of it is so minimal its barely music but it really helps set a interesting tone IMO for the whole thing.

That said I've worked on lots of ads in the past few years that needed strong tunes, and when they need it they need it. I just dont see "tunes" as necessarily superior. It all depends. There also appears to be some confusion over what constitutes a tune. There's movies I felt had lots of tunes but people will use them as examples of scores with no tune. Odd. I remember Midphase saying Hans Zimmer had never written a melody before, loooool, though that was the craziest thing I've heard.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 17, 2014)

I was replying to the idea posted that directors can't tell if the composer has little traditional composing technique. I've worked with directors who could call out an unimportant ending note by pitch. But there is an element of luck involved in ending up in collaboration with directors who can really understand what we do. Some terrific and busy directors get by with very little musical knowledge. But, for the most part, they can still tell when some music is not working for a given scene.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 17, 2014)

JH @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Most modern movies don't allow melodies. It just doesn't work, movies have changed.



Actually really its just blockbusters that have changed I think. Plenty of movies still have melody. But now blockbusters / comic book / actioners all have to see dark and "important", even though they aren't and are really just a whole lot less fun than they used to be (yeah, I should just cut and paste this rant). I'm hoping the 30something teenagers will have grown out of it soon and then we can start enjoying ourselves again.

But it's not that black and white, admittedly. Prometheus may have been a lousy film, but they did allow themes at least - whatever you thought of them - so it's not true that they've been banned even from blockbusters. And on the other side of the coin, John Williams was scoring atonal stuff in the 60s - melody has never been a pre-requisite. In a sense the modern sound design-led stuff like Gravity, Social Network or Breaking Bad on TV is the modern equivalent of that fine tradition, with a greatly expanded sonic palette.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 is out this year, you know.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 17, 2014)

H.R. @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> You wanna know how wrong can this go? Listen to everything Marco Beltrami did in the past 2 years!



Actually his score to The Wolverine was quite good. Maybe not listenable as such on its own but it was a very smart score. He used some key motives and even instruments as textures to evoke the characters and setting of the film (in Japan). 

I love his use of the lonely harmonica with its minor 3rd interval (or is only Hans Zimmer allowed to base a theme for a character around a single interval?). 

Admittedly, I don't think Beltrami's strong suit is melodic scores because he studied music in university at a time when tonal scores were still poo-poo'd (I studied around the same time and got lambasted for writing any discernible melodies too). 

But I do think he's got a very good sense of orchestral balance and instrument arrangement. And he's scored quite a few films in very interesting ways. Even Goldsmith thought a lot about him.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 17, 2014)

One thing I would like to add is that Herrmann in many ways foreshadowed this movement. He used small cells and motives as his chief ingredients in his scores and then dressed them up accordingly. And it worked marvelously for his films. 

Of course, he was a highly trained composer who had a boat load of knowledge how to develop those musical bits into broader directions. 

I've heard a lot of promising ideas and basic ideas in quite a few scores but the composer either wasn't allowed to develop them more or didn't have the skill set to do so. 

Powell's HTTYD is probably the best example in recent times of a guy who developed the shit out of his key themes and motives. Listen to the score and NOTHING is arbitrary. I hope he follows it up with as compelling a work for the sequel.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Actually really its just blockbusters that have changed I think. Plenty of movies still have melody. But now blockbusters / comic book / actioners all have to see dark and "important", even though they aren't and are really just a whole lot less fun than they used to be (yeah, I should just cut and paste this rant). I'm hoping the 30something teenagers will have grown out of it soon and then we can start enjoying ourselves again.



Christopher Reeve in 'Superman' is as good as superhero movies get for me. Great performance and the supporting cast with the likes of Gene Hackman, Ned Beatty, Jackie Cooper, Marlon Brando (and his awesome wig), Glenn Ford, Margot Kidder, Valerie Perrine (Miss TESCHMACHEEEERRRRRR) blah blah blah. John Williams bringing his 'A+++++' game.

The movie biz of today can keep its dark and gritty and 'important'.

I think I may have finally become an old curmudgeon.....


----------



## JohnG (Apr 17, 2014)

One score that I really admire is JNH's "Signs," because it takes a tiny cell and makes an entire score out of it.

So to me, this is a "superior" score as it lifts to a higher level a movie that certainly has its issues and, at the same time, demonstrates a very high level of musical craft. Plus I just like it.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 17, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> One score that I really admire is JNH's "Signs," because it takes a tiny cell and makes an entire score out of it.



Thats a very good score, especially the end part.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 17, 2014)

dcoscina @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> One thing I would like to add is that Herrmann in many ways foreshadowed this movement. He used small cells and motives as his chief ingredients in his scores and then dressed them up accordingly. And it worked marvelously for his films.
> 
> Of course, he was a highly trained composer who had a boat load of knowledge how to develop those musical bits into broader directions.
> 
> ...



You make such a good point! I think also the problem we tend to always oppose "the" theme vs. background music, or even sound design, but actually i think really the most skilled composers are basically extremely good at working on the big ideas just as well as the small ideas, but they're still strong ideas with a modicum of originality. Melody isn't always a theme, neither is a theme always a melody, but a theme at least in film music is always an intellectual concept, a declarative statement with purpose & emotion either through notes, sound design or both, but everything has been thought through, and even if it's not thematic, it has to resonate because it is appropriate, so it goes back to the most basic idea of craft...

*I think the problem to go further isn't even disappearance of "melody", it's disappearance of a musical signature within scores...
You could have taken off that marvelous jazzy tune from Herrmann on Taxi Driver you still had those wonderful smoky dangerous jazzy chords and snares rhythm throughout the film, that's the kind of craft that's missing...*

Everybody talks about the main tune in this & that, but again for example my experience with listening to all the recent works of Hans Zimmer, even the latest totally ignored Jim Brooks 2010 movie "How Do You Know", *every little ideas lurking around, either on synths, on strings, or piano or woodwinds, or on the "clavinet with a phaser" are all just as relevant as the big theme up-front, everything is brilliant and so underrated...*

So are JW, Horner, Newman, Herrmann, Morricone in their approach to the thing as a "whole", *they pay attention to the details*, the details that either make for a fast digested meal that you liked or one that you loved, the body of work within one score that always seems to stay within you... 

Melody isn't the whole story!
Craft, my friends, craft!

Alex


----------



## Darthmorphling (Apr 17, 2014)

lucky909091 @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> One problem going ahead with this develpment is that more and more "amateur" or "semi"-profs climb into the ring.
> 
> They do not have any clue about professional composing and creating melodies. Their craft is to make some sounds, sequenzes or just ambiences out of the computer.
> 
> And the directors do not really realize that. :roll: :roll: :roll:



At some point every composer is an amateur or semi-pro. Nobody starts out as a pro. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## jaredcowing (Apr 17, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Wed Apr 16 said:


> I think that things will come full circle, and film music will get back to what it used to be in terms of more themes and "singable" melodies. At least, that is what I am hoping for.



I'm sure there will be a point at which melodic film music will not be seen as "nostalgic" but rather as new and fresh, because the audience will be younger and not as familiar with that style. Part of why music and so many other cultural trends are cyclical, I think, is that people age and are replaced by new people to whom everything is new!

Imagine being able to hear some of your favorite pieces for the first time and having it sound completely fresh, opening totally new musical horizons for you. It's easy to forget that this happens to new listeners all the time who are listening to stuff that we consider very worn and rehashed!! One of the perks of mortality I guess.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 17, 2014)

FWIW, I can't point to one thing, but, the following could have had an impact:

- in the culture-poor climate we live in, many directors never took a single music class, don't know how to play an instrument of any type. It's easier for them to talk about sound design elements than music. Tempo, rhythm, volume, that is easy to have an opinion about.

- there was a need by the end of the 20th for composers to forge a new sound, and melody had been mined to death.

- it's easier for editors to temp with sound design.

- samplers opened up many composers to sound design.

- in the search for ever-bigger emotional impacts (due to poor scripts, direction?), there was a greater emphasis on... impacts.

- there's no melody on pop radio, mostly grooves. Pop influences commercial scores.


----------



## markwind (Apr 17, 2014)

JH @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> Most modern movies don't allow melodies. It just doesn't work, movies have changed.
> 
> We are sometimes talking about scores that are 50 years old. Look how much the world, the movies and music has changed since then. The same amount of change will happen in the next 50 years, perhaps even more.
> 
> I'm interested in what's next. Excited what people will come up with. I love the old scores, but I also like some of the new electronic ones. Sometimes I like them a lot.



Very much agreed. To add however, melodies aren't gone, they simply aren't dominating the field no more as they used to.

However, the term "melody" as coined in this topic is too restrictive for my taste, I understand it in a much wider sense and thus perceive melodies all throughout todays musical world. Just not employed as before, but it would be silly to expect otherwise.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 17, 2014)

Melodics in films are quite rare nowadays. Most film and tv is dominated by rhythms and rhythmic jabs and stabs. Even if you get the semblance of a melody or leitmotif, it's generally fairly minimal and doesn't turn into a full blown operatic mass orchestral sound.

Films have a tempo and rhythms of their own as everyone knows, so I am guessing having never done that myself, that the score writer needs to find that rhythm and work accordingly.


----------



## milesito (Apr 17, 2014)

are non-film composers aware of these trends? if we posted this feedback into a movie viewers forum would they even care? 

also, in your experiences, have you ever had a director say - hmm…something doesn't sound right…i think it's that you have a melody…?


----------



## jaredcowing (Apr 17, 2014)

milesito @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> are non-film composers aware of these trends? if we posted this feedback into a movie viewers forum would they even care?
> 
> also, in your experiences, have you ever had a director say - hmm…something doesn't sound right…i think it's that you have a melody…?



I think it's more likely the director would say that the music is too busy, calls too much attention to itself. And sometimes, it could be he/she is right! Depends on the situation. I think it is usually harder to "tune out" a melody than it is a rhythm/texture, so that may contribute.

The average movie goers are a pretty diverse crowd, but I think there's a common sentiment at the moment that piano melodies and other "plucked" type melodies are ok, but more lyrical string/wind melodies sound dated or are "too grand." But, it really depends...


----------



## rgames (Apr 17, 2014)

The shift away from melodies occurred first in the concert music world. So it's not really surprising to see film music follow suit.

rgames


----------



## Symfoniq (Apr 17, 2014)

My theory is that because most modern films don't tell a story, directors and producers don't think the music should tell a story, either.

