# Bored with film music



## dcoscina

It just seems like everything these days in the world of film music is static, predictable and boring. I wish it weren't but I haven't heard anything that has blown me away in ages. I still look forward to Desplat's Harry Potter but largely there isn't much. 

I can't wait to get my Varese Spartacus box set because that is the kind of music that bowls me over. Or classic Goldsmith. Or Williams. I like some of the newer stuff but it doesn't challenge me or affect me in the same manner that film music did years back. I don't think it has to do with my personal tastes or being too hard on current composers. I hadn't heard some Bartok pieces until recently and they all knocked me on my arse. I enjoy much of John Adams' City Noir as I think it actually evokes the sound of film music that I enjoy. 

What is it about current scores that I don't like? Well, first, the absence of interesting harmonies. Everything seems so tightly constrained to diatonic or modal frameworks. Big minor chords play tutti by the orchestra does not engage me. It puts me to sleep. If I hear another i-IV-i progression I think I will wretch. 

Also, lack of development of themes. It used to be that a film composer would introduce several key themes or ideas, then develop them in subsequent cues while introducing new melodic or motivic material to serve as a contrast or binding material. Some of John Williams' set pieces, like The Asteroid Field from Empire Strikes Back comes to mind. Or "New Friend" from Papillon where Goldsmith comes up with a chase version by messing around with some of his motives from earlier cues. It serves to congeal the music in its overall design and evolution. Nowadays, every cue seems totally distinct but without any character of its own- it's like aural wallpaper. It's a bunch of boring percussion loops and hits, accented with the occasional brass cluster or string effect- or nonsensical musical figures that go nowhere. 

Desplat is one of the few guys I have heard recently that still clings to theme and variation. Yared is the only guy I hear that is using classic musical techniques like fugue in his scores (and to great effect). 

What is interesting is that the new breed of concert composer has been affected by film scores of the 60s/70s/80s and they are integrating some of these ideas into their works quite well. I also see or hear how top drawer film composers are delving into the world of video game scoring. Perhaps that's the new frontier for composers to exploit all of their creative ideas. The film world sure doesn't seem like it any more....pity.


----------



## Lex

..and you are sure it's not simply a combination of personal tastes and getting old/older?

aLex


----------



## JohnG

Sometimes I get like that too.

Check out Tigran Mansurian's string writing. It may revive your enthusiasm for all things musical; certainly does mine. Another member, "Poseur," recommended him in another thread.


----------



## lux

my impression is that there are two types of composers working at the same markets those days.

- A first batch of composers i would define "industry-safe". They tend to smell around for whats current (see best seller movies) and tendencially offer exactly that same shit, without any effort. Those composer often find easy access to some degrees of industry where cloning is the keywords and where fear is a common feeling. They tend to find a job where "panels" are involved as their mimicking of famous nuances probably get a point on those panels.

- A second batch of composers which do the job more or less as it was some time ago. They arent completely exempt by following trends but somehow they get a cover by their own directors. Or theyre just so personal sounding (please, ask Thomas Newman to place fuckin trailers hits all over the movie. Do it) that nobody even thinks about asking for shit. Anyway, those composers seem to have more freedom. How much this is a result of courage, luck, a strong director cover or that they date the boss daughter isnt something i'm aware of. Probably all those factors count.

What is interesting is that the second batch of composer is cross-genre. You can find synth based composers or orchestral mutants doing something personal and interesting, no matter how complex it is and how many notes/chords are involved.

Of course i have no apartment in LA so i'm just guessing 

Luca


----------



## dcoscina

Lex @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> ..and you are sure it's not simply a combination of personal tastes and getting old/older?
> 
> aLex



I'm sure that has a little to do with it.


----------



## mverta

Definitely about getting older. I'm almost an ancient, decrepit 38 years-old now and I pine - in my old, stogy way - for the days when there was fucking music in music. Now get off my lawn.


_Mike


----------



## lux




----------



## Hannes_F

Regarding to taste I was already 100 years and older in my youth, so when it comes to that ...  haha


On the other hand, the older I become, the younger my taste gets. Today I even enjoy pop charts >8o


----------



## mjc

[quote:c29c34ee89="dcoscina @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 12:43 am"]It just seems like everything these days in the world of film music is static, predictable and boring. I wish it weren't but I haven't heard anything that has blown me away in ages. I still look forward to Desplat's Harry Potter but largely there isn't much. 

I can't wait to get my Varese Spartacus box set because that is the kind of music that bowls me over. Or classic Goldsmith. Or Williams. I like some of the newer stuff but it doesn't challenge me or affect me in the same manner that film music did years back. I don't think it has to do with my personal tastes or being too hard on current composers. I hadn't heard some Bartok pieces until recently and they all knocked me on my arse. I enjoy much of John Adams' City Noir as I think it actually evokes the sound of film music that I enjoy. 

What is it about current scores that I don't like? Well, first, the absence of interesting harmonies. Everything seems so tightly constrained to diatonic or modal frameworks. Big minor chords play tutti by the orchestra does not engage me. It puts me to sleep. If I hear another i-IV-i progression I think I will wretch. 

Also, lack of development of themes. It usòúÞ   ß³úÞ   ß´úÞ   ßµúÞ   ß¶úÞ   ß·úß   ß¸úß   ß¹úß   ßºúß   ß»úß   ß¼úß   ß½úß   ß¾úß   ß¿úß   ßÀúß   ßÁúß   ßÂúß   ßÃúß   ßÄúß   ßÅúß   ßÆúß   ßÇúß   ßÈúß   ßÉúß   ßÊúß   ßËúß   ßÌúß   ßÍúß   ßÎúß   ßÏúß   ßÐúß   ßÑúß   ßÒúß   ßÓúß   ßÔúß   ßÕúß   ßÖúß   ß×úß   ßØúß   ßÙúß   ßÚúß   ßÛúß   ßÜúß   ßÝúß   ßÞúß   ßßúß   ßàúß   ßáúß   ßâúß   ßãúß   ßäúß   ßåúß   ßæúß   ßçúß   ßèúß   ßéúß   ßêúß   ßëúß   ßìúß   ßíúß   ßîúß   ßïúß   ßðúß   ßñúß   ßòúß   ßóúß   ßôúß   ßõúß   ßöúß   ß÷úß   ßøúß   ßùúß   ßúúß   ßûúß   ßüúß   ßýúß   ßþúß   ßÿúß   ß úß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ßúß   ß	úß   ß
úß   ßúà   ßúà   ß úà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúà   ßúá   ß úá   ß!úá   ß"              òúá   ß$úá   ß%úá   ß&úá   ß'úá   ß(úá   ß)úá   ß*úá   ß+úá   ß,úá   ß-úá   ß.úá   ß/úá   ß0úá   ß1úá   ß2úá   ß3úá   ß4úá   ß5úá   ß6úá   ß7úá   ß8úá   ß9úá   ß:úá   ß;úá   ß<úá   ß=úá   ß>úá   ß?úá   ß@úá   ßAúá   ßBúá   ßCúá   ßDúá   ßEúá   ßFúá   ßGúá   ßHúá   ßIúá   ßJúá   ßKúá   ßLúá   ßMúá   ßNúá   ßOúá   ßPúá   ßQúá   ßRúá   ßSúá   ßTúá   ßUúá   ßVúá   ßWúá   ßXúá   ßYúá   ßZúá   ß[úá   ß\úá   ß]úá   ß^úá   ß_úá   ß`úá   ßaúá   ßbúá   ßcúá   ßdúá   ßeúá   ßfúá   ßgúá   ßhúá   ßiúá   ßjúá   ßkúá   ßlúá   ßmúá   ßnúá   ßoúá


----------



## dcoscina

ajcmuso @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Don't get me wrong I totally understand your point of view, but you don't think people like John Powell are keeping you interested? IMHO I think he's the king of the bunch atm. Also very curious to hear how Desplat tackles Harry Potter :wink:



Powell is okay. He's better than most his age but nothing he's done has floored me. I do like his Death and Transfiguration cue from HANCOCK but the 16 note snares doubling the string arpeggio sort of ruins it- he didn't need them and it makes the strings sound almost fake. It's still a good track but that always bugged me.

