# Are modern film composers more... producers ?



## Mark Kouznetsov (Oct 9, 2020)

Just a curious question. Stumbling across various videos of film composers on YouTube and their workflow I got a question: are many of modern composers ACTUALLY composers and not producers? It's kind of shocking sometimes to see them making a track in just a few hours by slapping some chords together and letting the samples do the actual work, no proper voice leading/harmony, parallel 5ths and 8ves (but from the context NOT intentionally, but just because of composing "on the go" and playing, for example, strings like they would a piano and having bizarre voice movements from 4 voices to 7-8 or 10 for one section of instruments to 3) and so on and so on...

I mean, for the majority of people, there is probably little/no difference. Maybe it's just my OCD. But I feel like I'm always trying to learn as much as I can and get it right but it seems like for many others (again, not EVERYONE), it just doesn't matter as speed is the only thing that matters. It's more of a "sounds alright, let's move on". It just feels kind of cheap/ignorant a little bit. I mean the end result often sounds decent for what it is, but I can't help but think about how much better it _would_ sound if that person actually _bothered_ to write everything properly instead of a fast-food/block/loop music scoring approach. You probably know what I mean if you look at all that hybrid/trailer stuff, however I've noticed many try to sound like modern classical/minimalistic but it's kind of faking(?) it and confusing with just boring music where you hold some chords together and call it a day. Composers like Johannsson, Gudnadottir, Richter, Sakamoto, Arnalds and many others have actually great creative ideas behind their music AND proper arrangements and it's not the same as loading OA evolution and playing/holding down two notes in the high register and hearing 20 instruments playing by themselves. Minimalist, not simplistic.

I mean, if it's because of not reading/learning theory, if you're self-taught and you don't read/write music and all it's great and all but some of these guys are in the business for 10,20,30 years - couldn't they learnt it already? Are they refusing to do it? Logically, the more you know the better the end result is, there's no way in hell if they did for their music to become worse because of their knowledge. It seems like some of them are even proud of not knowing.

Again, I'm not generalizing everyone. But again, not everyone is Danny Elfman either.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 9, 2020)

Good post Mark. I think part of this is perspective and what we classify as music. For those of us who trained formally, it can be a bit head scratching to see the plethora of videos where people are “composing” in real time. Two things come to mind however 

1. ask yourself how many of these “experts” are truly making a living composing and specifically for styles that encompass orchestral knowledge, or whether they are trying to monetize their YT channel and looking for as much exposure as possible to generate revenue from that vehicle.

2. Music for media has changed radically over the last two decades since the advent of affordable music tech. And the tech definitely informs the music. It might take 39 minutes or more to shape an individual string line to make it sound authentic whereas writing the same line in Staffpad will take less than a minute. 

so yes, I think working in this arena these days is as much about production than what some of us think of as composing. And this perception is based on ones background. The formally trained people who had to write things out using pencil and paper most probably view these new methodologies as somewhat of an affront to formal composition because it can appear to be improvisational and not constructed with the same Adherence to form and theory. But as you said, to many people, they cannot hear the difference.

it’s also worth pointing out that there are several formally trained composers who have been able to work using these relatively new tools but retain the fundamentals of their training (Andy Blaney comes to mind- his music is every bit as complex, riveting and realistic sounding as the real thing). 

At the end of the day, it is what it is. Best not to spend too much Time ot energy on what should be vs what is.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Oct 9, 2020)

dcoscina said:


> Good post Mark. I think part of this is perspective and what we classify as music. For those of us who trained formally, it can be a bit head scratching to see the plethora of videos where people are “composing” in real time. Two things come to mind however
> 
> 1. ask yourself how many of these “experts” are truly making a living composing and specifically for styles that encompass orchestral knowledge, or whether they are trying to monetize their YT channel and looking for as much exposure as possible to generate revenue from that vehicle.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I'm not against the tech, I use it myself. And like you said, many great modern composers (if not all), use it to compose. I'm also not at all against improvisation. I guess what I meant is that when you're done playing it in, some will actually go back and make it "right" and "proper" to the point of it sounding much different, fuller (while maintaining the idea), while seems like others will leave it as it is (unless they missed a key or something). 