<ducks and runs>


----------



## H.R. (Apr 18, 2014)

dcoscina @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> H.R. @ Thu Apr 17 said:
> 
> 
> > You wanna know how wrong can this go? Listen to everything Marco Beltrami did in the past 2 years!
> ...



I loved the harmonica in Wolverine too but rest of the album was disappointing. I'm not judging his score by being listenable on it's own, It just doesn't work with the picture. A Good Day To Die Hard, World War Z, Wolverine were absolute disappointment. No melody, no theme, no style and one bad thing is you can find out what temp music were used (mostly Zimmer) I call it "BAD RIP OFF"

His last film I watched was Snowpiercer, an absolute masterpiece film but in music he just... God it's soundeffect not music! As you said "I do think he's got a very good sense of orchestral balance and instrument arrangement."


----------



## handz (Apr 18, 2014)

rgames @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> The shift away from melodies occurred first in the concert music world. So it's not really surprising to see film music follow suit.
> 
> rgames



Yes, it was around the time when concert music stopped to interest any people at all :-/


----------



## JohnG (Apr 18, 2014)

milesito @ 17th April 2014 said:


> have you ever had a director say - hmm…something doesn't sound right…i think it's that you have a melody…?



Definitely.

Not only that, but I was visiting a producer on a sound stage while they were dubbing the movie (I hadn't written the score -- it was by someone else; I was just there). So they're mixing together dialogue, background sounds, SFX, and music -- and one of the executives said, "the music sounds kind of empty." So I asked if they had muted any of the tracks (which I suspected) and they had turned off everything except the bass line and the percussion.

And that's not the only time I've seen exactly this kind of thing. They ask for stems and that's why -- so they can turn them off.

So yes, some filmmakers do that and they see music as a functional item that is highly disposable, or at least secondary to nearly all other sound. 

Ever see the brilliant film, "The Help?" It's got a score by Thomas Newman, faintly tinkling far in the background. I heard that the film tested so successfully with test audiences before the score was added that they didn't want to mess with a winning formula. It's still a good movie but I sometimes wonder how great it could have been with TN's score at a proper volume level.

That's just how it is. It's not personal.

But I still felt sorry for the composer on that dub stage.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 18, 2014)

handz @ 18th April 2014 said:


> rgames @ Fri Apr 18 said:
> 
> 
> > The shift away from melodies occurred first in the concert music world. So it's not really surprising to see film music follow suit.
> ...



Ha!

Secretly, I don't subscribe to the "if they notice the music, that's bad" philosophy. Although I've written plenty of forgettable wallpaper, I hate doing it and that's not what I'm in this for.

I say "secretly" because that's not really in vogue now and one needs to earn a living.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 18, 2014)

I feel like you got to take a stand, do what's right, damn everybody else. If everybody hates what you do, I think it's not nearly as bad as you hating what you do. Let's face it, anything you do, there's always going to be some people that hate you for it. So, in a perverse logical sense, if people are going to hate you, then they might as well hate you for being you and not trying to fit into any current vogue.... really these days, the zeitgeist changes so quickly, that nobody can keep up. And, notice how the people that decide "what's in" are really only bringing music to a point where it takes no real skill to do it any more.

disclaimer: This is a rambling rant after seriously considering whether film music is a good fit for me any more, to which I just came to the conclusion that, I don't care if it's good fit. I'll just do what I do and if I go to the grave broke, I'll go to the grave at least knowing that in the next 25 years or so of my life, I spent it doing what I wanted and not what I think is currently popular.


----------



## AKR (Apr 18, 2014)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Apr 17 said:


> FWIW, I can't point to one thing, but, the following could have had an impact:
> 
> - in the culture-poor climate we live in, many directors never took a single music class, don't know how to play an instrument of any type. It's easier for them to talk about sound design elements than music. Tempo, rhythm, volume, that is easy to have an opinion about.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree with this - both your attitude and your claims. You sound incredibly pretentious, and basically make the current state of film music out to be based on stupid, uneducated musicians who are too simple to create melodies. And your claim that pop music has no melody either? Also ludicrous. 

Some of you just sound like bitter musicians, angry that a different style of musician is getting work you're not getting. I hear it all the time from metal musicians, who ignorantly attack mainstream music, making all sorts of pretentious and ignorant claims about the music and those who make it. If you have a different taste in music, fine, but don't make it out to be about inferior musicians who don't know any better - they just know DIFFERENT. I just see people lashing out, probably because they feel threatened.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 18, 2014)

Who's bitter? Take it easy, it's his opinion.

I don't buy the "everything is equal in art" approach, so I'm sympathetic to Ned at least for the sake of argument. 

There is high art and low art. 99% of the time I work on low art, so I'm not in any position to get lofty about it. But I sing with a choir and what we sing is (usually) high art. There's a difference.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 18, 2014)

im for the argument that the public taste is changing with the times and the new technolgy/genres etc. 
less melody more elecronic/different ways of achieving the same effect on the moviewatching exprecience. 
defenition of music is still rythm and pitch.
pitch=frequency. =)
maybe we get conditioned to expect a type of score or sound. (o) 

also, why not be open about it? 
more openness about it can lead to discoveries into new territories. 
i always try to understand why and how... instead of wrong and bad.
why would so many movies be release with "no melodies" ?? so many bad filmmakers or maybe are those guys into somehting and know what they are doing? art or not, its still on a tv/theatre and not on a museum. still getting paid and being repeatdly seen/heard by the public. so how is it working if there are so many bad scores nowadays? 
of course its a big grey area. what specific score? does ticket sales equal to a good movie?



in short, no, i dont think its the piano score that filmakers had to "imagine" and now 
they cant. i think filmakers are trying to get a specific sound for a movie. inside that statement there is the composer that has to figure out how to make that "sound" work for a specific movie and character development.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 18, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> I feel like you got to take a stand, do what's right, damn everybody else.
> 
> disclaimer: This is a rambling rant after seriously considering whether film music is a good fit for me any more, to which I just came to the conclusion that, I don't care if it's good fit. I'll just do what I do and if I go to the grave broke, I'll go to the grave at least knowing that in the next 25 years or so of my life, I spent it doing what I wanted and not what I think is currently popular.



o-[][]-o *Solomon Northup: "I don't want to survive. I want to live..." -- 12 Years a Slave (2013)*

Alex


----------



## dgburns (Apr 18, 2014)

JohnG @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> Who's bitter? Take it easy, it's his opinion.
> 
> I don't buy the "everything is equal in art" approach, so I'm sympathetic to Ned at least for the sake of argument.
> 
> There is high art and low art. 99% of the time I work on low art, so I'm not in any position to get lofty about it. But I sing with a choir and what we sing is (usually) high art. There's a difference.



+1 ,and you're not alone in the hight art,lo art thing.Well,atleast you're writing music for a living.better than alot of things we could be doing....and imho there's nothing stopping any of us from doing vanity projects,even if it's just to replenish the well every once in a while....

i think it's good to remember that writing music for media is a service industry.payment for approved music delivered,no more no less.


----------



## handz (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> handz @ 18th April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Fri Apr 18 said:
> ...



Yeah, that is for sure bad philosophy. Especially for composers who want to make something memorable. Memorable music for memorable films. Sad it is not popular lately.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

Uh oh. I'm pressing the VI-Control "high art / low art" panic button.

I think that debate is fundamentally missing the point. Why? Well, I guess it depends on what sort of a composer you are. Ask yourself which is a better fit for you:

COMPOSER A. He / she writes and loves music, first and foremost. In an ideal world they would write concert music (preferably in the style of the classics, not contemporary). But the most appropriate market now for that style is music for film, games and TV.

COMPOSER B. He / she is a storyteller, gifted in using music. They want to score films, games and TV to be part of the storytelling process.

If you are a COMPOSER A, your career in 2014 will probably be a hugely frustrating one. Almost every job will be pretty painful, forced to make artistic compromises at every turn and never being allowed to express yourself. This isn't necessarily the case for a COMPOSER B.

I'm a COMPOSER B, so I think the high art / low art debate is framed in the wrong way. I look at the product itself to determine its worth, not the score. I don't make a distinction between high / low budget btw, just in terms of execution.

Here are three examples of scores from what I consider to be High Art films / TV, none of whom have a conventional score.

*UNITED 93*. (also currently discussed in the Captain Philips thread). I chose this because of John's comment that he wanted to write music that would be noticed. On first viewing, I came out of the cinema not knowing if there was a score at all to this film, that's how invisible it was to me. And that was one helluva skillful trick - it felt like pure documentary with crews embedded at Air Traffic Control and on board the plane itself, even though of course it was drama (and watch National Geographic to see how that genre usually turns out). And John Powell's score is nothing short of a masterpiece - from the delicate opening sampling his own very young son and using his random notes to lead a sublime orchestration; through to the sparse menacing textures that inexorably rack up the tension, confusion and horror that is at the core of the film, through to the epic climax that never overplays its hand into melodrama, it's a work of genius that exists in its form within the film as a score that works on a purely subconscious level.

*GRAVITY*. The film itself divisive here, but I'd strongly argue it brought something genuinely new to the cinematic table in terms of its aesthetic, and very much out of step with mainstream filmaking in that regard (although its core story and characters are highly conventional). Three primary elements created this pioneering artistic achievement - the visual language of hightly choreographed hyper-long takes; the sound design based upon vibration and the score. The latter is a world away from the ostinatos and huge percussion that dominate the current blockbuster scene, slowly evolving and mutating in much the same way as the visuals to create the disorientating yet fluid feeling of literally being Not Of This World.

*BREAKING BAD*. Often referred to as "the greatest TV drama of all time", this series rewrote the rule book to perhaps the same degree as Twin Peaks had done twenty years earlier. At its core, character and story were seemingly taken to a new level, always feeling both authentic and surprising at every turn. And the production value matched those scripts and performances (read Anthony Hopkins fan email) - the very best episodes felt not merely like movies, they felt like all time classic movies. Dave Porter's score was never conventional, with only one recurring motif that only surfaced in season three, while the titular theme only appeared in a scoring context for the first time in the penultimate episode. A master of unique sound design and minimalism, like United 93 his work again goes largely unnoticed, at least consciously - its only repeat viewing that shows just what critical part it has been playing in the storytelling process.

My view is that all three of these productions would have been artistically ruined with a conventional melodic orchestral score.