The last soundtrack that actually floored me was There Will be Blood, and mostly because Greenwood had the balls to channel Penderecki and Bartok. "Future Markets" is probably my fave cue of the decade. It's just so harsh and uncompromising. 

I also love the sound of the strings and how they were recorded for that score. Top drawer.


----------



## John DeBorde

dcoscina @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> ajcmuso @ Mon Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last soundtrack that actually floored me was There Will be Blood, and mostly because Greenwood had the balls to channel Penderecki and Bartok. "Future Markets" is probably my fave cue of the decade. It's just so harsh and uncompromising.
> 
> I also love the sound of the strings and how they were recorded for that score. Top drawer.
Click to expand...



hmm...loved the ballsy approach of that score, but if I recall correctly, much of it was not original score for the film, but rather repurposed music of Greenwood, so I'm not really sure that qualifies for a truly adventurous attempt at original music for a film (score). Also have to say that I thought it frequently drifted into the realm of distracting, but would love to be able to say that I found more scores "ballsy" - or distracting for that matter. Most are by far formulaic cop-outs imho.

just sayin.


----------



## whinecellar

dcoscina @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> lack of development of themes.



While I agree with pretty much all of your sentiments David, it can all be summed up in that statement. Great melodies are simply not there anymore, with few exceptions. Maybe we are getting old, but I don't know, I'd be willing to bet it's MELODY that's missing these days. Of course, nobody's making movies anymore that need them, but that's another topic 

For whatever reason, strong, recognizable & MEMORABLE themes have become out of vogue. Without those themes, it is exactly what you said: aural wallpaper. Once in a while that can be interesting & serve the picture, and I'm certainly not suggesting every movie needs wall-to-wall themes... but at the end of the day, there's a reason everybody and their grandma can hum the Star Wars/E.T./Indy themes. The guy can write a melody & tug the heartstrings like nobody else.

Just my $.02, but only worth what you paid


----------



## mverta

[quote:36e3cbf1c8="whinecòúñ   ßÿúñ   ß úñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ß	úñ   ß
úñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ß úñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ßúñ   ß úñ   ß!úñ   ß"úñ   ß#úñ   ß$úñ   ß%úñ   ß&úñ   ß'úñ   ß(úñ   ß)úñ   ß*úñ   ß+úñ   ß,úñ   ß-úñ   ß.úñ   ß/úñ   ß0úñ   ß1úñ   ß2úñ   ß3úñ   ß4úñ   ß5úñ   ß6úñ   ß7úñ   ß8úñ   ß9úñ   ß:úñ   ß;úñ   ß<úñ   ß=úñ   ß>úñ   ß?úñ   ß@úñ   ßAúñ


----------



## Narval

mverta @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> whinecellar @ Mon Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there's a reason everybody and their grandma can hum the Star Wars/E.T./Indy themes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Dallas, or the A-Team, or the Big Red Gum commercial, or the William Tell Overture or Piano Man, or a billion other songs/tunes from the days when there was more to being a musician than "dude with a plug-in and a laptop."
> 
> Writing good, compelling melodies is hard enough; pair that with having no idea what to do with them when you've got them and you've painted a bleak landscape of forgettable, disposable, inconsequential noise. In 5.1.
Click to expand...

You are perfectly, even painfully right. Only that, imho, the audiences haven't had enough of that yet. Let them have some more of it. The bubble will eventually burst and then either: 
they'll finally have enough of it and completely lose interest in movies,
or,
before that is about to happen, film producers will rediscover the power of well written thematic scores, which will bring this nonsense to its logical end.

Let us hope for the latter! Only a few months ago, while coming out of How To Train Your Dragon, I've heard people around raving about the music. Listening to them was to me the next most exciting thing after the music itself. I thought, probably that hasn't happened since ET. True, more than one flower is needed for springtime, yet there is hope to music. To MELODIC music.


----------



## gsilbers

PoppaJimmy @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Questions from someone (me) who isn't in the film/tv composing world at all.
> 
> Is it correct (or not) that many times film composers are working under very specific requirements by the director? I read somewhere that JW was asked by Spielberg specifically to copy The Planets for Star Wars. Is that true or not (I honestly don't know)?
> 
> I'm not at all saying that a film composer can't be creative and original within given parameters. However, from what I've read, some on these forums, I've gotten the impression that often a director will want things that intenionally sound like ...x and that composers can lose the gig if they don't meet those requirements. Is that a valid impression?
> 
> In film, it's all about the director's vision, is it not? Everything in the film, the visual and aural palette, the costumes, etc., ad infinitum, is ultimately in service to that vision, no? So, how much originality and creativity are film composers allowed? In Hollywood, it seems to me that the majority of movies are derivative anyway so, why should the music be any different?
> 
> Again, I am not involved in the film composing world in any way so, I'm asking from a distance. Nor am I trying to excuse any composer for whatever, I don't know enough to do that. Also, I'm certainly not saying this situation applies only to film music. It applies to pretty much everything, it seems.
> 
> In most fields, whether the arts, sciences, politics or sports, or whatever you want to name, it seems to me that genuine originalty is rare and often discouraged. It may be that there are occasional periods when there seems to be a bit more freedom for a while but, does that really last?
> 
> So, how much is the composer vs the director? How many composers are frustrated because they aren't being allowed to do what they would prefer? How much of the "same old thing" or whatever other lack in you name in film music, is because that's what those in power are demanding and paying for? What do you all think?
> 
> Be Well,



correct. 

the composer has to adhere to the directors wishes... 
with that said, usually a director will approach a composer because he likes his style or has a mastery in specific styles or movies his done in the past. 
those styles will most likely be close to the temp music which is a track the editors cut to for inspiration and "demo" music for the scene which they can show to the execs... and its like a guide track for composers. some directors like the music to sound very similar to the temp, others are more open.


----------



## germancomponist

whinecellar @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> While I agree with pretty much all of your sentiments David, it can all be summed up in that statement. Great melodies are simply not there anymore, with few exceptions. Maybe we are getting old, but I don't know, I'd be willing to bet it's MELODY that's missing these days. Of course, nobody's making movies anymore that need them, but that's another topic
> 
> For whatever reason, strong, recognizable & MEMORABLE themes have become out of vogue. Without those themes, it is exactly what you said: aural wallpaper. Once in a while that can be interesting & serve the picture, and I'm certainly not suggesting every movie needs wall-to-wall themes... but at the end of the day, there's a reason everybody and their grandma can hum the Star Wars/E.T./Indy themes. The guy can write a melody & tug the heartstrings like nobody else.
> 
> Just my $.02, but only worth what you paid



+1 

I can`t say it better and this is what I always said. Some (young) composers have laughed at me. They say I have no idea of *modern* film music. :roll:


----------



## bluejay

mverta @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> Definitely about getting older. I'm almost an ancient, decrepit 38 years-old now and I pine - in my old, stogy way - for the days when there was [email protected]#king music in music. Now get off my lawn.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Ha, you kids don't know what it's like. I'm nearly 39!