Some will spend a week or two on one piece and others will only a few hours. But to the listener it will kind of sound the same. I know it first hand. Not so long ago I presented a cue to the client. First it was a demo with ensemble strings. They liked it. For me it was alright, but the strings were kind of static and bland (as it usually is). It was sort of romantic/sweeping/lush type of cue. I went back home, spent a few days constantly writing/rewriting to my liking to make it proper with individual sections: inner voices going in and out, counterpoint, sustains, EVERYTHING to make it sound really grand, souring, romantic. The difference was like night and day. Here it was, a decent idea turned into something I was kind of proud of. Went back to the client, showed them the most obvious short excerpt where anyone could hear a difference side by side (before/after), to which they responded: "What's the difference?" I felt like a total idiot standing there. In my head I was like: "Really? Can't you hear how the inner voices are moving? How the counterpoint and all the various dynamics create a much more emotionally charged feel to it that's just wasn't there in the demo? It's not static, it's alive, it's moving." But of course, I would look like a total idiot there, so I just asked if there was no difference to them if they could use the 2nd one and they agreed.

I guess, it really doesn't matter (sadly)? Unless you do it for yourself, to fell good/proud about your own work. I mean I could have stopped on that demo with the same success and forget about it. With the final version, I can go back to re-listen it many times and it still sounds great. I can't say the same at all for that demo. But to the listener it doesn't matter, I guess. Maybe I'm just idealistic but I don't like the idea of getting away with doing "bare minimum".


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Agreed. I'm not against the tech, I use it myself. And like you said, many great modern composers (if not all), use it to compose. I'm also not at all against improvisation. I guess what I meant is that when you're done playing it in, some will actually go back and make it "right" and "proper" to the point of it sounding much different, fuller (while maintaining the idea), while seems like others will leave it as it is (unless they missed a key or something).
> 
> Some will spend a week or two on one piece and others will only a few hours. But to the listener it will kind of sound the same. I know it first hand. Not so long ago I presented a cue to the client. First it was a demo with ensemble strings. They liked it. For me it was alright, but the strings were kind of static and bland (as it usually is). It was sort of romantic/sweeping/lush type of cue. I went back home, spent a few days constantly writing/rewriting to my liking to make it proper with individual sections: inner voices going in and out, counterpoint, sustains, EVERYTHING to make it sound really grand, souring, romantic. The difference was like night and day. Here it was, a decent idea turned into something I was kind of proud of. Went back to the client, showed them the most obvious short excerpt where anyone could hear a difference side by side (before/after), to which they responded: "What's the difference?" I felt like a total idiot standing there. In my head I was like: "Really? Can't you hear how the inner voices are moving? How the counterpoint and all the various dynamics create a much more emotionally charged feel to it that's just wasn't there in the demo? It's not static, it's alive, it's moving." But of course, I would look like a total idiot there, so I just asked if there was no difference to them if they could use the 2nd one and they agreed.
> 
> I guess, it really doesn't matter (sadly)? Unless you do it for yourself, to fell good/proud about your own work. I mean I could have stopped on that demo with the same success and forget about it. With the final version, I can go back to re-listen it many times and it still sounds great. I can't say the same at all for that demo. But to the listener it doesn't matter, I guess. Maybe I'm just idealistic but I don't like the idea of getting away with doing "bare minimum".


For media based composing it’s about pleasing the client. If you can work in some real depth there musically as well, it’s a win for you. I generally work out ideas and spend more time concert music because that avenue is more receptive to it- not necessarily audiences mind you but the players will appreciate all of the tenets of good writing.


----------



## pmcrockett (Oct 9, 2020)

As a classically trained composer, I actually tend to be impressed by people who can crank out music nonstop without being overly fussy about it. The cultivation of that ability was completely absent from my school training, and I think I'm a worse composer for that absence. And yes, often the music that these people end up with is not music that I personally would be proud to have created, but the fact that they have something that is at all presentable and that many listeners clearly enjoy is a welcome challenge to my perfectionist tendencies and to the art-for-art's-sake mentality that was drilled into me in school.

The goal (for me, at least) is not so much to match the speed and/or attitude prevalent in media composers as it is to find a happy medium for myself where I can be proud both of my end result and of the speed with which I achieve it. That's a blurry target, to be sure, but I have found that being conscious of things I do that take far too long for for their relative benefit has helped me a great deal.

Example 1: I didn't realize until I started deliberately paying attention to it how much time I spend browsing libraries and presets to try to find exactly the right one. Going into a sound search with the mentality that I'm going to grab and use the first thing that catches my attention and just tweak it a bit if it doesn't fit perfectly cuts that time down dramatically, and so far it hasn't negatively impacted my satisfaction with my results.