Of course I could pick many other examples, many much older (the controversial debate surrounding Goldsmith's original melodic score for Alien replaced by a largely atonal one to his own derision). John Powell seems to be someone who is in some ways the ultimate Modern Composer (take note, Gunther Bombe!) producing both the aforementioned United 93 but also How To Train Your Dragon, regarded by many (including I) as the greatest thematic blockbuster score in decades. He is able to use melody when appropriate, and disregard when it isn't, both to the very highest level. Hans Zimmer too of course - while his modern melody-light sound is pioneering and much imitated, he is able to produce themes of the quality of Gladiator when the film allows for it.

I genuinely feel sorry for COMPOSER As. I wish we had a thriving concert music scene where modern composers were allowed to compose in a manner of the classics, and would be paid properly to do so. It must be truly painful to be so close to your love, your passion, but always denied it by the very nature of the form - music always being subservient to story.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2014)

Hi Guy,

I appreciate the care you put in to your thoughts, but I have to say, I think you have put up a completely false premise! 

Nobody wants "Indiana Jones" on every picture, with 19th century techniques a-plenty. One doesn't have to use all those esoteric academic techniques -- like using woodwinds or changing key -- to write well crafted, artistically valid music.

Thomas Newman and Arvo Part are good examples of guys who are steeped in learning, musically, and whose work is of a high order. They could wright like Richard Strauss but they choose not to. Their work is artistically valid but still audience-pleasing. Ditto Phillip Glass and, often, James Newton Howard; of course there are more but I'm wooly-headed this morning. 

Even John Williams, who I think unfairly gets trotted out as Exhibit A of Yesteryear Composing wrote Minority Report, which is a good example to me of super-effective film writing packed with technique. The film leads, not the technique. That to me is the definition of a composer's mastery.

So please don't relegate everyone who would prefer to see a high order of craft in film music to old-fashioned would-be concert composers.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Hi Guy,
> 
> I appreciate the care you put in to your thoughts, but I have to say, I think you have put up a completely false premise!
> 
> ...



I argue that all three scores I highlighted involve a great deal of craft. To me, any of these scores would be worthy of the highest accolade, as they served picture to a very high standard - it's just that none use classic themes or motifs. I'd aspire as much to Breaking Bad as Star Wars, because both helped define the world in which they operate, and were intimately involved in the storytelling. If you feel the same way, then I think you're a COMPOSER B!

Where concert composition comes into it is that for those who assess the music as standing on its own two feet devoid of picture and context, each of these three scores will not have anything like the same impact as a more conventionally melodic score (that said, I really enjoy United 93 in particular, but as thinking music, if you will). But it doesn't really matter to me - the function of a score is to be integrated into a film, not to be listened to in isolation, which is almost a happy accident if it works.


----------



## dgburns (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Hi Guy,
> 
> I appreciate the care you put in to your thoughts, but I have to say, I think you have put up a completely false premise!
> 
> ...



once again,I agree,and John wrote it better than I could.(same probably goes for the music writing part as well!)

Anyway,it's not like any of us will succed in turning over the debate.

happy easter guys


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2014)

My bottom line is this: I don't think it's as artistically interesting or meritorious to paint like Rothko as it is to paint like Rembrandt. Both canvases add colour to the room and give the eye some respite from white; both may be worth a lot of money. In pure concept, both may be valid at some level. But at the same level of craft and skill? Please.



Guy Rowland @ 19th April 2014 said:


> the function of a score is to be integrated into a film, not to be listened to in isolation, which is almost a happy accident if it works.



I have heard that sentiment ever since I began exploring this field. I don't subscribe to it myself. In fact, I think some composers use it as an excuse to write 100% forgettable rubbish.

You keep bringing up melody, as though that were the definition of non-sound-design scoring. It isn't. "Nice tunes" are not even all that important or significant in my opinion, but never mind.

-----------------------

Regarding sound-design scores, my issue with them is twofold, defensible or not. 

First, I am not persuaded that a sound design score (like "Gravity" -- I don't know the United 93 score) involves the same level of craft or artistic insight as a good -- really good, not some pot-boiler -- orchestral score. A lot of craft? Definitely, of a sort, but not something I can bring myself to admire with one particle of the respect I have for, say, Glass' "Notes on a Scandal" or Newman's "Road to Perdition" (or, on the lighter side, Silvestri's "Back to the Future.") 

Second, (possibly even less defensible than the first), I think it takes the idea and position of film scoring further and further into "background sound" and away from actually saying something musical.

The rise of (often) simple electronic scoring, along with a torrent, a deluge, an oceanic surge, of young composers with low overhead and lots o' sounds in their computers, have coincided with the reduction in stature and income of composers. I believe it's no coincidence that simple scoring -- "pads 'n' sounds" scoring or "grooves" scoring -- has coincided with a collapse in the US of TV scoring fees. It just isn't as hard and doesn't take as long to become conversant enough to work with those techniques as it does to drive an orchestra with any success at all. As a result, composers are a dime a dozen.

(Finally, I do love Dave Porter's music in "Breaking Bad.")


----------



## Stephen Rees (Apr 19, 2014)

John, I admire both your sentiments and the way you express them.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> My bottom line is this: I don't think it's as artistically interesting or meritorious to paint like Rothko as it is to paint like Rembrandt.



People would say that Picasso could only paint the way he arguably became famous for. That was the only thing he could do. Not true. He had many styles he could draw on

What intrigues me about sound design scores, whereby they are just that and nothing else, is, are these composers capable of doing anything else, or are they one trick ponies?

In years to come all this will be unfashionable and a new fashion will emerge. I know this for a fact through age.


----------



## handz (Apr 19, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> the function of a score is to be integrated into a film, not to be listened to in isolation, which is almost a happy accident if it works.



This is why we cant have anything pretty lately...people started to think like this (most likely producers) 

No way. The score is of course mainly support for movie but it was a good tradition that good movie themes always became hits on their own and audience who not even was interested in those movies knowed them and liked them, This is not common now. And it is sad.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> My bottom line is this: I don't think it's as artistically interesting or meritorious to paint like Rothko as it is to paint like Rembrandt. Both canvases add colour to the room and give the eye some respite from white; both may be worth a lot of money. In pure concept, both may be valid at some level. But at the same level of craft and skill? Please.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As to brining up melody - well, of course that's the thread topic. Of course its true that there can be conventional scoring with little focus on melody, but its useful to explore what is in many ways the complete opposite - atonal or sound design scores because I think it exposes some logical flaws expressed by some here.

Taking those three examples, it's very hard to measure what has more "craft" as compared to different classic orchestration skills, say. But let's say you're right and classic orchestration is "harder". It's sort of irrelevant to my argument. My whole case is that whole is what should be judged, not the score in isolation.

So let's take Breaking Bad, which we both agree is excellent. Would it have been a better show if it had used more "craft" in the sense of orchestration and composition? Whether melodious or not? I'd argue no. I'd actually argue its the wrong question. The only relevant thing really is that it helped create the world of Breaking Bad and told that extraordinary story. That it did so with great craft (if not the same as classic orchestration) is perhaps a given.

I think different issues are getting conflated here. Specifically:



> The rise of (often) simple electronic scoring, along with a torrent, a deluge, an oceanic surge, of young composers with low overhead and lots o' sounds in their computers, have coincided with the reduction in stature and income of composers.



I think that's a whole other issue. You can rip off Williams very badly pretty easily these days - start with Vivace, HollywoodWinds and Symphobia (and you'll probably be interested in Grosso too) - similarly you could rip off Dave Porter with a copy of Rev and Omnisphere. I highly doubt in either case it would be used with the skill and originality of the original in context. The issue of cheap / easy knock offs is a red herring to the issue of melody in music, the subject of the thread. Hell, buy Nexus 2 and the orchestra pack, play a fully orchestrated backing with one finger with your left hand and play your melody with one finger using your right. 'tain't hard to use melody if you want - it's not just sound design that's got easier.

The OP raised the question of why there are no melodies in film music today, and there have been a lot of fairly negative posts along the lines of "things aren't what they used to be". I'm asking people to challenge some of those presumptions. Arguably TV has never been as good as it is now. If you aspire to work with programme makers with the skill and talent of Vince Gilligan, it might very well mean having to embrace a different paradigm that many here, it would seem, think is "bad". I think that's a great shame. I can't think of any drama in TV's entire history as good as Breaking Bad - literally none. And so if that holds no interest for you (not you specifically John), that seems extraordinarily sad. How is a medium achieving new heights bad? It's a very exciting time to be a composer when that level of production skill is out there in the humble world of the small screen.

The notion of "saying something musical" I find difficult. If some of the old successful atonal scores are indeed saying something musical, then I'd say exactly the same applies to Gravity et al. But regardless, again it seems to point to something standing alone and apart from the whole, which isn't of primary interest to me. And yes I love playing HTTYD endlessly, I love love LOVE listening to the richness of Star Wars or the melodic melancholy of The Shawshank Redemption - but its all secondary. I bought all those scores because first and foremost I loved the films - where the scores did their primary job.

Finally - do check out both the movie and then score of United 93, it really is extraordinary work by Greengrass, Powell and all the others involved.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 19, 2014)

On the one hand, a lot of us discussed recently on this forum of how "lack of melody" is because it is a rare gift only a select few are blessed with and so few know how to actually reach the heart + the talent vs. craft debate...

On the other hand, in this thread, a lot of people say it is the modernity of our time that simply doesn't allow it, period, end of debate... 

So which is it really?... If you're fundamental about each of this scenario, then good chance is you're making radical Excuses! 

Film Music IS "story"telling = Emotions & Memory --> This doesn't mean everything has to be melodic, but the opposite side of music isn't "background" music or "sound design" or "functional" music... It's the middle ground that is needed, the still rather-absent well-crafted music, that quite frankly proves what is missing in a lot of composer's craft today and which of course guarantees the composer's inability to make great melodies when needed...

Every note should count, no matter how memorable or not it's supposed to be...

Don't ever say any department in cinema, whether it be directing, editing, cinematography, sound effects, costumes (even if it doesn't have specifically the ambition or goal to be memorable) as being "there" as background or functional stuff, period, that's insulting towards artists and even yourself...

Each of those departments should have their artists's heart & passion poured into it, then of course if the craft is missing, you sure won't get an audience (itself characterized by different people interested in various specifities in the cinema departments) looking INTO how things are made... 

The problem is if we give people products that just get by, we encourage them to consume things without getting into the "HOW" of things... 