Of course I completely agree with you about the current state of film music. I recently saw a very popular large blockbuster (or did I just dream it?) which appeared to be scored with two hours of overcompressed trailer music.


----------



## guayalex

Yeah I'm 32 now. I don't think it has something to do with getting older really. Of course its typical of older ones saying "Those good old days" but in this case we are making rather objective statements here o-[][]-o 

In my opinion/theory creativeness rises and falls like WAVES in periods of time. The perido from 1900 until 2000 was a HUGE Creative wave and no we are in the "low tide" phase! 

The low tide phase shows in some kind of recycling as well as highly "comercialized" art whatever "comercialized" means. It is not only film music but the wohle world of art which "suffers" from that "Low tide" phase cause as you can clearly seen every new song since 2000 and earlier is for example some kind of recycled 60er, 70er, 80er styled music. Every new film is more obviously recycled stuff (objectively provable) and NOT good recycles: Superman, A-Team (the new movie), Indiana Jones 4 (oh damn), even the new Star Wars Episodes for many fans are not precisely superior to the classic ones though Star Wars remains being one of the higlights yet. Where there are some VeRY suspenseful movies (maybe these days more suspenseful than ever) there is a total lack of good comedies. The last comedies I saw where mostly like heartless trailers. A bunch of scenes with accidents and an actual (bad) or old (good) pop song under it which doesn't help improving the fun. What Else: The least I am is a Fashion Expert and I don't need being one to see that these Days the fashion of 60ies, 70ies, 80ies or at least some elements are being recycled and kept (blue jeans) instead of seeing some really new inventions. Melodies like the ones from TITANIC are exceptional speeking of beautiful new melodies which everybody can sing and remember instantly 10 years after the movie. 

But I'm NOT pessimistic. I'm not saying that the good old days are over for ever ~o) No no. I think its a totally natural thing that after 100 years of such a creative big wave automatically a "low tide" a s I sayed has to follow. And it's ok after having had such good stuff. I love seeing movies from 1950 and apreciate old film music and old films generally more and more. There is good enough stuff from the old days which inspires us and which shortens the waiting time until the next creative wave. And maybe we might experience at least the begining of the next wave or may even initiate it! We're not thaaaaaat old et /\~O


----------



## JohnG

I think the pessimism is just a little overdone, as most scores at all times have been derivative and forgettable.

I have been enjoying some of the "smaller" scores that are out there -- not made for blockbusters (though I still enjoy some of the big and loud stuff too -- just listened again yesterday to Dark Knight and loved it). And HBO periodically uses score that slays me -- the Carnivale music by Jeff Beal is superb; small resources and enhances the freakiness of the show to the point of creating real discomfort.

Why Movies and Scores Stink

I don't know what the average cost of releasing a film is -- $40 mm? -- and that's divorced from the production costs. Ironically, the arrival of digital, which ought to have facilitated a resurgence of 1970s-auteur-style filmmaking has been accompanied by a huge rise in the cost of distribution. So, even as independent filmmakers have seen their production costs drop, this enormous figure for getting the film advertised and distributed creates fear and an excess of caution in those thinking of spending the money.

Fear and an excess of caution have never been good mates of creativity, of course. 

So, HBO, smaller films that manage to thread the needle -- I think that's where it's at.

(and, on another part of the thread, while I appreciated the film "There Will be Blood," like John dB (what awesome initials!), I also found the score stapled in and very distracting at times; liked the music, and appreciated the audacity, just not really the way it was shoe-horned into the film)


----------



## dcoscina

bluejay @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> mverta @ Mon Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely about getting older. I'm almost an ancient, decrepit 38 years-old now and I pine - in my old, stogy way - for the days when there was [email protected]#king music in music. Now get off my lawn.
> 
> 
> _Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, you kids don't know what it's like. I'm nearly 39!
> 
> Of course I completely agree with you about the current state of film music. I recently saw a very popular large blockbuster (or did I just dream it?) which appeared to be scored with two hours of overcompressed trailer music.
Click to expand...


I'm 42 you young whippersnapper!


----------



## dcoscina

I think getting older is really only part of it. I do think that us 40-somethings are part of a generation that was spoiled on the huge amount of great film music (70s through mid '90s). Of course we got used that sound and technique so it's natural to find current music wanting in that capacity.

However, I was listening to Thomas Newman's Revolutionary Road the other day and I love what he does with that simple motif by changing the harmony underneath. Some may say he's gotten stuck in a rut, but I love his use of harmony and rhythm. At one point, he seemed the most experimental of the mainstream composers. I wonder what a Thomas Newman "Inception" score would have been since he's really able to match the music to picture BUT still retain something of musical interest. 

I think his last loss at the Oscars really soured him. He looked visibly disgusted when Santaollala won his 2nd Oscar in a row. I would have been too.


----------



## JohnG

dcoscina @ 3rd August 2010 said:


> I think his last loss at the Oscars really soured him. He looked visibly disgusted when Santaollala won his 2nd Oscar in a row. I would have been too.



Ha!

I didn't see the shot of TN's face, but I don't blame him either. Comparing what Santaollala does with what Newman (any of the Newmans, actually) or Williams or even Elfman or Zimmer is just "Matisse vs. Rembrandt." Both require what I'd call "legitimate" visions / creative distillation, but the two differ more than they share, both in the process of creation and in the level of labour.


----------



## Ashermusic

Once again, the Oscar for Best Score is supposed to reflect the score that best served the film and is not a reflection on how it sounds on a CD or how unique and great it is as a musical work in and of itself.

That said, yes I think TN has been screwed a couple of times over the years by losing to scores that were not as well done, but like all awards, it is subjective.

As a young songwriter and a huge Bacharach-David fan, I was appalled when "The Look Of Love" lost to "Chim Chim Chiree" and "Alfie" lost to "Born Free" for Best SOng as it was clear to me the winning songs were inferior songs, but now when I look at it under the "how does the song serve the picture?" filter, I can at least make an argument for the choices, especially the second example, as "Alfie" was simply tacked on to the end of the film while "Born Free" played throughout the film.


----------



## handz

"While I agree with pretty much all of your sentiments David, it can all be summed up in that statement. Great melodies are simply not there anymore, with few exceptions. Maybe we are getting old, but I don't know, I'd be willing to bet it's MELODY that's missing these days. Of course, nobody's making movies anymore that need them, but that's another topic 

For whatever reason, strong, recognizable & MEMORABLE themes have become out of vogue. Without those themes, it is exactly what you said: aural wallpaper. Once in a while that can be interesting & serve the picture, and I'm certainly not suggesting every movie needs wall-to-wall "

Agree 100% Im 27 and I thought so 6 years ago, it have nothing to do with getting older. Good music and movies are long gone - in commercial sphere.


----------



## Ashermusic

handz @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> "While I agree with pretty much all of your sentiments David, it can all be summed up in that statement. Great melodies are simply not there anymore, with few exceptions. Maybe we are getting old, but I don't know, I'd be willing to bet it's MELODY that's missing these days. Of course, nobody's making movies anymore that need them, but that's another topic
> 
> For whatever reason, strong, recognizable & MEMORABLE themes have become out of vogue. Without those themes, it is exactly what you said: aural wallpaper. Once in a while that can be interesting & serve the picture, and I'm certainly not suggesting every movie needs wall-to-wall "
> 
> Agree 100% Im 27 and I thought so 6 years ago, it have nothing to do with getting older. Good music and movies are long gone - in commercial sphere.