Example 2: I used to write everything in score before moving to recording/production, but I'm moving away from that because I've always been frustrated by how long it takes, particularly given that most of my projects need only an audio file and not a score as the final product. My current approach is to load a piano patch, hit record, improvise, drop markers during recording on any material that I like and want to use, and then roughly assemble the piece out of those bits and pieces, waiting to work out the fine details until I'm actually in the recording/production stage. Like, I write counterpoint at the piano anyway, so there's no real reason I need to make it presentable -- if it exists and I can find it again when I need it, that's good enough. It's mostly an attempt to stay nimble and flexible and spend as little time as possible on procedural details; I'm sure the workflow will change over time, but the point is that I'm trying to think critically about how I'm spending my time and not tie myself to doing things the "right" way just out of an abstract sense of artistry.

And for what it's worth, I think YouTube/Twitch/social media are self-selecting in terms of favoring people who work quickly and confidently. People like watching composers make decisions, and faster, more confident decisions generally make for better viewing. And it takes a secure and streamlined workflow to be worth sharing it with other people -- I have some interest in exploring livestreaming, for example, but I'd never try to do it if I thought I was frequently going to spend three hours with manuscript paper on the same six measures. People want to hear music as it comes together, and they can't hear it come together when most of it remains in my head for long stretches.

(And now that I've said it, I wonder -- _would_ people actually watch someone slowly drafting a score longhand at the piano?)


----------



## JohnG (Oct 9, 2020)

I'm not sure what composers, or what process you're talking about? I write every note, whether it's going to be replaced by live players or stay samples.

If you are choosing the melody, harmony, accompaniment, colours -- what's missing? That's what composers do.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 9, 2020)

I am seeing more and more people use a piano patch and then orchestrate from there. That’s cool because it does allow one to focus on the melody, harmony and rhythm without getting caught up in the orchestration. I think I saw HZ In a Steinberg round table say he does this. It’s similar to a reduced score with grand staves representing each orchestral choir, the way many classic film composers sketched ideas. Sometimes the midi orchestration can hold things up. Other times the sound will suggest compositional ideas...


----------



## JohnG (Oct 9, 2020)

but either way, David, whether you start with piano and then orchestrate or charge right in with V1, V2 etc., I call that composing, not producing. 

I think I don't understand the original claim / question. It sounds as though @Mark_Kouznetsov is critical "bad composing," but I may be misinterpreting. If there's bad voice leading, your composition will sound weaker, whether you read music or compose by ear. If there are stupid leaps that don't grow organically out of what came before (and are not intentional, but just clumsy), the piece is going to be weaker also.

Maybe what you are saying, Mark, is that you think the ability to make things sound "cool" using great sounds, synths, and effects masks a lot of weak compositional choices?


----------



## JonS (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Just a curious question. Stumbling across various videos of film composers on YouTube and their workflow I got a question: are many of modern composers ACTUALLY composers and not producers? It's kind of shocking sometimes to see them making a track in just a few hours by slapping some chords together and letting the samples do the actual work, no proper voice leading/harmony, parallel 5ths and 8ves (but from the context NOT intentionally, but just because of composing "on the go" and playing, for example, strings like they would a piano and having bizarre voice movements from 4 voices to 7-8 or 10 for one section of instruments to 3) and so on and so on...
> 
> I mean, for the majority of people, there is probably little/no difference. Maybe it's just my OCD. But I feel like I'm always trying to learn as much as I can and get it right but it seems like for many others (again, not EVERYONE), it just doesn't matter as speed is the only thing that matters. It's more of a "sounds alright, let's move on". It just feels kind of cheap/ignorant a little bit. I mean the end result often sounds decent for what it is, but I can't help but think about how much better it _would_ sound if that person actually _bothered_ to write everything properly instead of a fast-food/block/loop music scoring approach. You probably know what I mean if you look at all that hybrid/trailer stuff, however I've noticed many try to sound like modern classical/minimalistic but it's kind of faking(?) it and confusing with just boring music where you hold some chords together and call it a day. Composers like Johannsson, Gudnadottir, Richter, Sakamoto, Arnalds and many others have actually great creative ideas behind their music AND proper arrangements and it's not the same as loading OA evolution and playing/holding down two notes in the high register and hearing 20 instruments playing by themselves. Minimalist, not simplistic.
> 
> ...


No school can teach anyone how to be innovative. Either you got it or you don't. A music school can teach you how to imitate others and possibly be a nurturing environment for one to become inventive, but in the end, no teacher can teach one to be an original writer and can only teach about composers' works which are perceived as innovative throughout history along with theory, critical thinking, structure, harmony, etc. I am not disrespecting higher education at all. I worked with an orchestrator who got a PhD in Composition from Juilliard and a fellowship with John Williams, he said his first-class education never taught him or anyone he knows how to be an original composer no matter how well versed one is with the classical catalogue.