We should all strive to make things that makes people want to know how stuff is made in their finest details and gets people interested in our voice & craft...

Moving people on an emotional level gets them interested on an intellectual level...

That's how you "function" best as a craftsman & artist...

Alex


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2014)

AlexandreSafi @ 19th April 2014 said:


> Don't ever say any department in cinema, whether it be directing, editing, cinematography, sound effects, costumes (even if it doesn't have specifically the ambition or goal to be memorable) as being "there" as background or functional stuff, period, that's insulting towards artists and even yourself...



I agree. 

Nobody is going to convince me that Gravity is anything like as impressive and wonderful as a good orchestral score. I've listened to it twice. And please don't scold me that it's only relevant in the context of the film -- I accept that some hold that view. I don't.



> The only relevant thing really is that it helped create the world of Breaking Bad and told that extraordinary story.



I categorically reject this philosophy. It is not the "only" relevant thing at all. Moreover, as much as I admire Porter's artistic and conceptual insight, his taste (superb) and his restraint (also superb), I doubt he or anyone would compare this work to that of John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith, let alone Buxtehude or Beethoven or Arvo Part. [edit: I also "just like" Porter's music]

That said, I will take Guy's advice and check out United 93. I am intrigued by Powell, who started off in advertising and is about as unpretentious a guy, judging by interviews, as it's possible to be for someone who's been so successful and written such enjoyable music.

Last -- fair point on melody; you are of course right to point out that it's in the OP! But I think he's really talking about more than that and I think there is a lot at stake for those who care about music beyond "does it work?" which I have always thought was a feeble standard. In fact, using that standard, it's a miracle that there is any bespoke scoring work available at all any more, since libraries abound at ever lower prices, and (more relevant to this discussion) it's alarming how well practically ANY music can work against picture. Those who have worked with temp music must surely know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

I actually disagree with you about temp music too, John! Having music edited myself, scoring is almost invariably better. Library tends to give you an instant hit, and usually deviates after 15 seconds if not earlier. Sometimes you get lucky, and it's true that more minimalist stuff you'd get away with for longer - possibly. But I'm a huge advocate for scoring.

Significantly, though I'm a great advocate of Gravity's score, I've no interest in buying it - I know it wouldn't work well in isolation. We of course disagree as to the importance of that.


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 19, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> (more relevant to this discussion) it's alarming how well practically ANY music can work against picture. Those who have worked with temp music must surely know what I'm talking about.



+1 sir...There is always a difference between getting it right which is the easy part, and "getting it JUST right"...


----------



## Daryl (Apr 19, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> I actually disagree with you about temp music too, John! Having music edited myself, scoring is almost invariably better. Library tends to give you an instant hit, and usually deviates after 15 seconds if not earlier. Sometimes you get lucky, and it's true that more minimalist stuff you'd get away with for longer - possibly. But I'm a huge advocate for scoring.


Agreed, provided that the production values are not significantly different. No matter how well a score is written, if it sounds like GM sounds from a Soundblaster it can't compete with a piece of well written, well produced library music.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 19, 2014)

True indeed, Daryl.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 19, 2014)

To me an easy one: Evolution - survival of the fittest!

A complex melody is hard to remember! A simple pattern an easy one!

Ask someone to sing you Schindler's List, most people won't be able to!
(no matter how breathtaking beautiful this melody is)

Ask anyone to sing you Sharks and EVERYONE will instantly go: BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2014)

So, what are you saying?


----------



## Markus S (Apr 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Apr 18 said:


> I feel like you got to take a stand, do what's right, damn everybody else. If everybody hates what you do, I think it's not nearly as bad as you hating what you do. Let's face it, anything you do, there's always going to be some people that hate you for it. So, in a perverse logical sense, if people are going to hate you, then they might as well hate you for being you and not trying to fit into any current vogue....



Wise words - subscribing to that.


----------



## rdd27 (Apr 19, 2014)

Hello, 

I’ve been watching VI Control for a while but this thread actually made me want to speak up as I was thinking about this yesterday actually. Sorry it’s a bit of a long post, I tried my best to make it short - I've been writing essays today and I don't think I've turned that part of me off yet!

I certainly don’t agree that music has to have melody, I don’t think there’s an issue at all - there is so much more aspects to music than that, and the use of motifs could vary from use of a particular orchestral colour to a simple rhythm. I think it’s the use of the music that is much more significant, and certainly should be well-integrated and appropriate to the film. Although I think it’s the process of being integrated to the film that might be more significant. 

I’m mid-way through my BA Music degree so I’m no expert, but currently scoring a short student film having done a few others previously and this score has made me question a few things. Some moments it uses a single melodic phrase, but the rest of it is small, sparse fragments of motifs and timbres creating a strange sound world to reflect that of the characters’. It could be just my inexperience to scoring (I’ve got a lot to learn!!  ) but these more abstract sections are so tightly integrated to the film that they do not say anything dramatically - it tells nothing new, the motifs are so locked to the picture that they are almost an aspect of its world, it is no longer musicians playing/describing/commenting on it and loses its power as a dramatic device of the film. Whereas the more melodic moments, few as they are, actually comment in a musical fashion and tell something with a voice more to the film. 

Again, this could be because I am still quite inexperienced at scoring to picture, but the issue of sound-design-music when watching films for me is that they do not often have a musical independence as another element of the story. Not independent from the picture, but as a ‘voice’ of it. For example the cinematography, use of colour etc all do this too. It is so locked to the action that I wouldn’t miss it as everything is told to me already in the dialogue, cinematography and actual sound design. Perhaps if it was still scored in an abstract or sound-design-music manner, but with less emphasis on making it sync perfectly to picture and avoid highlighting every nuance of the action, it might say more because of having a more musical voice to it – a dramatic aim when in slight counterpoint to the other elements. I wonder if, especially when working with a sequencer because it is so easy to lock and synchronise everything (not as a worker to blame tools though!), this style of music quickly becomes a slave to the picture, and loses its voice. 

In that sense maybe in the dubbing session someone muting the more traditional score in places but perhaps keeping a more abstract score is understandable as they don’t want another voice to the film (already having cinematography and everything else), just something to enhance it further – music of course isn’t only there for dramatic reason and so doesn’t have to have this ‘voice’, it can be just an element in creating ‘The Experience’. Perhaps a more melodic score in these circumstances would detract/distract more from the actual film rather than slavishly being glued to it?


----------



## JohnG (Apr 19, 2014)

A lot of interesting ideas there.

And welcome to the forum!


----------



## AC986 (Apr 20, 2014)

Waywyn @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA!



+1

Wise words!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 20, 2014)

rdd27 @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> I wonder if, especially when working with a sequencer because it is so easy to lock and synchronise everything (not as a worker to blame tools though!), this style of music quickly becomes a slave to the picture, and loses its voice.



Great post - I'm not sure about this part though. If anything, there seems to be a trend away from tightly syncing to picture. Inception, for example, was edited from specific pieces written for the film, but not written to picture.

The way the masters were able to score tightly to picture is becoming a lost art I'd imagine. I thoroughly recommend this on youtube - a while documentary made in 1979 of Williams scoring Empire Strikes Back. You have to marvel at his extraordinary ability to write notes from a spotting session, write a score on staves at the piano (with no reference video it seems) and then the next thing you know he's conducting the LSO hitting every single beat and nuance. Phenomenal. And, of course, no lack of a voice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGsbKZnaT8E (follow the links for the subsequent parts).


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 20, 2014)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> So, what are you saying?



Not sure, if you were refering to me, John?!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 20, 2014)

Yes Alex -- I was. It wasn't clear to me, but I know you are a busy composer and you put a lot of thought and effort into your work, so I was curious what you meant.


----------



## StephenForsyth (Apr 21, 2014)

H.R. @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> God it's soundeffect not music!



Difference being?


----------



## Patrick_Gill (Apr 21, 2014)

Indeed a lot of directors don't scout for melodic and thematic content - personally it's baffling to me why a director would not want their film to be memorable in that sense. 

I don't think technology is to blame, it's down to imagination. There are still a lot of scores coming out in this fashion with directors that want this approach and I feel that composers that are looking for this kind of work should break the rules a little bit and spend more time educating and pushing for this direction with the filmmakers.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

JohnG @ Sun Apr 20 said:


> Yes Alex -- I was. It wasn't clear to me, but I know you are a busy composer and you put a lot of thought and effort into your work, so I was curious what you meant.



So, are you! Haha, just didn't want to blah straightaway 

Well, it is just my theory and it was referring to the initial question.
I think easier patterns or simpler melodies can be easier adapted by people in general. Obviously this is one of the reasons why pop music is that popular (go figure ) and I think the same is happening to film music too.

Back then e.g. the orchestra was the only tool to transport feelings and it wasn't accessible to everyone ... and even IF, it took a lot of effort to make the orchestra to transport feelings. With today tools, synths and sound sources it is way easier to create emotions, but I am convinced that it needs the same effort and skills to create GOOD ones!

However, due to synth and sample technology are easier to get and (evolutionwise) more adaptable to the environment than, lets say, a 80 piece orchestra ... and also internet technology making it able to work with people around the globe including the issues of cost of it, filmmakers (again, my theory) strive not just for the best, but also for the composer who is creating the most adaptable patterns, demanding not that much money.


So all in all we see evolution at its best. The survival of the fittest.
An orchestra may be the most beautiful and complex sounding device we are aware of, but it can't hold up against other production tools. Again, I am not saying that I like it, absolutely the opposite is the case! However, since many many more people are able to create emotions with more adaptable tools, way cheaper, it becomes obvious (at least to me) why complex melodies dissapear.

On the other hand it could just appear as if they are disappearing because there is so much going on these days, that just the mainstream stuff sticks through. There is still a lot of melodies going on these days, but it is difficult to find them ... as it is e.g. difficult to find great rockbands, great voices or scientists.


I am really curious where this is leading to, because I can not imagine that mankind will be pleased when we reached the point of "whitenoise"! - which again ironically is the sound letting babies relax at its best!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ Sat Apr 19 said:


> Ask someone to sing you Schindler's List, most people won't be able to!
> (no matter how breathtaking beautiful this melody is)
> 
> Ask anyone to sing you Sharks and EVERYONE will instantly go: BA BA BA BA BA BA BA BA!



That is funny. I could sing Schindler's List any time of the day. Wake me up in the middle of the night and turn me feet up head down and I could still hum it.