I see good movies and hear good scores almost every week. A lot of the ones I like best however are coming out of the UK. They tend to be more about people and less about explosions.


----------



## Ashermusic

germancomponist @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Tue Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcoscina @ Tue Aug 03 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 42 you young whippersnapper!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oopsss, I am 48, am I a grandpa here? (o) :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 61. :(
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jay,
> 
> today in the radio they played "When I`m 64" from the Beatles. I love this song!
> 
> o-[][]-o
Click to expand...


Me too. Paul wrote that when he was about 15


----------



## Narval

Paul is an eternal 15. When he's not dead, that is.


----------



## mverta

I will say one thing about getting older - there is a level of musical sophistication and understanding that one simply can't get to without the maturation of years. You can't shortcut experience, now matter how talented you are. Some things simply take years or decades to get to, and I firmly believe that's one of the reasons that so many of the greats weren't writing their best work until 40+, with several finding their best strides in their 50's and 60's. It's one of the reasons I love composing - and especially orchestrating - so much: no matter how long I may pursue it, there will always be more mastery to attain; more secrets to discover; more gems to unearth.

_Mike


----------



## Dave Connor

If you consider the mentioned score Alex North's Sparticus, you have the work of an extraordinary musical mind combined with chops up and down and all around. Goldsmith, and Herrmann fall into that category and perhaps Morricone and others.

So here is what you're not hearing these days in comparison to (say) Alex North: The combination of creative genius _and_ stellar execution (orchestration, harmonization, performance) of the musical idea _and_ and uncanny insight into the medium of film. So maybe you get one or two out of three but rarely all three elements. Pardon my oversimplification but I think it is in fact something like this.

Can you or do you compare the current generation of film composers to say Stravinsky or Bartok or Britten, Copland etc? The old school film guys were outright world-class composers who understood film and even defined the genre but that also stood shoulder to shoulder with the legendary classical guys as pure composers. 

So you may have wonderful film scores today but are they works of genius on musical merit alone? There are things in Planet of The Apes (and other JG scores) not found in any works by the greatest composers of that century. Completely aside from any film considerations which in this case were landmarks in that art as well. 

I'm not saying there won't be other composers that change music (and film) itself but as terrific as some scores are these days, they don't seem to be breaking new ground in music and film simultaneously.


----------



## poseur

Dave Connor @ Tue Aug 03 said:


> _*The old school film guys*_ were outright world-class composers who understood film and even defined the genre but that _*also stood shoulder to shoulder with the legendary classical guys as pure composers*_.



hmmm.
huh.
not that it truly matters, but:
in most cases, i'd be likely to disagree, there,
albeit w/absolutely sincere & great respect.

d


----------



## Ashermusic

I am with Poseur on this one, Dave. I revere Jerry Goldsmith and the others you mention, but there is not a single score they wrote that is artistically on the same level as pure musical composition as i.e "Le Sacre Du Printemps" or "Daphnis and Chloe."

On your other point Dave, about the mastery of ALL three elements, I agree that the overall level of craft has indeed greatly diminished, mostly because it is no longer valued by producers and directors as a whole.

Also, to be fair, most of the guys you mentioned wrote at a time when the studios kept orchestrators, copyists, etc. on staff and every week the composers could hear their music well orchestrated performed by orchestras and today people simply do not get that opportunity. Henry Mancini describes it well is his sadly now out of print book "Did They Mention The Music?"

I studied with the great orchestrator Dr. Albert Harris and had you said to him that the film composers "stood shoulder to shoulder with the legendary classical guys as pure composers" he would have given you a very acerbic response.


----------



## Narval

I don't think Dave Connor's intention was to compare Paul Macca to Ludwig van B. Obviously, one was writing music for screaming girls. The other, for an eternal human and artistic ideal. Film composers write for films. Duh.


----------



## Dave Connor

Well I almost wrote a disclaimer in that post (about Stravinsky and Ravel) but I will make my point clearer when I come back later.


----------



## Dave Connor

My point is that historically in film you have people like Eric Korngold a world class composer with operas and other 'serious' works migrating to film. He was indeed 'shoulder to shoulder' with all the great composers of that day in that he was very highly regarded by the very best in the field. When Bruno Walter (Mahler's protege) hails you as a genius and is conducting your works you are established. It doesn't mean he was the most important, innovative etc., like Stravinsky but his compositional ability was above reproach. same with Miklas Roza who has marvelous serious works along with one of the greatest canons in all of film.

So Alex North, Goldsmith, Herrmann and the like (who all boast concert works) are composers who worked mainly in film but nonetheless have stature as outright composers right up there with the greats. All of them did things that those other composers never did (i.e. had their own voice.) I don't know what composers in film today have world class stature as composers. They may do a great job and interesting music etc., but the gap has widened and many people have observed this phenomenon.


----------



## DouglasGibsonComposer

It was an interesting study for me to go back and watch films like the original Robin Hood to study film scoring. One thing that wòý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬	ý:   ß¬
ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ý:   ß¬ ý:   ß¬!ý:   ß¬"ý:   ß¬#ý:   ß¬$ý:   ß¬%ý:   ß¬&ý:   ß¬'ý:   ß¬(ý:   ß¬)ý:   ß¬*ý:   ß¬+ý:   ß¬,ý:   ß¬-ý:   ß¬.ý:   ß¬/ý:   ß¬0ý:   ß¬1ý:   ß¬2ý:   ß¬3ý:   ß¬4ý:   ß¬5ý:   ß¬6ý:   ß¬7ý:   ß¬8ý:   ß¬9ý:   ß¬:ý:   ß¬;ý:   ß¬<ý:   ß¬=ý:   ß¬>ý


----------



## re-peat

Dave Connor @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> (...) Alex North, Goldsmith, Herrmann and the like (who all boast concert works) are composers who worked mainly in film but nonetheless have stature as outright composers right up there with the greats.


I’m affraid that you’re slightly (or perhaps wishfully) exaggerating the ‘world class stature’ of the filmcomposers which you mentioned, Dave. Neither Rósza, Herrmann, Steiner, Goldsmith or North are celebrated today (and will be remembered tomorrow) for their concert works. And if John Williams had only written his tuba-, violin- and bassoon concertos and little else beside, not a single person in the whole wide world — except maybe his teachers and a few close relatives — would ever have heard of him.

Even sadder, if you ask around in high-brow music circles, you’d find that there’s isn’t a single filmcomposer who’s been taken truly seriously, in a way that even minor classical composers are being taken seriously. Not one. (With the single exception of pre-Hollywood Korngold perhaps, but that’s before he became — or lapsed into becoming, as some would say — ‘a filmcomposer’, in other words.)