If a composer does not have classical training they can simply work with an orchestrator who does, it's not that complicated. A big part of the job too is being able to create a lot of high quality music in a very short period of time, which is not something an education can teach anyone how to do. Some of the greatest songwriters and composers in history did not get a music education, others did.


----------



## river angler (Oct 9, 2020)

As a professional composer now in my mid fifties I have had to move with the technology over the years to become just as adept at production, engineering and programming and even mastering to a degree as I am at composition. However fundamentally it's all about the content.

Because of the nature of some genres of music called for in the media like indeed film trailers for example which are sadly written to a fairly specific bombastic format these days, "programming" comes into play a lot more if only to organise all the whooshing/risers/braams/hits and volume muting the trailer film editors require to cut to. Hence to a certain extent, once one has honed in on the content format one can theoretically dress this up with "the usual" production tinsel to churn out one film trailer cue after another fairly quickly as it does not require so much compositional "originality". Indeed with film trailers these days it's more about the "thickness" of the production particularly in the American thriller/crime genre.

However to compose good bespoke music to picture takes strong creative imagination which only comes from a long, broad experience in music. Not only that but it requires a patient/sensitive ear to listen to what the directors want and then being able to innovate to enhance/surprise them with something slightly more original than what they had initially imagined. Here the content is paramount if with the production skills cradling a great score. Those who are genuine composer/musicians will always do a better job than a "programmer" in this field.

Composing in itself is actually improvisation regardless of wether one sits down and writes the notes out in notational form or sits playing things in on a keyboard into a DAW. The only difference is one process is faster than the other and with ubiquitous access to modern computer driven setups it makes much more sense to play ideas in than write them down on manuscript. Furthermore with the ever advancing waves of technology comes an exponential demand in to compose quickly! Also that same advance in technology forces composers into a position where they have no excuse not to produce a highly polished sonic result to boot!

As far as your pondering about taking 2 hours or two days to complete the same result...

Yes! there are those that slave over something for days but the content of what
they are slaving over may not be worth it! Conversely the composer that knocks out something in a couple of hours may have something that has such a strong content it does not need embellishing!
The point is you can't dress mutton up as lamb: crap content is always going to sound crap no matter how much production you ladle onto it. So as far as the time needed to achieve similar results this is a moot point really- some of the greatest songs have been written in a matter of minutes and some of the greatest orchestral works have been written in months or even years!
Having said this increasingly I find myself composing and producing at the same time which of course working on a computer lends itself naturally to! One could actually say that production has also become a form of musical improvisation too if for example you consider spontaneously tweaking a filter on a synth sound within in a musical passage!

As for improvising/correcting/quantising a spontaneously played in musical sequence: it all depends on the job at hand, the style and vibe of what one is trying to achieve. In the case of scoring to film how you doctor your piece depends on the subtlety of the message in the film the director wishes to have enhanced, portrayed or supported by the music. There are no rules as to how one achieves this (apart from the deadline of the job!) but there is no longer an excuse not to present it in a highly polished production: which also now entails the composer or one of his entourage/team to apply sonic mastering to it too!

Hence in answer to your original question: the modern composer is still fundamentally a composer but has to be able to sonically produce his or her own musical compositions just as judiciously and efficiently.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Oct 9, 2020)

I personally don't think you need theory to be an excellent composer. What you need are a good set of ears, and a good self-critical brain between them. When writing you need to be thinking things like "is this the absolute best that I can write here?" And if not, time to scrap that idea and try something else. It hurts to do it, because a classical composer doesn't have to (at least in any cases I can think of), since their product is entirely art and they are the master of all decisions - but when it comes to music for media then it is serving a higher purpose than the composer's wishes. If you can't sell a musical idea to yourself for a certain scene or emotion then there's no chance you'll be able to sell it to a director or an audience either.

To me, theory is meant to be understood as a foundation for starting ideas or creating filler. When you say things like you see parallel 5ths or 8ves, I get worried because that kind of stuff doesn't really concern music for media - what matters is entirely whether or not it works in the scene. If it works, it stays, if it doesn't, it goes - those kind of polyphonic rules are only relevant to sounding like a certain time-period where those conventions were popular, and we don't expect all music to sound like it belongs in that time-period when scoring to picture.