Sharks no way. Perhaps because I always skip it on CDs and never watched the film. Turns me off, simply not my world. Sharks are no monsters and therefore the whole thing is so uninteresting for me that I don't even bother ignoring it. The only thing I remember from the music is that it is somewhat noisy.

So ... what does that do with the theory of "only coarse survives"? Probably true for your world but not for mine. And as long as we can accept that we are living in truly different worlds that is fine for me.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Waywyn @ Sat Apr 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Ask someone to sing you Schindler's List, most people won't be able to!
> ...



Hannes, so you are saying:

1. in your world everyone could sing the Schindlers List theme anytime because you (as a trained musician) can?
2. Your valid argument that you can't sing the Sharks maintheme is, that you are not interested in not monster movies and that you never heard it?

I think there are some flaws going on ...


All I was saying is that easier to sing melodies to the NORMAL LISTENER (not trained musicians) are easier to adapt than more complicated or complex melodies. Therefore easier melodies will survive easier than others. This is one of the major reasons why pop music with easy to remember hooklines is so popular and accepted!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

@Alex
Yes my post must be rather flawed from your point of view. I agree.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> @Alex
> Yes my post must be rather flawed from your point of view. I agree.



Sorry, I changed my post to make it more obvious. Hope it gets more clear now.


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

Alex, I was not ironic, nor sarcastic. You are simply right in your way.

Since you express your opinion very serously I think it obligates me to answer as seriously, get out of my comfort zone and not beat around the bush (which I would prefer). So ...

The reason why I am still having a different opinion here and there is that for me society is in a sort of mixing and splitting process. For now the borders are flurry and it is easy to change from here to there but ultimately there are those that will go a materialistic / darwinistic way and those that head towards a different direction. That does not have much to do with money or elitistic brain-mind education, more with coarse outwardly power of which intellectual capabilities are a part vs. the refinement of a more intuitive understanding of nature and oneself.

You focus on the one part of society, I on the other. That is only fair. (Please note that I do not mean a caste-like distinction since poor or "uneducated" persons can have a big heart and be more developed in the intuitive realm than many studied people. However more often than not they love music and can sing.)


----------



## steb74 (Apr 21, 2014)

.....but Schindler's List doesn't have a complicated melody, quite the opposite in my opinion.

Coming up with the idea is a different debate altogether but part of Williams' genius is exactly that, creating something which may have a greater depth under the surface but like most of his work has a sense and feeling of inevitability which makes these things so singable and memorable in the first place.

I think the analogy was weak and unrealistic at best sorry.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 21, 2014)

@Alex

So are you saying that whoever is most popular around the world (most "adaptable" you wrote, by which I assume you mean the one with the least meaning so that anyone can assimilate it), is best? Or whoever makes the most money is best and wins? Or whoever writes what the "man in the street" likes is doing the best work?

You seem to be arguing not only that this is the way things are, but even that this is all for the best, unless I misread you. 

Put differently, you seem to be implying that this is good, that things ought to be this way. Is that right? You say "evolution at its best." But then you wrote, "I can not imagine that mankind will be pleased when we reach the point of 'white noise,'" so maybe you are not certain exactly what you want or intend.

If you do think that "whoever wins is best," I'm surprised. I didn't realise that was your position.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> (...) Therefore easier melodies will survive easier than others. (...)


Not true at all, I fear. No melody survives for the sole reason that it is ‘easy’ or ‘simple’. In order for a melody to catch on and survive, it also must have a good amount of interest and appeal, a certain quality that keeps it fresh and attractive even after being heard or sung thousands of times. 
Whether it is simple enough or not, hardly matters. Difficult melodies stand just as good a chance of surviving as simple ones. The moment they contain an element — that ‘certain quality’ — which large enough numbers of people find repeatedly attractive, these melodies are looking at a very long and much enjoyed future.
Melodies which are only ‘simple’ and ‘easy’, but offer nothing else, are as quickly forgotten as they came. (Talking about pop music: I’m pretty sure we all have forgotten more ‘hits’ than we remember: trivial tunes that only lasted one summer after which they were never heard of, let alone sung, again.)

The main melody of “The Blue Danube” enjoys world-wide appeal not because it is simple, but _because it is superbly inspired in its simplicity_. Hundreds of waltzes from that era, all just as ‘simple’ as Strauss’, have been completely forgotten. Because they were simple and nothing else.
Or “Do Re Mi” from “The Sound Of Music”. Simple? Perhaps. But that’s not what gave that melody its world-conquering power. It’s, more than anything, the fact that its simplicity is a uniquely inspired musical creation which saw to that.
Same thing with “Mull Of Kintyre”: think of it what you want, but it has that quality — and a rare quality it is too — that enabled it to conquer the world. Like it or not, that blasted melody has the power to enter your brain, take root there and simply refuses to ever leave again. Sure, its simplicity helps, but again, it’s above all the inspiration to arrive at such perfect simplicity, that has made that tune the global success which it is.

And staying in McCartney-land for just one more example: “Yesterday”, I think most people will agree, is not exactly the world’s most simple and easy melody, is it? Not as difficult perhaps as a Wagner or Webern melody, but certainly a hell of a lot more difficult than, say, “Frère Jaques” or “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star”. And yet it is the most covered, best known and most performed McCartney-tune ever. 
And if I could be bothered to make the effort, I’d give hundreds more of these examples where simplicity fails and is forgotten, and where a distinct degree of melodic difficulty hasn’t stood in the way of a melody becoming universaly popular.

On the subject of Jaws: the simplicity of the “Shark”-theme wasn’t decided on for the convenience of the audience, or to make sure that that tune would, one day, feature in “Williams Sing-Along” parties. That machine-like simplicity is entirely descriptive and functional. (And, paradoxically, in all its outward simplicity, the result of a complex musical process of elimination and careful selection.)
The machine-like simplicity of that two-note motif is descriptive in that it describes a machine-like killer (in the imaginary world of the film, Hannes), and functional in that its gripping repetitiveness makes for the perfect ominous leit-motiv, as well as providing a great foundation to build the action cues on.
Williams wasn’t thinking along “survival of the fittest”-lines or seeking to please and make it easy for the audience when he searched for that motive — the rest of the Jaws-music, frightfully complex at times, is a clear indication of that — he was looking for the best possible and most effective music he could contribute to that film. The apparent simplicity of that two-note motif is, as such, entirely circumstantial.

What you’re advocating is musical stalinism all over again, isn’t it?

_


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Okay guys, I make it more easy!

Invite 1000 people, play them two melodies (in 4th notes), ask them to remember those notes.

1. C, C, C, C
2. C, B, F#, G

Send them home and reinvite them after 3 days and ask them to resing/recall the melodies. I am pretty sure that most of the people will remember the 1. one!

I would be pretty surprised if they remember sharp 4th or maj 7th! Of course an easy one for trained composers, not so easy for the average listener.

If you would put this test on through generations I am pretty sure the first example will survive more likely than the other, since it was most adaptable. This doesn't have anything to do with best!


Combine this with other factors:

A. Back then we just had the orchestra to create emotions, today we have a computer and sample libs. Economically the computer is a better choice, since you doesn't have to feed it, you pay less and you can create things easier!

B. The internet offers to work with people around the globe. The barries have broken open. Even though it is a beautiful thing, competition got redefined, because you don't have to deal with people from your area anymore, but literally with the full globe! Also since there are literally so many more composers, budget gets redefined too!


All these factors to me are a sign that melodies are kind of fading. People can create music with other things than an orchestra, meaning with sound design ... also I am not saying that sounddesign meaning less effort but in addition to that, there are people investing less effort in music creating, ... then many get paid less money, also have less time but have to be adaptable to the crowd, meaning more pattern-like instead of heavy melody music which in return was maybe instructed by a filmmaker (who is a non musician etc.).


To be honest it is pretty hard to put this into a single post, but the initial poster was asking for theories on "no melodies" in film music, ... and I just replied.


Besides all this, check the evolutional tree of music and it behaves exactly as evolution in life does. The survival not of the strongest, nor the most intelligent, but the most adaptable!


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

re-peat @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Therefore easier melodies will survive easier than others. (...)
> ...



repeat, why do you imply that I said that Williams created Jaws (sorry, for saying Sharks all the time?!) with having survival on the fittest in mind? I never said that!!
I just said that since people remember easier to sing material better than more complex may be a reason that over time, complex melodies shifted away a bit? I mean new composers were once just normal music listening people, right?

Again, the initial poster was posting on why there is no more melody in film music and people were contributing to the topic!
I just wanted to share my point of view and since there are so many arguments against mine, it seems like I am wrong! No problem at all and don't have a problem to admit!

However, please think about how many young people will remember Mull of Kintyre or Blue Danube today ... and how about some Justin Bieber tune?!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

re-peat @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> The machine-like simplicity of that two-note motif is descriptive in that it describes a machine-like killer (in the imaginary world of the film, Hannes)



Haha. 

"The unreal never is. The real never is not." (Bhagavat-Gita, 2:17)

Anyways, good explanations, Piet.

Nevertheless Alex is right in its own world, the world of the to-be orcs. They will certainly be perfectly adapted to fighting but less likely remember melodies well.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Nevertheless Alex is right in its own world, the world of the to-be orcs. They will certainly be perfectly adapted to fighting but less likely remember melodies well.



Hannes, why such a "from up above" reply? Only because you do not agree with me there is no reason to treat me like a little kid implying that I live in my own world or a world of to-be orcs! Not nice!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

Alex, I am taking you dead seriously and don't at all treat you like a kid. You are living in a world of 'evolutionary winners' while I am living in the world of 'evolutionary losers'. The to-be shire if we may say so. Not complaining, I feel well there.

No harm intended.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Alex, I am taking you dead seriously and don't at all treat you like a kid. You are living in a world of 'evolutionary winners' while I am living in the world of 'evolutionary losers'. The to-be shire if we may say so.
> 
> No harm intended.



All good, I perfectly know what you are trying to say!


----------



## G.E. (Apr 21, 2014)

I agree with what you are saying Alex(I usually do since it seems we have similar philosophies) but I just want to add something.I don't think simple melodies are the problem.William's theme for Superman is as simple as melodies get, and I remember after seeing Superman for the first time as a kid,I was humming that melody for weeks.
Now....how do I hum the heavy percussion and ostinatos from the 2013 Man of Steel ?


----------



## re-peat (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> (...) repeat, why do you imply (...)? I never said that!!