I heard an evaluation of John Williams’ output the other day, on our national classical radio station, òýn   ß¹·ýn   ß¹¸ýn   ß¹¹ýn   ß¹ºýn   ß¹»ýn   ß¹¼ýn   ß¹½ýn   ß¹¾ýn   ß¹¿ýn   ß¹Àýn   ß¹Áýn   ß¹Âýn   ß¹Ãýn   ß¹Äýn   ß¹Åýn   ß¹Æýn   ß¹Çýn   ß¹Èýn   ß¹Éýn   ß¹Êýn   ß¹Ëýn   ß¹Ìýn   ß¹Íýn   ß¹Îýn   ß¹Ïýn   ß¹Ðýn   ß¹Ñýn   ß¹Òýn   ß¹Óýn   ß¹Ôýn   ß¹Õýn   ß¹Öýn   ß¹×ýn   ß¹Øýn   ß¹Ùýn   ß¹Úýn   ß¹Ûýn   ß¹Üýn   ß¹Ýýn   ß¹Þýn   ß¹ßýn   ß¹àýn   ß¹áýn   ß¹âýn   ß¹ãýn   ß¹äýn   ß¹åýn   ß¹æýn   ß¹çýn   ß¹èýn   ß¹éýn   ß¹êýn   ß¹ëýn   ß¹ìýn   ß¹íýn   ß¹îýn   ß¹ïýn   ß¹ðýn   ß¹ñýn   ß¹òýn   ß¹óýn   ß¹ôýn   ß¹õýn   ß¹öýn   ß¹÷ýn   ß¹øýn   ß¹ùýn   ß¹úýn   ß¹ûýn   ß¹üýn   ß¹ýýn   ß¹þýn   ß¹ÿýn   ßº ýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßº	ýn   ßº
ýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßº ýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßºýn   ßº ýn   ßº!ýn   ßº"ýn   ßº#ýn   ßº$ýn   ßº%ýn   ßº&              òýn   ßº(ýn   ßº)ýn   ßº*ýn   ßº+ýn   ßº,ýn   ßº-ýn   ßº.ýn   ßº/ýn   ßº0ýn   ßº1ýn   ßº2ýn   ßº3ýn   ßº4ýn   ßº5ýn   ßº6ýn   ßº7ýo   ßº8ýo   ßº9ýo   ßº:ýo   ßº;ýo   ßº<ýo   ßº=ýo   ßº>ýo   ßº?ýo   ßº@ýo   ßºAýo   ßºBýo   ßºCýo   ßºDýo   ßºEýo   ßºFýo   ßºGýo   ßºHýo   ßºIýp   ßºJýp   ßºKýp   ßºLýp   ßºMýq   ßºNýq   ßºOýq   ßºPýq   ßºQýq   ßºRýq   ßºSýq   ßºTýq   ßºUýq   ßºVýq   ßºWýq   ßºXýq   ßºYýq   ßºZýq   ßº[ýq   ßº\ýq   ßº]ýq   ßº^ýq   ßº_ýq   ßº`ýq   ßºaýq   ßºbýq   ßºcýq   ßºdýq   ßºeýq   ßºfýq   ßºgýq   ßºhýq   ßºiýq   ßºjýq   ßºkýq   ßºlýq   ßºmýq   ßºnýq   ßºoýq   ßºpýq   ßºqýq   ßºrýq   ßºsýq   ßºtýq   ßºuýq   ßºvýq   ßºwýq   ßºxýq   ßºyýq   ßºzýq   ßº{ýq   ßº|ýq   ßº}ýq   ßº~ýq   ßºýq   ßº€ýq   ßºýq   ßº‚ýq   ßºƒýq   ßº„ýq   ßº…ýq   ßº†ýq   ßº‡ýq   ßºˆýq   ßº‰ýq   ßºŠýq   ßº‹ýq   ßºŒýq   ßºýq   ßºŽýq   ßºýq   ßºýq   ßº‘ýq   ßº’ýq   ßº“ýq   ßº”ýq   ßº•ýq   ßº–ýq   ßº—              òýq   ßº™ýq   ßºšýq   ßº›ýq   ßºœýq   ßºýq   ßºžýq   ßºŸýq   ßº ýq   ßº¡ýq   ßº¢ýq   ßº£ýq   ßº¤ýq   ßº¥ýq   ßº¦ýq   ßº§ýq   ßº¨ýq   ßº©ýq   ßºªýq   ßº«ýq   ßº¬ýq   ßº­ýq   ßº®ýq   ßº¯ýq   ßº°ýq   ßº±ýq   ßº²ýq   ßº³ýq   ßº´ýq   ßºµýq   ßº¶ýq   ßº·ýq   ßº¸ýq   ßº¹ýr   ßººýr   ßº»ýr   ßº¼ýr   ßº½ýs   ßº¾ýs   ßº¿ýs   ßºÀýs   ßºÁýs   ßºÂýs   ßºÃýs   ßºÄýs   ßºÅýs   ßºÆýs   ßºÇýs   ßºÈýs   ßºÉýs   ßºÊýs   ßºËýs   ßºÌýs   ßºÍýs   ßºÎýs   ßºÏýs   ßºÐýs   ßºÑýs   ßºÒýs   ßºÓýs   ßºÔýs   ßºÕýs   ßºÖýs   ßº×ýs   ßºØýs   ßºÙýs   ßºÚýs   ßºÛýs   ßºÜýs   ßºÝýs   ßºÞýs   ßºßýs   ßºàýs   ßºáýs   ßºâýs   ßºãýs   ßºäýs   ßºåýs   ßºæýs   ßºçýs   ßºèýs   ßºéýs   ßºêýs   ßºëýs   ßºìýs   ßºíýs   ßºîýs   ßºïýs   ßºðýs   ßºñýs   ßºòýs   ßºóýs   ßºôýs   ßºõýs   ßºöýs   ßº÷ýs   ßºøýs   ßºùýs   ßºúýs   ßºûýs   ßºüýs   ßºýýs   ßºþýs   ßºÿýs   ß» ýs   ß»ýs   ß»ýs   ß»


----------



## JohnG

re-peat, a genius post. All too true.

Many biographers treat even William Faulkner's foray into Hollywood, to pick an illuminating example, as a faintly embarrassing, sophomoric distraction from his serious work, prostituting his genius for the pettiest of consideration, money.

Not quite sure what critics do these days with Philip Glass, much of whose film music I think is superb, but then he's always suffered slightly from the taint of his work being popular outside the hallowed halls.

re-peat's analogy of a "farm horse...spotted at the Ascot Races" sums it up nicely. Film music is viewed as hack-work, intended to amuse 14-28 year olds, written in a desperate hurry by composers slavishly aping the work of others in order to appease their mountebank masters. 

And, for the most part, no wonder.

Part of the reason is that one's work in Hollywood -- Faulkner or Williams or anyone -- necessarily suffers from dilution by multiple opinions, and the made-to-order nature of the process. "Sure, the score feels a little uneven, but I had to write it in three weeks with six helpers, and the studio wanted Zimmer or Howard but couldn't get them, and they kept editing...."

Even outside Hollywood's opus, academics often view collaborations with horror, or at least disappointment; most professors are motivated in part by a genuine love of "the distilled genius" and, naturally, collaborations can't by definition offer that kind of purity. Shakespeare's Henry VIII, for example, is viewed as a frustration, given its provenance.

This is not to dispute Dave's and others' basic point of a loss of craft within film composing generally, with which I agree.


----------



## Hannes_F

re-peat, JohnG,

while I see where you are coming from ... let us stay reasonable. There is a reason why not only high-browed elitists but also down-to-earth musicians and sane music lovers make a distinction between film music and concert music ... and you do, too. Of course.

You will not find a single thread about film music in this forum without the comment that film music simply must work to the film, and the variety of people stating this goes from Jay Asher to narval, just to mention two poles that normally are diametrically opposite. But in that regard everybody agrees, and right so. Taking away the picture changes the conditions dramatically. 