All this said and done I learned and soaked up all the theory I could, and it does shape what I do a little bit, but I don't let it restrict me. I mostly make use of it as a tool to _study other great film composers, _which it is invaluable for, and then I use these lessons to help influence my own style or enable me to write using some new technique I like.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Oct 9, 2020)

pmcrockett said:


> The goal (for me, at least) is not so much to match the speed and/or attitude prevalent in media composers as it is to find a happy medium for myself where I can be proud both of my end result and of the speed with which I achieve it. That's a blurry target, to be sure, but I have found that being conscious of things I do that take far too long for for their relative benefit has helped me a great deal.


 I absolutely agree. But I also think that people under-estimate actually sitting down and thinking about every single note they put in and not just play some notes on the go. If you look at the manuscripts of great composers they were constantly correcting/re-writing/piecing different fragments together or tearing them apart. I feel like that myself: the initial idea may sound great, but after a few days of listening I start to think: "At the end of that phrase, I should have went up, not down" or "that cello line should go to A, not E". It's always some little details here in terms of notation that get revised, despite how great the initial idea may sound. And those tweaks together make a big difference at the end. It takes several days to really finish something decent for me. I just can't understand how you can write a piece in a few hours and be fine with the result, no matter how great you are. If Beethoven was re-writing stuff, how can somebody just load a patch, hold a chord and call it a day? Doesn't that breed mediocrity?

That's a genuine questing as I'm interested in speeding up my own process, I just don't know how in that regard. As I mentioned above, knowing the difference between writing for a few hours and a few days or even weeks, I cannot simply "get it" how to be okay with (myself) writing THAT quickly and not be ashamed of the result. Nobody wants to be mediocre. With the pieces that took me longer to write, I generally feel the sense of closure. I'm happy with the result, I don't feel any urge to go back and re-write anything. But if I write fast, every time I listen to the result, I always pick up on something that's not exactly right afterwards. It takes time for me to arrive to the result I'm happy with.


----------



## Karl Feuerstake (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> It takes time for me to arrive to the result I'm happy with.



I think that's normal, and you get better and faster and deliver more acceptable results the more you write.

If I might use an analogy, even the best competitive marksmen in the world cannot hit the target 100% of the time, especially on distant targets with unfamiliar conditions, but they practice and work hard so that they are as prepared and ready as they can be. Then when they miss, it's just a matter of making an adjustment - which is a skill they're quick at as well thanks to their preparations.


----------



## CT (Oct 9, 2020)

Why do you want to speed up your process? Are you doing media work where you're running out of time? If so, you're overthinking it, and you have to accept that part of the gig is flying by the seat of your pants, and hopefully whatever innate ability you have will see you through as "properly" as possible.

If you're writing for your own purposes, and just want to be faster, well, you already know that kind of work takes much more time. You'll resent yourself for trying shortcuts. Getting away from notation whenever possible has helped me in this regard though, and despite what you've said, that way of working doesn't preclude refining ideas past a first draft. A delete key is as effective as an eraser.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Oct 9, 2020)

Great thread. pmcrockett wrote some things that really resonate with my evolving viewpoint on composing.

I’ve expanded from film composing to composing and accompanying for dance over the last 15 years mainly because it is so much more immediate in terms of how the focus is on quick decision making processes and less on the actual instrumentation etc. 

Watching a dance instructor choreograph an exercise in class is the only preparation I get to compose an accompaniment. In fact, many times I’m convinced the choreography is in a duple meter until the teacher turns to me and counts off the exercise in “3” and I have to lunge at my arpeggiator, change the tempo, grab 6 notes instead of 4 to reflect the new meter, and be ready to play before the end of the count off. The adrenaline rush is totally addictive, and there is no editing process to cause me to second guess.


----------



## pmcrockett (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> I absolutely agree. But I also think that people under-estimate actually sitting down and thinking about every single note they put in and not just play some notes on the go. If you look at the manuscripts of great composers they were constantly correcting/re-writing/piecing different fragments together or tearing them apart. I feel like that myself: the initial idea may sound great, but after a few days of listening I start to think: "At the end of that phrase, I should have went up, not down" or "that cello line should go to A, not E". It's always some little details here in terms of notation that get revised, despite how great the initial idea may sound. And those tweaks together make a big difference at the end. It takes several days to really finish something decent for me. I just can't understand how you can write a piece in a few hours and be fine with the result, no matter how great you are. If Beethoven was re-writing stuff, how can somebody just load a patch, hold a chord and call it a day? Doesn't that breed mediocrity?
> 
> That's a genuine questing as I'm interested in speeding up my own process, I just don't know how in that regard. As I mentioned above, knowing the difference between writing for a few hours and a few days or even weeks, I cannot simply "get it" how to be okay with (myself) writing THAT quickly and not be ashamed of the result. Nobody wants to be mediocre. With the pieces that took me longer to write, I generally feel the sense of closure. I'm happy with the result, I don't feel any urge to go back and re-write anything. But if I write fast, every time I listen to the result, I always pick up on something that's not exactly right afterwards. It takes time for me to arrive to the result I'm happy with.