Forgive me if I misunderstood you, Alex, but I deduced from your post that you made a case for simplicity on the basis of it being simple and nothing else. You did, didn’t you? And since the first argument you came up with referred to the Williams’ shark-motif, I don’t really think I can be blamed for linking the two together, case and argument. 
And you did make a very clear connection between ‘simplicity’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ as well, no? Not just melodically but instrumentally as well, as it happens. Well, then.

Anyway, I don’t subscribe to _anything_ you say. Again, yes. It makes no musical sense to me at all.

_


----------



## lux (Apr 21, 2014)

re-peat @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> On the subject of Jaws: the simplicity of the “Shark”-theme wasn’t decided on for the convenience of the audience, or to make sure that that tune would, one day, feature in “Williams Sing-Along” parties. That machine-like simplicity is entirely descriptive and functional. (And, paradoxically, in all its outward simplicity, the result of a complex musical process of elimination and careful selection.)
> The machine-like simplicity of that two-note motif is descriptive in that it describes a machine-like killer (in the imaginary world of the film, Hannes), and functional in that its gripping repetitiveness makes for the perfect ominous leit-motiv, as well as providing a great foundation to build the action cues on.
> Williams wasn’t thinking along “survival of the fittest”-lines or seeking to please and make it easy for the audience when he searched for that motive — the rest of the Jaws-music, frightfully complex at times, is a clear indication of that — he was looking for the best possible and most effective music he could contribute to that film. The apparent simplicity of that two-note motif is, as such, entirely circumstantial.



Pretty much so. The theme-character relationship is even more clearly stated in the scene where two kids wear a fake pin to scare people to death in the water. While Spielberg shots pretty much similarly to what he makes with real attacks, there is just one missing detail. There's no shark theme. Which comes back only at a later point, when the real killing machine appear in a back of the same beach.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

re-peat @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) repeat, why do you imply (...)? I never said that!!
> ...



repeat, again, I never said that Williams composed this theme on purpose to make it easier to recall for people! Just for the sake of clarity! Also I am totally fine if you don't buy anything from me!

Just in general: As said before, people provided theories in this post on why melodies are dispearing and I provided mine! Also I am not sure why everything I say is being discussed that heavily (and sometimes with aggressive or from above shots). I am just a guy like everyone else in this forum. If noone agrees to what I say, that is fine with me!


----------



## re-peat (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> (...) Also I am not sure why everything I say is being discussed that heavily (and sometimes with aggressive or from above shots).(...)


Well, I can only speak for myself of course, but you keep coming out with these, in my view anyway, highly bizarre and unmusical manifestos (invariably sprinkled generously with exclamation marks as well, as if to enforce some truth into what you're saying). One day, it’s about synapses and brain-refreshment, this time it’s about ‘survival of fittest’ transplanted onto music. All of that is sooooo alien to me, Alex, I can’t begin to describe it.

Anyway, I do hope you don’t read any aggression in my posts. There certainly isn’t any intended. (If it were, I'm fairly confident it would be noticed as such.) I am above all fascinated, deeply fascinated, by how different we are, you and I, in our views on music.

_


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

re-peat @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Also I am not sure why everything I say is being discussed that heavily (and sometimes with aggressive or from above shots).(...)
> ...



Not at all reading aggressions in your posts! Furthermore the difference between us is just written words so far  .. I think in reality, from eye to eye, sitting in a bar etc. it would be a completely different thing!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ 21st April 2014 said:


> the difference between us is just written words so far  .. I think in reality, from eye to eye, sitting in a bar etc. it would be a completely different thing!



?

I doubt that the differences are so slight between what you and piet are discussing that a mild application of alcohol and pleasant mood lighting would smooth it over. 

You seem to be saying some combination of:

1. "I believe that, world-wide, audiences can only remember (and therefore love) childishly simple melodies / motifs," and

2. "Such melodic content is validated, and therefore good and right, because the market has selected it (survival of the most adaptable / fittest)"

Do you really think that?


----------



## AlexandreSafi (Apr 21, 2014)

Evolution serves well to explain social POWER & social DISINTEGRATION simultaneously, as Alex did... 
However true artists, are the real evolutionists, the real supermans, they voluntarily or not, DEFINE "Evolution of the fittest", they're the ones who create chaos, their new ideas make us redefine what state of evolution we are in...
"Mastery" is the only fountain of hope, at the other end of the line which separates the ones who define from the ones who are defined...
Otherwise, money wins!

Alexandre


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

JohnG @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> Waywyn @ 21st April 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > the difference between us is just written words so far  .. I think in reality, from eye to eye, sitting in a bar etc. it would be a completely different thing!
> ...




I prefer personal discussions in realtime from face to face and not disussing on a forum. It should be obvious that points of view won't change that much, but it is a totally different thing!

as for 1. Okay, John, please explain to me why pop music is so popular and not orchestral music or jazz? Please explain why four chords or sometimes just two rule the world! Is it a conspiracy of people selecting all the unintellectual stuff ... or is it probably easy stuff sells best???

as for 2. Is it because easy stuff sells best and therefore more producers jumping on it?

Please enlighten me, since I seem to be so wrong?!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 21, 2014)

I just wanted to understand where you were coming from.

There's such a difference between saying "that's how it is" and "that's how it ought to be" and I wasn't sure which you meant. Actually, I'm still not sure, but maybe that's enough for now. 

Not trying to rag you about it -- sorry if it came over too intense.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 21, 2014)

JohnG @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> I just wanted to understand where you were coming from.
> 
> There's such a difference between saying "that's how it is" and "that's how it ought to be" and I wasn't sure which you meant. Actually, I'm still not sure, but maybe that's enough for now.
> 
> Not trying to rag you about it -- sorry if it came over too intense.



Well, discussion can be intense. No worries! Maybe it is just me, not being good with words 


One last try in general:

However, I once found this nice graphic of the complete way of music, from classical until todays pop music and you could clearly see how everything moved into one direction. Easy chords, easy melodies, easy to remember patterns. I can't find anymore, since it would make everything more visible.

So, why is that so? I am seriously asking, why is everything in terms of music shifting towards easier to understanding patterns. I am totally aware of the greatness of Mull of Kyntire. I have grown uo with this track, but this was 1977! We have 2014 today and I do not hear anything cool like this! I hear of course great songs, but most of them are just easy four (or less) chord, simple pattern tracks with easy to understand lyrics!

Is it that people enjoy easy patterns because they have a more easy time understanding it?
Why are people (and I mean NOT musicians or composers) reacting like vampires to holy water if you play them "Hit me" by Dirty Loops? Why do they enjoy easy chords, patterns and melodies more than this? Some were looking as if they hit a piece of garlic in a bowl full of sweets. Some said something like: Well I kind of hear a groove, but it's not really mine piece of cake - there is so much going on. It is too complex or complicated for me! Why is that so? Why does easy pattern stuffed pop music sells best. Why isn't e.g. Hit me a top 10 track?!?


You can observe this behavior to everything else!

TV/movies: easy stuff: Sex, brutality, sports, easy jokes etc ... why don't air tv shows of complex or interesting matter on tv at 8pm primetime? Stuff about physics, theology, science, psychology etc.

Books: Why isn't stuff like Kavka in the top 10? Why is it thrillers with easy plots, some drama stuff or those love romance thingies with just a few pages? It is easier to understand and to digest!

Relationships: communication is the essential thing of keeping a relationship healthy. It is too complicated for people to discuss and talk. They would rather turn away, eat shit into themselves, instead of articulate a problem!

Many others topic come to mind!


So what does that have to do with film music and missing melodies?

Out of this crowd which is shifting towards the - let's say - "way of the easy pattern", many composers, directors get born into! Therefore it seems at least obvious to me that the majority is heading for easy patterns also in film music ... and of course another important factor - as mentioned before - is budget, the internet opening up the gateway to work with the whole planet and way more elbow society since every market gets kind of swamped, the technology of samples and computers plus the problem of time and deadlines! Stuff becomes more easy in general!


Finally I am asking, if I am so wrong with all of this:

Please explain me in general why four or less chords rule the world, why people like simple patterns such as one note pumping basses as in Katy Perry's "Dark Horse", why do tracks have main melodies such as: Eh eh ho eh ho, eh eh ho eh ho as in Bastilles Pompeii. I really have to defend Happy by Pharrell Williams. I really love that track, but still ... it is kind of simple and not that complex even though the harmony of the chorus is almost extraordinary compared to what is flying around in the top 10 currently!


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 21, 2014)

Waywyn @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> Please explain me in general why ...



I think I gave a quite plausible explanation above, despite being wrapped into a joke (seemingly). You took that personally but I did not mean you personally, only your (and our) target group of today. If you really think about it then it is not implausible that the bigger part of 'the masses' are on a way to be dumbed down at every possible opportunity. I am not making this up, it is your own conclusion.

If I remember well then at some point in your life you discovered simplicity as an asset compared to over-intellectual complication, and you found that especially to be true in music. By itself this is a very good observation, however I think that the contrast of simplicity vs. complication is not the only axis to look at. There are other dimensions or axes like intellectuality vs. intuition, education vs. ignorance, idealism vs. materialism, egoism vs. altruism and many more. 

For example something could be simple because it is not well-thought-out, or it could be simple as a stroke of genius (and/or based on a rich background of knowledge like obviously the Jaws theme). 

There are many shades of differentiation, therefore saying that simplicity would be the only or main value that evolution strives for and therefore per se simplicity should be more 'fit', 'adapted' or 'evolved' . . . is too simple (at last for me).

To sum it up in short: Brilliant things are often simple, but not every simple thing is brilliant. There needs to be more to it.

This is a sentence that I like: Reduce to the maximum.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 22, 2014)

Alex hit on some very important points. But to think that music has degenerated into more simplicity over time is a bit too limited of a view.

If you look at Mozart, Beethoven and a lot of the classic boys they also wrote a lot of simple music. Most of it was to sell published pieces to be played by the masses on piano or part time hobbyist musicians at the time. But also they were able to create the most advanced work for the time. The more advanced work became "art" and the "Fur Elise", Bach's Air on a G String, and Mozart's "Twinkle little Star"(sorry don't know the real name) type pieces are still the pieces that the public knows best. 