Concert music, jazz, rock music and to an extent pop music too must tell their stories solely with musical means but since the focus is on the music itself it can do that to the heart's content. The attention span is much longer and the composer knew from the get-go that he/she was writing for an audience that came for enjoying and exploring _the music_ ... and for a whole evening. Add to that the fact that players ideally rehearse the work for weeks in order to work out an interpretation while film music more often than not is recorded after the second run-through ... if it is not entirely produced by a lonely guy after midnight that has to finish ten more minutes of music until tomorrow.

Those film composers that are able to be original and push the envelope or even change musical paradigms under these conditions are really admirable but rare. Ennio Morricone and John Barry would be on my list, also Hans Zimmer, but not necessarily John Williams, even if he is fantastic in his own way. 

There is some truth imo in the saying that the duration of a musical work in reality is the time that the composer invested to write it. Of course this is not strictly true but development and depth need time, that is for sure.

While I am amazed by the videos where folks quickly pile up layers of samples and produce music almost in real-time ... there _must _be a counter-movement to that. It is only natural.

A worthwhile read: The Discovery of Slowness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Discovery_of_Slowness
Slow Movement (you have probably heard about Slow Food)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Movement


----------



## bryla

I think people often forget (the pinky-raised bourgois snobs) that film music is just a modern drama medium. Before we had theatres, operas aso, where the music had the same role - it was just live. 

If Mozart lived in this day and age, he probably would have prefered to write film music instead of operas.

The composers writing for drama that is not a movie, even have the luxury of writing to the musics needs, where film music must be written to - well... the DRAMA's needs.


----------



## JohnG

Excellent one, Jay. Many trenchant observations.

One could perhaps quibble ever so slightly about whether there are _any_ examples of music written with significant independence from the film. I'm thinking of Peter Greenaway and Michael Nyman's collaborations. Maybe there are one or two others a bit like that (Kubrick and his musical material, though that's a different animal anyway), but I think you are right all around in all the main points.

By the way, apropos the Stravinsky interview, I personally don't know whether to really trust what he's saying. Clearly, he is owed some level of deference because of who he is, but I can't help wondering whether, conscious of the contempt in which film music is held, he isn't desperately seeking to dig as wide a moat as possible between his own programmatic works and film music.

And in part I wonder about that because I find much of his argument a little shrill and too cerebral to be wholly convincing:

"The dramatic impact of my Histoire du Soldat has been cited by various critics. There, too, the result was achieved, not by trying to write music which, in the background, tried to explain the dramatic action, or to carry the action forward descriptively, the procedure followed in the cinema. Rather was it the simultaneity of stage, narration, and music which was the object, resulting in the dramatic power of the whole. Put music and drama together as individual entities, put them together and let them alone, without compelling one to try to "explain" and to react to the other."

"To borrow a term from chemistry: my ideal is the chemical reaction, where a new entity, a third body, results from uniting two different but equally important elements, music and drama; it is not the chemical mixture where, as in the films, to the preordained whole just the ingredient of music is added, resulting in nothing either new or creative. The entire working methods of dramatic film exemplify this. "

-- Igor Stravinsky


----------



## lux

re-peat said:


> consider the pre-1995 Williams one of the major composers of the 20th century



this fits exactly my thought. In general you made lot of good points.


----------



## Ashermusic

lux @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> re-peat said:
> 
> 
> 
> consider the pre-1995 Williams one of the major composers of the 20th century
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this fits exactly my thought. In general you made lot of good points.
Click to expand...


Nobocy but nobody respects John Williams more than I do. He is not only one of the major _film_ composers of the 20th century but one of the major _commercial_ composers of the 20th century.

But he is not, nor would I suspect that he would claim to be as he is refreshingly humble, one of the major _artistic_ composers of the 20th century. That status must be reserved for the guys like Stravinsky, Ravel, Milhaud, Webern, Berio, Stockhausen, etc. of the world.


----------



## dcoscina

I think where discussion about the quality of music for film gets off track is when seasoned film composers (on this forum) rightly point out the pragmatics of existing in that world today. When I scored little films, I found I had to compromise because that was part of the art form- film music is not absolute music, although when you listen to North or classic Williams, it sounds very much like it has its own narrative logic apart from the visuals. This is what distinguishes the form today from yesteryear. I have no doubt that guys on this forum have chops plus but may only be able to apply 30% of that skill because the director/employer wants a MV-RC style which doesn't utilize all of the skills they learned formally. 

I have really enjoyed reading the responses to this thread though. Everyone has been very intellectual and articulate (and level headed) about this. My philosophy background compels me often to talk in abstracts so I do separate the practicalities of film music with the higher aesthetic. I know it's not really possible to do this for the reasons I outlined above, but I think all things considered, everyone on this thread was able to remove the logistics of the art-form and talk about the music itself. Thanks gents! A lot to posit. 

David


----------



## Ashermusic

JohnG @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> E
> By the way, apropos the Stravinsky interview, I personally don't know whether to really trust what he's saying. Clearly, he is owed some level of deference because of who he is, but I can't help wondering whether, conscious of the contempt in which film music is held, he isn't desperately seeking to dig as wide a moat as possible between his own programmatic works and film music.
> 
> And in part I wonder about that because I find much of his argument a little shrill and too cerebral to be wholly convincing:
> 
> "The dramatic impact of my Histoire du Soldat has been cited by various critics. There, too, the result was achieved, not by trying to write music which, in the background, tried to explain the dramatic action, or to carry the action forward descriptively, the procedure followed in the cinema. Rather was it the simultaneity of stage, narration, and music which was the object, resulting in the dramatic power of the whole. Put music and drama together as individual entities, put them together and let them alone, without compelling one to try to "explain" and to react to the other."
> 
> "To borrow a term from chemistry: my ideal is the chemical reaction, where a new entity, a third body, results from uniting two different but equally important elements, music and drama; it is not the chemical mixture where, as in the films, to the preordained whole just the ingredient of music is added, resulting in nothing either new or creative. The entire working methods of dramatic film exemplify this. "
> 
> -- Igor Stravinsky



Oh yeah, big time John. Stravinsky was an ass, not a nice man, and fiercely competitive. 

But his point is that the minute music is created with a picture in mind, be it film or descriptors, it stars of necessity to be shaped by it so that it is no longer entirely free to go wherever it wants to go, and that limits its artistic potential.


----------



## lux

Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> lux @ Fri Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat said:
> 
> 
> 
> consider the pre-1995 Williams one of the major composers of the 20th century
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this fits exactly my thought. In general you made lot of good points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobocy but nobody respects John Williams more than I do. He is not only one of the major _film_ composers of the 20th century but one of the major _commercial_ composers of the 20th century.
> 
> But he is not, nor would I suspect that he would claim to be as he is refreshingly humble, one of the major _artistic_ composers of the 20th century. That status must be reserved for the guys like Stravinsky, Ravel, Milhaud, Webern, Berio, Stockhausen, etc. of the world.
Click to expand...


i entirely disagree with this statement, sorry. He just lived in a world where there wasnt a place for orchestral composers outside the screen. You cant blame him for that.

Actually he is one of the most relevant orchestral composers of the 20th century. refusing him that deserved place just because of different forms doesnt sound a good idea in general.