Accepting mediocrity is a skill that can be learned -- though a more positive way to spin it is developing the ability to be self-critical without feeling the need to self-correct. I think the key is to replace "This can be better" in your thinking with "I'll do better next time." The former makes the piece itself the yardstick for your abilities, and the latter makes learning from your missteps the yardstick. 

I've found it helpful to come up with objective standards I can reasonably evaluate myself against. If, for example, I know it takes _x_ amount of time on average to compose _y_ amount of music, then I also have a sense of where in the process I should be at any given time and what I should generally be focusing on at any point. I spent a couple weeks with a stopwatch literally tracking how long I spent on things and logging it in project notes, and it helped. Frustration over a number that seems too high and is getting higher with little to show for it is surprisingly motivating.

By paying attention to those benchmarks, I know how well a piece is coming together entirely independently of whether it's "good" music or not. Like, if I'm fifteen hours in and need to make any major changes to harmonic structure -- even if those changes will make it better music -- then something's wrong, because I've successfully written music before without having this problem this late, and I know that this isn't something I should have to revisit at this point in the process (everyone's benchmarks will be different, of course). And so the problem with me as a composer and/or with my workflow is entirely independent of whether I'm writing good music at the present moment. I do whatever I need to to finish the piece, and then I know moving forward that if I'm not completely solid on my harmonic structure early on, it may wreck things the next day.

It's learning to identify problems in your composing process and regarding them as being just as important and worthy of resolution as problems in the music itself.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 9, 2020)

pmcrockett said:


> Like, if I'm fifteen hours in and need to make any major changes to harmonic structure -- even if those changes will make it better music



Well, so what if you do make changes after fifteen hours? That happens sometimes. Maybe the reason is that you've tried something you've never tried before, or tried to realise it with different instruments than you normally use, or for some other reason?

When we try new things ("let's try to write this cue with no strings") it can be pretty difficult, so I think it's natural that you could spend a lot of time on something and then discover (sadly) that it's weaker than you expected and requires revisions. So I think you're being a bit too general, or maybe too hard on yourself.


----------



## gohrev (Oct 9, 2020)

Wise words, @JohnG


----------



## pmcrockett (Oct 9, 2020)

JohnG said:


> Well, so what if you do make changes after fifteen hours? That happens sometimes. Maybe the reason is that you've tried something you've never tried before, or tried to realise it with different instruments than you normally use, or for some other reason?
> 
> When we try new things ("let's try to write this cue with no strings") it can be pretty difficult, so I think it's natural that you could spend a lot of time on something and then discover (sadly) that it's weaker than you expected and requires revisions. So I think you're being a bit too general, or maybe too hard on yourself.



For sure, there's always the potential for things I don't anticipate or things that necessarily take a long time or don't go smoothly because they take me out of my comfort zone. The point of how I try to approach things isn't so much to have a rigid timetable that must be followed at all costs -- if composing were like assembly line work, I think we'd all be looking for something else to do -- it's to help keep me on track in the grand scheme of things and help me identify potential workflow problem areas as I move forward. I'm trying to escape from my all-consuming detail orientation that tends to eat up time better spent on other things, and if I end up turning that detail orientation to following the clock at all costs, then I've only created another similar problem for myself. 

Accepting things I'm not completely satisfied with in my music for the sake of time management does ultimately need to balance with accepting things I'm not completely satisfied with in my time management for the sake of the music. But I (and probably @Mark_Kouznetsov, from the sound of it) naturally lean strongly toward musical perfectionism at great expense to time management, so I need to push myself much harder on the time management aspect of it than I do on the actual composing to find a balance I'm happy with.