So you get into the art vs. commerce discussion. By nature fine art is difficult to grasp, is not necessarily complicated but by nature it has more to say that leads it to be more complex. It isn't commercial by nature, it's a personal expression where the composer hopes that somebody will "get him/her"

But these art pieces are just that. It takes a more refined mind to grasp. It takes a more developed soul to comprehend. A less superficial personality to create. Not necessarily for the guy that just wants to unwind after a hard days work. It's for a thinking person, somebody who has time to permeate the work and to comprehend something deeper about life. And, not for the guy that's just trying to sleep walk through life. Which, unfortunately is 99% of the potential audience. 

Mozart said that he wrote music on two levels. One superficial but with a lot going on underneath. I think he had something there, which I also feel he quite abandoned by the time he got to writing his dissonant quartets.

In the end, what always seems to be missing from this discussion are two things, the intended audience and what you're trying to express.

I just saw Captain America. The score spanned the gamut of the most simplistic tripe to some quite inspired art music. From beat driven electronica action scenes to some pretty fine Aarron Copland and some appealing combination of electronics and orchestra. I quite liked it. Could have been better, but it certainly did what the movie needed. Jackman seemed to by the right fit for this movie.

In the end the Captain score as a whole did what it was suppose to do. Appeal to younger audiences while at the same time fulfilling the dramatic obligations which required more advanced writing. It's this point that I think he could have taken further. The movie could have had more depth to bring home some more of the drama. Not that it matters really. It's still going to make a billion dollars. But, just artistically speaking.

Jaws same way. Sure everybody remembers the two note suspense theme. But also there's some wicked ass deep complex harmony going on in most of that score. It's brilliant. Every note made that movie more than what it was. The movie couldn't live without that score. That's what's missing from a lot of today's scores. The artistic element of actually going beyond the surface of the film and bringing out the depth in a way that only real music can. But as long as the films make billions, nobody really cares. 

In the end, today, as working artist, we have to span the gamut. From simple monophonic music set to a beat to the most advanced polyphonic writing possible. It's part of the job. It's our duty. It's what makes film scoring still interesting to me.


----------



## Waywyn (Apr 22, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> There are many shades of differentiation, therefore saying that simplicity would be the only or main value that evolution strives for and therefore per se simplicity should be more 'fit', 'adapted' or 'evolved' . . . is too simple (at last for me).
> 
> To sum it up in short: Brilliant things are often simple, but not every simple thing is brilliant. There needs to be more to it..



Hannes, I totally agree with you, but the only main value evolution is striving for is not just simplicity. It is the most adapable thing/being which simply stays consistent!

As for a very stupid comparison and kind of radical view:
If there is a nuclear war situation it is most likely that cockroaches survive, they are not intelligent as humans, but they are most fitted since they can survive radiation! A cockroach is also not just simple, it is most adaptable. Just smart enough for the situation.

Think of the cockroach as a simple rock 4/4 drumbeat, the typical hiphop "Uh uh uh", the technoid bassdrum or the chord progression I, V, VI, IV. It is not the most simple thing, yet it is not very intelligent, but it survives. Just smart enough for the situation. See the nuclear situation as the flood of tracks being swamped over the planet each day, which especially rose when the internet, social media and streaming services made it possible!


----------



## re-peat (Apr 22, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> (...) If you look at Mozart, Beethoven and a lot of the classic boys they also wrote a lot of simple music. (...) and the "Fur Elise", Bach's Air on a G String, and Mozart's "Twinkle little Star" (sorry don't know the real name) type pieces are still the pieces that the public knows best. (...)


Allow me to be terribly pedantic for a few seconds, but there is simply too much wrong in the above quote for it to be ignored.

There is no direct commercial impulse behind any of those examples you give, José, nor a desire to write ‘simple, popularity-seeking music’.

(1) “Fur Elise” was, as is widely assumed now, written to win the favour of a woman. Maybe that qualifies as an act of commercialism in some people’s view, but I like to think there is a difference. It is also not the simplistic trifle you make it out to be, even if it starts off in a rather uncomplicated way. 
(Beethoven, cunning little devil that he was, actually wrote, and delibrately so, rather difficult excercise material for his favoured female pupils — and “Fur Elise” could well be one of those pieces — only to make sure he was going to see them again as they had to come back for further lessons.

(2) Ask Bach to play you his “Air on a G-string”, and he wouldn’t have a clue what you were talking about. Bach *never* wrote a piece called “Air on a G-string”, you see. The piece with that name is a 19th century adaption of the second movement of his 3rd Orchestral Suite (or “Ouverture”) which in itself was most certainly not written to ‘score commercially’ or to provide an audience with easy-listening music.

(3) Mozart isn’t the composer of “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star”. The melody is an old French folk song called “Ah, je vous dirai maman”, which Mozart used to compose a set of 12 pianovariations on. The tune may be simple, the work which Mozart derived from it, is anything but.

_


----------



## Saxer (Apr 22, 2014)

most people (especially non-musicians) hear the music of their youth for lifetime. we all still love music we loved when we were 15 years old. mostly music that our parents didn't like.

in the early nineties techno came up. it was fresh, modern, anarchic. and it has few (if ever) chord changes and melodies. main instrument is a synth. the musical taste of a whole generation was shaped by this style. and it is still around in different colours (house, pop, dr&bass, even chill and dubstep - and film).

it's 20 years ago. so probably most people of the western world up to the age of 35 grew up with it. popular music was either techno or rock (or unacceptable: the music of parents and grandparents)!

so it's just natural that this generation doesn't ask for melodies. or for live bands. of for good instrumentalists playing solos. all of that was popular the generation(s) before. they want a dj playing dancefloor at their wedding.

i see some young people today who are interested in song writing again. we will see what they come up with.

everything changes. no melodies is now. it will not be for ever and it is not a final result of a development. there is no 'final' result in music. and it has nothing to do with 'easy' or 'complicated'.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 22, 2014)

Saxer @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> everything changes. no melodies is now. it will not be for ever and it is not a final result of a development. there is no 'final' result in music. and it has nothing to do with 'easy' or 'complicated'.



I agree.

Often some of the most musically complex film music used to be in action scenes (and sometimes still is - eg The Kill Ring from HTTYD - but usually it's just some fast percussion these days). Does anyone think anyone - ever - in film history has watched an action scene and said to themselves "wow, I'd sure be enjoying this, but the score is so complex I'm just confused"?

My point - if I have one - is that to at least some extent, audience taste for simple / complex is pretty irrelevant and always has been. And what's more, the public I think doesn't care. With occasional exceptions, scores are not meant to be analysed by the listening public, yes even the greats. If the score is working though, they'll hopefully be into the film more.

It's all a roundabout way of saying that there's no cultural or preordained way of saying music must be THUS. I think its largely dictated mainly by a) idiot execs (Film Blah was successful so if we have a score just like it, we'll be successful too), and then two other occasional factors b) those very few at the top of the pack who have the influence to pioneer stuff and c) marketing opportunities ("scored by Rihanna"). If a new megahit has a complex score due to luck or someone's judgement, we can be sure that the vogue for simpler stuff will wane.

But we're still talking generalites of course. In the panoply or all film, I suspect there will be room for all kinds of scores, this stuff is just about the current popular balance.


----------



## Ed (Apr 22, 2014)

To me The Matrix is a great example of complex writing, but also very modern. Its not about it being complex, its more the style I think and the specifics of how you actually are writing for the scene/film.


----------



## Alex Cuervo (Apr 22, 2014)

Complexity for its own sake is as pointless as simplicity for the same reason. 

When discussing music written for picture, some of you are using the wrong measuring devices. The music is in service to the picture, the narrative, or the emotional subtext. You are contributing one aspect in a convergence of creative ideas (ideally steered by one vision) and your sole aim should be to help elevate the work as a whole. I swear, some of you come across like you don't even like film.

I liken film/tv composition to playing drums in a band. A great drummer can hold a band back if they overplay or showboat. People will remember the flashy, technically skilled drummer but little else. The best drummers exercise restraint and play to the song. Just because you are capable of executing difficult maneuvers doesn't mean you have to.


----------



## AC986 (Apr 22, 2014)

Ed @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> To me The Matrix is a great example of complex writing, but also very modern. Its not about it being complex, its more the style I think and the specifics of how you actually are writing for the scene/film.



The Matrix nails it in a way. Great film and great score. A great score could be defined as when you can't imagine any other score in its place. Same when you can't imagine another actor in a certain part.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 22, 2014)

re-peat @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Apr 22 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) If you look at Mozart, Beethoven and a lot of the classic boys they also wrote a lot of simple music. (...) and the "Fur Elise", Bach's Air on a G String, and Mozart's "Twinkle little Star" (sorry don't know the real name) type pieces are still the pieces that the public knows best. (...)
> ...



You are being terribly pedantic. But, I don't mind that. 

But, I don't expect that you'll think I'm right in any way. So there's no need for me to continue. We've proved to be too far apart to come to an agreement on anything. So I won't even bother. Other than to say that, composers have to eat too. :lol:


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 22, 2014)

OK, everyone take 15 minutes out and watch this guy discuss this very question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMweM2RXBf4

A hugely entertaining watch - and I can personally vouch for the point he makes about kids still singing the original TV Batman and Spiderman themes, even though they've never seen the shows.

But he does miss the crucial point - in a nutshell, we don't get many big themes because not many big themes are wanted or ordered.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 22, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> (...) You are being terribly pedantic. (...)


I warned about that, didn't I?

And, by the way, this is not about opinions, or about being able or unable to agree on anything, this is simply about you talking complete, verifiable codswallop. Nothing more ridiculous, I find, than someone who presumes to know about music, and then begins spouting “insights” which belie even the vaguest hint of any such knowledge being present. You did it when you talked about Stravinsky, you’re doing it again today. And I won’t let you, simple as that.

And I don't do this to annoy you, you know. (Well, a bit maybe.) I do this mainly so that casual and/or interested passer-by doesn't get the idea that, here at V.I. we're all too ignorant and too lazy to be bothered to check our data before taking the stand, or that we simply don’t care enough to intervene when one of us talks utter nonsense about music.

If only to adjust that image, I don’t mind being a pedantic nuisance. Someone has to, I feel.

_


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 22, 2014)

Lots of different perspectives on the topic here. 

I guess nobody can say that the other is wrong. I definitely do not think that a melody that is easier to sing is going to be more successful. Pop music according to me just cannot be discussed. It has a lot to do with marketing, revealing music videos and younger artists performing in them with lots of other things going on. I am not saying its bad, just that it is not applicable in any way to film music. 