Of course judging artistic merits is often a matter of personal points of view, i accept that. None of your mentioned "deserved" composers had just positive reviews at their times. How much guys like Tchajcovsky were heavily bashed is known history

Luca


----------



## Hannes_F

John, this discussion is interesting insofar as I would consider you are one of the few film composers here that chop-wise would actually be able to write for concert, too. If that is something spooking around in your mind I'd say give it a go in extra projects. Really.


----------



## lux

is concert form really important today? Are we sure that there arent other chances to get works having an own life out of giving them a concert form? Just wondering


----------



## re-peat

Hannes,

A lot of interesting things have been written since my previous post in this thread but before I continue, I have to say that I’m with John in not quite understanding what you were getting at earlier, or which point precisely you were replying to.

Anyway, here’s my answer to your statement that, surely, _everyone distinguishes between concert music and filmmusic_. And I do too of course, you said. Well, no, to be honest. When I listen to what I consider great music, I don’t really take into consideration why or when or in which circumstances it was written, even though I’m obviously quite aware that, in the case of filmmusic or incidental music for the theatre or whatever, the extra-musical context did play a fundamental role in the creation of the music.

I’ve always listened to “Jaws 1 & 2” in exactly the same way as I listen to Debussy’s “La Mer”, seriously. (In fact, as an aside, it is my conviction that there’s a magnificent “Sea Suite’ lurking inside the combined music for those two movies, a work which would have been a splendid contribution to the concert repertoire of the 20th century, every bit as powerful and lasting as, say, Benjamin Britten’s “Four Sea Interludes” from his “Peter Grimes”.) 
“Objective, Burma!”, to give another example, is simply stunning music to me. _I’ve never even seen the film._ (And the list of filmmusic which I treasure immensely _without ever having seen the films it was written for_, is pretty extensive, I might add. And so is the list of filmmusic which was written for films that mean absolutely nothing to me, but that's not unusual I guess.)

To arrive at two more recent examples: I fully enjoy the works of Thomas Newman and Jon Brion for purely musical reasons. I buy their soundtrack albums — often long before I might decide to watch the movie — only because it’s their music, not because it’s filmmusic.

In my record collection, Williams sits next to Walton and Goldsmith next to Grieg. Herrmann close to Handel, Fielding next to Françaix and Broughton right beside Brahms. It’s all great music to me.

I obviously agree that ‘filmmusic must work in the film’ but, between you and me, I find that a statement of such lame self-evidence that it would never even cross my mind to use it as an argument for, or against, the quality of the music under consideration. Like John already said: music for an opera must also ‘work for the opera’, no? Music for the ballet must also support a story (or a sequence of scenes) and be somewhat danceable at the same time. Should that be considered a limiting factor? Is "Petruschka" inherently flawed because it was written for the stage? I don’t think so. Bach’s many cantata’s also ‘had to work’ for the services for which they were written. And yet, he wrote some of his most enduring music for these occasions. (Many a frustrated filmcomposer might take an example here. The professional workload and pressures that Bach had to surmount were, as you undoubtedly know, infinitely greater than the circumstances which are considered numbingly stressful today.) I mean, if you deem yourself equipped and fit to write filmmusic and have a bit of self-respect, then accept the consequences of the commitment, tackle the challenge with pride, and don’t hide behind the pathetic excuse that the idiom only allows for so much.

Having said that, filmmusic does have one serious Achilles-heel which often prevents it from being able to blossom into ‘abstract musical greatness’ in that it rarely can benefit from, or build on ‘musical development’ and musical development is indeed one of the most powerful tools to give music its identity, form, structure and depth. Then again, someone like Stravinsky couldn’t care less for ‘development’ — he had no real interest in it whatsoever — and that didn’t stop him from writing some of the greatest music ever written.

And finally, but no longer specifically addressed to you: I strongly disagree with any statement, even one attributed to Stravinsky himself, that says that _“the minute music is created with a picture in mind, be it film or descriptors, it starts of necessity to be shaped by it so that it is no longer entirely free to go wherever it wants to go, and that limits its artistic potential.”_ I really don’t think so. Greatness lies not in complete and unrestrained freedom, greatness only appears in imposed limitation, whatever the nature or form of the restriction may be. We have a proverb in Dutch (Flemish, to be more accurate) that says something like “only when constrained, a true master will show himself”. I’m sure there’s a proper English equivalent for this. To use Stravinsky again as an illustration: "The Sacre" and the aforementioned "Petruschka", to name just two works, were both VERY MUCH conceived with strictly defined visuals (sets, costumes, choreography) and an equally constraining story-line. I find it hard to maintain, even on the most abstract musical grounds, that either of these works didn't fully realize their 'artistic potential'.

_


----------



## Ashermusic

lux @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> i agree. Nothing shared enough to discuss further.



And btw, I did not mean that as a putdown to anyone. Is just my experience that no meaningful discussion can happen between people who do not share some basic assumptions to work from.


----------



## lux

no worries, i got the sense. we dont share those assumptions, so youre probably right about lack of reasons for further discussing.


----------



## Dave Connor

re-peat @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Dave Connor @ Fri Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) Alex North, Goldsmith, Herrmann and the like (who all boast concert works) are composers who worked mainly in film but nonetheless have stature as outright composers right up there with the greats.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m affraid that you’re slightly (or perhaps wishfully) exaggerating the ‘world class stature’ of the filmcomposers which you mentioned, Dave. Neither Rósza, Herrmann, Steiner, Goldsmith or North are celebrated today (and will be remembered tomorrow) for their concert works.
Click to expand...


Actually re-peat my point in the main is their compositional chops not there importance as composers in the concert world. These guys are not in some distant place in their command of composition. There music isn't a pseudo rendition of compositional technique (everywhere in film now) it is on a very high level - a world class level. This is the sea change in film and what I'm pointing to as contributing to the boredom the thread title suggests.


----------



## re-peat

Dave Connor @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Actually re-peat my point in the main is their compositional chops not there importance as composers in the concert world. These guys are not in some distant place in their command of composition. There music isn't a pseudo rendition of compositional technique (everywhere in film now) it is on a very high level - a world class level. This is the sea change in film and what I'm pointing to as contributing to the boredom the thread title suggests.



Very true, Dave. (It would be a first if I ever found myself disagreeing with you on anything music-related.) So yes, I already more or less knew that this was what you were saying earlier on, but that particular post of yours — that one sentence of it anyway — triggered me into thinking a bit along slightly diverging lines, hence my previous reply. Sorry for appearing to be misinterpretative there.

_


----------



## lux

why arent they recognized as they should be and how that affects the future of orchestral music and its diffusion? 

I personally think that at this point having an elitist approach and closing the door to a good number of orchestral masters of the 20th century carries the risk to probably place a step to a long term extintion of orchestral music in its best fashion.

Yes, classic repertoire will always be performed. But the more we go ahead in time, the absence of "contemporary" orchestral composers recognized, the less people working and living the orchestra as an expression and composing tool, the less people and youngs used to orchestral listening. Not a nice scenario.

So probably disclosing the mind to the unavoidable evolution orchestral music (mostly in his forms and performance praxis) had in the last century takes a certain importance in my vision.


----------



## Guy Bacos

We have to face that the craft is totally different between film music and concert music. In general concert music does not make good film music and vice versa. Film music has all its value and meaning when played with the film, with some exceptions like always. Would it stand on its own in a concert hall like Ravel's music? No, it wouldn't, again with some exceptions. It would of been interested to have had a 20th century without films, we could of really seen which composers stand out. As it is we have a blurred vision of good music influenced by the success of a film and how it brainwashes our good taste. When a composer composes for concert music purposes he is forced to be much more imaginative since the music must hold on its own from A to Z. I think on short term, the film composers will benefit of a greater popularity and income, but on the long term, it is the music that will stand on its own and with some originality that will shine more while the rest will slowly fade away.