----------



## Mark Kouznetsov (Oct 9, 2020)

@pmcrockett @JohnG Thanks for your answers, really! Is it weird if I totally agree and get both perspectives? I'm not saying it to just agree with you, but I really DO get those points of view.
It's a strange topic for me and I do understand that I'm probably overthinking it. I want to be more efficient with my time (just a little bit), but I also feel like those little details as a note here and there moving around or changing one long note to three shorter ones - stuff like that) kind of do matter too. Not just because of perfectionism but because I really do believe it makes it more "complex/refined" (not the right word, perhaps, but I do mean it in a good way, not because I want to show off or something, but because I FEEL like it's the better choice for particular passage, let's say). Maybe those details are the things that separates good from great. I just sometimes feel guilt for not cooking some of the parts for a little bit longer, even if I did not know or had that idea at the time.

But again, it takes time to get to it. The reason for this thread is that I'm probably confused if it's worth it seeing how in many cases many composers nowadays seem to settle for "good enough". Maybe that's because I'm a fan of older generation of film composers like from the 60's and 70's and then going back to seeing a Netflix low budget production and hearing just static sound design as a score I wonder what would those older composers say about today's film music? Even mediocre films from that era have such great scores by today's standard. I wouldn't be surprised if those would be considered "nothing special" at the time, but comparing to today's music it's ridiculous how good someone like Lalo Schifrin even when he's on autopilot sounds.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> I also feel like those little details as a note here and there moving around or changing one long note to three shorter ones - stuff like that) kind of do matter too.



You're right!



Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> Even mediocre films from that era have such great scores by today's standard. I wouldn't be surprised if those would be considered "nothing special" at the time, but comparing to today's music it's ridiculous how good someone like Lalo Schifrin even when he's on autopilot sounds.



You're right!

*Too Much Music*

IDK how much time people had in the 60s and 70s to write a score. For sure, though, scores were shorter. Sometimes by a lot. It's not at all unusual to have 80 minutes spotted in a 95 minute action movie today. You never had that back then, or if you did it was an extreme outlier. You had scores with often 35-45 minutes of music, sometimes even less.

*TV Too!*

Today it's not uncommon for an "hour" (42.5 minutes last time I looked) show to have over 35 minutes of music in it. That also is a huge change. Plus, you sometimes spot on Tuesday and have to deliver Friday or Saturday.

*Result? *

Having almost zero time to think leads to: Plenty of "drones with cool sounds." Once that becomes the norm, lots of bad things happen. 

1. The producers' expectations change -- they think they can have as much as they want, about as cheap as they want and they may be thinking "Jeeze my nephew could do this in his bedroom;"
2. The composer has no time to think or be truly creative because he / she has to write 10 minutes a day; and
3. Many shows sound alike.

Plus, expectations keep getting lower and lower when there's no money or time to incorporate any live playing (besides the composer). Everything "sounds cool" but there is no time at all to write with the thoughtfulness that you could have if you had 1/2 the music and twice the time, which, not long ago, you did.

Not everything is like this but enough is so that it's very hard to write well for some projects -- zero money and zero time make for a poor result.

So if that's what you mean, we agree for sure.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## Alexandre (Oct 9, 2020)

Mark_Kouznetsov said:


> @pmcrockett @JohnG Thanks for your answers, really! Is it weird if I totally agree and get both perspectives? I'm not saying it to just agree with you, but I really DO get those points of view.
> It's a strange topic for me and I do understand that I'm probably overthinking it. I want to be more efficient with my time (just a little bit), but I also feel like those little details as a note here and there moving around or changing one long note to three shorter ones - stuff like that) kind of do matter too. Not just because of perfectionism but because I really do believe it makes it more "complex/refined" (not the right word, perhaps, but I do mean it in a good way, not because I want to show off or something, but because I FEEL like it's the better choice for particular passage, let's say). Maybe those details are the things that separates good from great. I just sometimes feel guilt for not cooking some of the parts for a little bit longer, even if I did not know or had that idea at the time.
> 
> But again, it takes time to get to it. The reason for this thread is that I'm probably confused if it's worth it seeing how in many cases many composers nowadays seem to settle for "good enough". Maybe that's because I'm a fan of older generation of film composers like from the 60's and 70's and then going back to seeing a Netflix low budget production and hearing just static sound design as a score I wonder what would those older composers say about today's film music? Even mediocre films from that era have such great scores by today's standard. I wouldn't be surprised if those would be considered "nothing special" at the time, but comparing to today's music it's ridiculous how good someone like Lalo Schifrin even when he's on autopilot sounds.


There's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison here as Lalo Schifrin systematically wrote for an orchestra ( big band or whatever) not vsti! VERY different process!Today a composer does what used to be done by quite a few people all by him/herself...