Film music is written...well for a film. Very different in my opinion. 

Sure melody is one of the main things that a composer uses to get you hooked to a character or a place etc - its sort of telling you something about the story - a whiff of a character or giving something to the film that is not there in the performance or the visuals. 

There could be the use of an image or a particular visual in a movie that reminds you of something or links the story in a way that only happens when a sequence of certain visuals come together. 

Similarly a melody can be used in a certain way. Can you hum the theme from The Dark Knight? Not really but is it instantly recognizable by millions who do not even listen to film music otherwise - I think, a resounding yes! 

Why must a melody that can be appreciated by a lot of people be singable? 

The theme from Schindler's List for anyone who has seen the movie will in most cases be memorable even if a person cannot hum it out in its full form. 

My girl friend cannot sing in pitch or generally hum a tune properly (we even joke about it). She has no background from orchestral music or anything like that. She grew up just like me in India. But we met 9 years ago and she got exposed to orchestral music - a lot of film score through me. We were studying in the UK together and we attended lots of concerts at the Barbican and various places. I remember one such concert when we went to hear Schubert's music being performed by the LSO and when we got back to the house, she had tears in her eyes. She barely spoke through the journey back on the tube. Now this music is incredibly complex for her to understand one would say? 

After all a person who has not really heard this kind of music in her life except melodies of Beethoven or Mozart as cheap elevator music in the background - how could she understand such complex music? 

She can and millions of other people do! That is why it stands the test of time. You do not need a degree in music to hear something and be moved by it. You might need one to compose something of that caliber which moves people though. 

And I have met many such individuals. 

Yes, they are less in numbers than those who listen to the latest pop music but who cares? Star Wars is incredibly complex and there are many melodies, not all of them are as catchy as the main Fanfare. Yet, I can bet my life on it if you played some of those other melodies, people would recognize them, not necessarily be able to sing it. 

As to why there are less melodies in Film music today? I haven't a clue! I just write the best music that I can or as best as the director will allow me to. 

YouTube is easily accessible and for every job on a film or a commercial that I am on, is temped with music from another composer and while Hans may have done The Dark Knight as a 'One of' kind of music for that trilogy, it gets repeated and soon all the younger composers sound like him because they think that is what is working or they are forced into copying it. 

I cannot tell you how many scores were temped with Hans Zimmer's music because he is successful, his music is brilliant and it works for the films that he wrote them for. Last year I worked on a film which was peppy and a love story, most of the emotional and uplifting sections were temped with Man of Steel. 

How inappropriate is that? But that is what the filmmakers wanted. But the composer I was working for changed their mind and thankfully so! 

Far too many people who have authority in the film business have little or no understanding of what music is right for their movie. Sometimes, we can explain to them and write something better, sometimes not. That is just how it is. 

Another film I worked on last year (a brilliant film) directed really well. However, the director had no clue as to what to do for the score and was uncomfortable with any music we did. He though the score was a tech department to just fill in the gaps in his film. But we changed his mind and won the best original score for it this year. I am curious to see how he will perceive music for his next film. 

There are too many things that are not always in our control that dictate how the film's music should be. After all the film itself must inspire a melody and even if it does, the director and the producers must want it there in the first place!



Tanuj.


----------



## rJames (Apr 22, 2014)

Waywyn @ Mon Apr 21 said:


> JohnG @ Sun Apr 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Alex -- I was. It wasn't clear to me, but I know you are a busy composer and you put a lot of thought and effort into your work, so I was curious what you meant.
> ...



I think I'm with Alex on this. At least, in the area of the evolution and accessibility of the tools.

I liken this era, where everyone can have professional tools in their home studio, whether it be an orchestra, preprogrammed synths or pre made music libraries. (loops, phrases, perc beds etc.) to the 50s where all of a sudden everyone had electric guitars that made a sound big enough, with a friend on drums and one on bass, to make a band.

All of the songs sounded the same. Very simple chord progressions...not complex intellectual music by any means. BTW, yes, they used melody but I am drawing a different analogy here.

So, rock n roll music became ubiquitous and took over the pop music scene. But as time progressed some guys like Jeff Beck, Eddie Van Halen (and name your own guitar god) took this rock instrument to amazing musical or at least technical levels.

Rock bands progressed into Yes, and Mahavishnu Orchestra etc.

We are at the beginning of a new era. The music and intellectual value will grow until something else replaces it and devolves us back again. (all the while propelling us forward, BTW)

But kids define the current popular idiom. And they want to play the songs and make the music. So, simple is good. We will evolve and then come back to simple. At the same time the world of musical art will be borrowing from the popular idioms in a parallel universe.

Ron


----------



## germancomponist (Apr 22, 2014)

A thousand roads lead to Rome.

I too like melodies, but melodies are not always the best solution. It always depends! 

But yes, I agree with the people who say that many "modern composers" aren't able to write good melodies.

_Please not a new debate on "modern composers"!_


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 22, 2014)

With all due respect even though lots of really nice tools are available to composers and musicians all over the world, it does not mean that they are all professional products, the musicians are professionals who use them or that they are making music in a professional environment. 

The word professional does seem to be thrown very lightly around. 

I still have a long road ahead of me certainly and even though I have very nice tools, I am in no way comparable to the greats anywhere in the world. 

A lot of these things are questionable. What does it mean being a professional?

Can you write a tune? But then can you write an entire score? Do you know films well enough? Do you know history or literature enough? 

With a fair amount of work you could use lots of new libraries and make something nice sounding but does it have heart? Does a bit of noodling for a few years make you a great sounding composer? Can you really tell a story through music?

Tools mean nothing in the hands of people who do not really know what they are doing.

Like I said, I still have a long way to go myself but I thought that I would put this out there.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 22, 2014)

People say - oh wow, its great now you can make music in your bedroom and it sounds great.

But, what is great music?

The physics has not changed, you still need a good studio to do all this stuff professionally. The size of human beings has not changed and neither has the science of sound but the size of studios are shrinking with far too many scratch vocals done in noisy environments etc etc.

Sometimes it works! Most often, it just does not. If we are talking Pro level here.

I know I am talking tech stuff but this is applicable to composing music or melodies as well. I know, I am certainly not in the great composer bracket and similarly a lot of people are not there. There is just a lot more things to write music for and lots of guys doing it. 


Tanuj.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 23, 2014)

Jose, your statement (in yesterday's post, since retracted) that Beethoven had distinct commercial intentions with “Fur Elise” is refuted by the simple fact that the piece was only first published _40 years after Beethoven had died_, and even then in a form that Beethoven himself might not have recognized.
If Beethoven had seriously entertained the idea of trying to make this particular pianopiece a commercial success, as you maintain, you can be sure it would have been published _during his lifetime_, instead of forty years later, because, and you're correct here, he was indeed a very money-conscious man, quite unpleasantly so apparently.

_


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 23, 2014)

..


----------



## Hans Josef (Apr 23, 2014)

There is no formula to make great music. And that's good! 
Then it depends on many many factors, that the music find the right musicians!

However, I do not know if the topic ever fit here in the forum.


----------



## dcoscina (Apr 23, 2014)

I find what is really lacking these days is adventurous harmonies. There's themes but they haven't the same interesting chord foundation to my ears. That's something that is oft overlooked in Williams' music. His sense of harmony is as crucial to his music as the melodies. I envy how effortlessly he moves through key centers. Some of his practices stem from Prokofiev with some atypical passing notes but I think it's mostly due to his grounding in jazz. Having played in jazz orchestras in high school and university, I will always been more keen on harmonies than melodies. But that's just me.

Now we return to our regular scheduled program....


----------



## chibear (Apr 23, 2014)

Alex Cuervo @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> Complexity for its own sake is as pointless as simplicity for the same reason.
> 
> When discussing music written for picture, some of you are using the wrong measuring devices. The music is in service to the picture, the narrative, or the emotional subtext. You are contributing one aspect in a convergence of creative ideas (ideally steered by one vision) and your sole aim should be to help elevate the work as a whole. I swear, some of you come across like you don't even like film.



The OP's question has popped up many times at post performance receptions & parties. Oddly the people who are complaining the loudest about the lack of melody there are those 'serious' orchestral composers who have spent their careers destroying it. Go figure.

While not a film composer, from a listener/performer point of view, I don't think anyone will argue that an extremely well written score will elevate the experience whereas a bad score will torpedo it. So the score must work with the visuals. However it is the melodies that will be recalled which in turn will recall the visuals. When one of these themes pops into my head it usually leads to a viewing of that movie.

As a poor example because the production values and quality of the 2 movies were so drastically different: I watched Man of Steel with my grandkids 2 weeks ago and thought at the time Zimmer's soundtrack 'worked' but I could not recall any of the music today even if my life depended on it. Conversely it has probably been 7 yrs since I last watched Gladiator, but I could hum Lisa Gerrard's plaintive melody, the Gladiaor waltz, and several other scenes.....I'm now going to have to put that movie on soon 8) SO those melodies made the movie memorable to me. Had there been no soundtrack I doubt it would have been as memorable.

The same goes in the classical world. I have played LOTS of opera. I can hum for you arias from virtually any of the standard Pucinni and Verdi Operas, along with select bits of Rossini, Wagner, R Strauss, Lehar, etc. HOWEVER ask me for a theme from Wozzeck?



> ]I liken film/tv composition to playing drums in a band. A great drummer can hold a band back if they overplay or showboat. People will remember the flashy, technically skilled drummer but little else. The best drummers exercise restraint and play to the song.



I can understand the spirit of this statement, but I don't think I have ever experienced a musical score overpowering the action on the screen (unless it's too loud for the dialog :wink: ) Otherwise there would be a lot of great music from unknown films on our Pops concerts, which wouldn't be bad from my perspective as over 40yrs Star Wars and Tara's Theme have gotten a bit old.

The thing I found most disturbing in this thread was the interview with Horner in which he admits he is quite often less than he could be because of the demands of the higher-ups. What does that do to the art form in general? 



> Just because you are capable of executing difficult maneuvers doesn't mean you have to.



Maybe a better question for this forum would be "If you are required to execute difficult maneuvers, can you?" 'Epic' is not going to last forever.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 23, 2014)

dcoscina @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> I find what is really lacking these days is adventurous harmonies...


One of the reasons is that some Producers and Directors are even more frightened of harmony than they are of melody. Put in a gorgeous chord or two and you'll be accused of making it too...purple.... or something equally stupid. :lol: 

D


----------