----------



## mybadmemory (Oct 10, 2020)

I think, in any creative artform, as time flows, and shifts in technology and culture comes around, it's inherent that certain things become easier (allowing more people without traditional training to practice it), and that other things fall in and out of style, and gradually the meaning of what the craft is even considered being, or what the "proper" way to do it, is transforming into something new.

I think we see the same in any creative field, be it writing, painting, photography, film making, orchestral composing, pop song writing, etc, etc. Regardless of where we look, all fields tends to be more complicated if we look back in time, and not only in the techniques used to create them, but also in the art itself.

Writing was certainly a more complicated art form a 100 years ago than now, and painting was undoubtedly a more time consuming task to master when the idea of a painting meant a photorealistic representation of a royalty in his chair, than now - when a painting can just as well be a white canvas in a gallery.

Does any of this mean that creativity and proper craft are dying, and that what we hear on the radio today is less worth than what was there when the Beatles was around? People will argue about this til times end, but if anything, I'd say that the meaning of the words and the concepts of the crafts simply gets broadened to include more than what they once did.

Is a blogger a "real" writer? Is a digital painter or a 3d modeler a "real" artist? Is I Kissed a Girl "real" music? I think the trajectory from complex to simple is one that most things creative seem to be following throughout history, regardless of whether people like it or not.

I totally get how people can feel that things were better before, heck I do it myself in regards to many things (why in the world did melody and harmony fall out of style for example?), but if I zoom out and try to see things in a bigger perspective, I don't think what's happening now is the end of anything, or for that matter, any worse than when the impressionists were ridiculed for not painting "properly" according the rules of the old world.


----------



## Jerry Growl (Oct 10, 2020)

I know this is over simplified, but heck:
Well you can't expect your client to be dazzled by a score on paper these days. Bringing an awful lot of A3 paper rolls isn't going to reassure your clients (unless you have a godlike status and credit like the happy few) . They usually want to know for sure you are on the right track with what they have in mind. Your clients want to simply hear results, not see them.

Especially in the creative process, convincing (sounding) sketches are essential.


----------



## GtrString (Oct 10, 2020)

Regarding the roles composer or producer, these now seems to be old designations for divisions of work that used to be, for specialized processes in the chain from start to finish of a musical work.

Developments in technology, and economic devaluation of musical works have resulted in the need to merge several of those roles, so the roles in the development process of a musical work is a lot more blurred today, than it used to be.

In our DIY culture, many are now

writers
composers
studio owners
engineers
musicians
performers
virtuosos
producers
recruiters
mixers
mastering
negotiators
distributors
art directors
film makers
sales people
seo experts

all in one (/fill in the missing roles). Impossible at best, devastating at worst when you try to do it all, every time.

Depending on budgets, each part can be outsourced to specialists, but seems we are now starting from the all-in-one DIY perspective.

If you get ahead with some tracktion on one, you may find yourself occupying a niche, and become an expert, but otherwise you are doing the mixed bag of everything.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 10, 2020)

GtrString said:


> all in one



you left out “social media denizen”

not bragging but I did log in to one in 2018. Just sayin


----------



## telecode101 (Oct 10, 2020)

..


----------



## pmcrockett (Oct 10, 2020)

telecode101 said:


> I find it interesting that sometimes high art directors like Larvs Von Trier or Terrence Malick chose to use classical music from back catalog instead of a composer who specializes in intricate orchestral score.


I find it interesting, too, because it's rare that I hear existing classical/art music used as underscore and think it works better overall than a bespoke underscore would have -- usually quite the opposite. But I also don't approach it from the perspective of a director or music editor, so I'm sure there's an appeal to it in those contexts that I'm not in on.


----------



## Tice (Oct 10, 2020)

For me, the difference between a composer and a producer (within the context of music) is mostly verbal and cultural. At the end of the day, they're both making sure that before a deadline there will be a piece of music that fits specific criteria. Often how they self-identify appears to corelate to the general genre their music tends to be in. I rarely see makers of EDM identify as composers for instance. But that doesn't change the craft. The skillset that culturally gets associated with composers, like 4 part counterpoint writing for instance, may feel out of place in certain genres so you won't see those skills practices as much by people working in those genres. That doesn't make them lesser composers. If that leads to them differentiating between 'classical composers' and themselves, well that's just how language works.


----------



## JonS (Oct 10, 2020)

JohnG said:


> you left out “social media denizen”
> 
> not bragging but I did log in to one in 2018. Just sayin


I’d love to see Facebook, Twitter and Instagram end up in the same graveyard as MySpace.


----------