My 2 cents.


----------



## re-peat

I really do fail to understand why some of you seem to think that the limitations of the film medium are such a merciless and uniquely destructive quality-killer for the music. Me, I don’t see ANY musical or non-musical reason why movies can’t have truly, truly great music. 
Is it perhaps because the filmcomposer has to take into account that after the next bar, he (or she) has to start working towards a climaxing tutti, or because, for the past minute, he (or she) had to subdue the music because of the dialogue? Or because the action forces him (or her) to revert to ostinato-driven rhythms? 
Seriously, every composer who’s serious about his or her art, faces these kinds of limitations, in almost every work. It’s not because the restraints appear to be coming from somewhere outside the music — storyline, montage, sound fx, … — that they are fundamentally different from the restraints which are imposed by the organic flow or the structure coming from within, or the limitations imposed by the formal or dramaturgical requirements of a piece.

The sonata form, or the fugue, the multi-movement structure of a symphony, or the plot of a ballet, or the range of a specific singer, or the required solemn character of a Mass, or the expectations awaiting a Viennese walz, … all these things pose every bit as many challenges to a composer’s creativity than whatever limitations a filmscore might have.

Is the “Rhapsody in Blue” a more artistically realized and therefore greater work than “Porgy & Bess”, since it has to deal with far less structural and dramaturgical restrictions? Few, I think, would agree. I certainly wouldn’t.

There’s bloody fabulous music written for films, in the past as well as today, music quite easily of the quality, depth and profundity of large chunks of the established concert repertoire. There is absolutely no reason or argument, it seems to me, to doubt that this choice (to write great music for films) was not always there and won’t continue to be there tomorrow.

_


----------



## Dave Connor

re-peat @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> So yes, I already more or less knew that this was what you were saying earlier on, but that particular post of yours — that one sentence of it anyway — triggered me into thinking a bit along slightly diverging lines, hence my previous reply. Sorry for appearing to be misinterpretative there.



Yes my fault, it was very poorly worded so almost everyone had a problem with it and understandably so.


----------



## lux

i wonder what operas like

- Adventure on earth
- The Great Shark Chase
- Man against beast
- High school teacher
- Suite from Encounters

just to name a very few, have in detriment in order to gain the status of vibrant and sophisticated modern orchestral operas. I've seen performed operas from classical repertoire which are by far less interesting.


----------



## synergy543

re-peat @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> I really do fail to understand why some of you seem to think that the limitations of the film medium are such a merciless and uniquely destructive quality-killer for the music. Me, I don’t see ANY musical or non-musical reason why movies can’t have truly, truly great music.


It is because *in most cases*, music is not only dictated by the film, but the music is an after thought and a second-class citizen to the film. Whereas with a Stravinsky or Prokofiev ballet, the music was very much a part of the process from the beginning and and very much an equal to the visuals in terms of the importance put upon it during production. Plus, limited-time alloted for production and tight budgets also make it more difficult for film music to achieve equal craftsmanship as put into concert music.


----------



## lux

ok but that cannot be applied to some of the mentioned composers like Rozla, Hermann, Goldsmith, Williams. People whose creative contrinbution to the final opera is not less admirable than Prokofiev's or Copland's ballet effort imo.


----------



## synergy543

That's why I put "in most cases" in bold.

However, I wonder what is different in those exceptions? Is it the composer only, or was more emphasis and time placed on the music?

Certainly if you go back to the 40s and 50s you'll find music with 'generally' higher production quality in terms of composition and orchestration. Such as this example by Roemheld in 1939:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF5ddkCyxBo

Certainly part of it is stylistic of the period, however I wonder if another part may be that they didn't have technology to rely upon other than their instruments and basic recording gear?

Also, I wonder how they did music, SFX, and dialog back in 1939?


----------



## lux

good questions. Really that would worth a thought.

hard to tell. My impression is that it has more to do with the industry changing than with the inner quality of the composers. 

Its like directors and other people involved in the industry once enjoyed much more the "art" as it came out.

If i think to how George Lucas or Steven Spielberg described the efforts received by John Williams to their movies i could clearly recognize a light in their eyes, like someone whos really enjoying the works more than just considering how they match the movie or the target audience.

its like art enriching art. Exponential.


----------



## synergy543

lux @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> My impression is that it has more to do with the industry changing than with the inner quality of the composers.


In the past though, composers (and all people) generally had less distractions. News wasn't broadcast every second, they had no cell phones, no twitter, no talk radio, cable TV, etc. When Stravinsky went to work everymorning there wasn't a lot between him and his piano, pencil, and paper. He didn't have to check his e-mail, fuss with his computer, check for new sound library offers, try to get Logic hooked up with Bidule, etc., worry about the balance of the latest mix, try to get Sibelius to playback properly, etc. 

Clearly today composers wear many more hats. And there is a price we all pay.

Someone called me the other day and asked if I'd heard of this program called "Garage Band". They heard wonderful things about it and people were composing great music on it. Today, everyone's a composer and it seems many can't tell the difference in quality between someone goofing in Garage Band and a composer who's spent his life studying and writing music. For me, this experience was sort of a "sign of the times". btw, the person calling me was a doctor. My response was: "Well, every since the internet came along, everyone suddenly became a doctor too".


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> I really do fail to understand why some of you seem to think that the limitations of the film medium are such a merciless and uniquely destructive quality-killer for the music. Me, I don’t see ANY musical or non-musical reason why movies can’t have truly, truly great music.
> Is it perhaps because the filmcomposer has to take into account that after the next bar, he (or she) has to start working towards a climaxing tutti, or because, for the past minute, he (or she) had to subdue the music because of the dialogue? Or because the action forces him (or her) to revert to ostinato-driven rhythms?
> Seriously, every composer who’s serious about his or her art, faces these kinds of limitations, in almost every work. It’s not because the restraints appear to be coming from somewhere outside the music — storyline, montage, sound fx, … — that they are fundamentally different from the restraints which are imposed by the organic flow or the structure coming from within, or the limitations imposed by the formal or dramaturgical requirements of a piece.
> 
> The sonata form, or the fugue, the multi-movement structure of a symphony, or the plot of a ballet, or the range of a specific singer, or the required solemn character of a Mass, or the expectations awaiting a Viennese walz, … all these things pose every bit as many challenges to a composer’s creativity than whatever limitations a filmscore might have.
> 
> Is the “Rhapsody in Blue” a more artistically realized and therefore greater work than “Porgy & Bess”, since it has to deal with far less structural and dramaturgical restrictions? Few, I think, would agree. I certainly wouldn’t.
> 
> There’s bloody fabulous music written for films, in the past as well as today, music quite easily of the quality, depth and profundity of large chunks of the established concert repertoire. There is absolutely no reason or argument, it seems to me, to doubt that this choice (to write great music for films) was not always there and won’t continue to be there tomorrow.
> 
> _




Yes, there is fabulous music in film music, I wasn't debating that at all. But I maintain my position about music specifically written for concert music. It's not about the structure only, it's about music that holds on its own and with much originality from A to Z. I'd rather go to a concert hall to hear Rhapsody in Blues (a concert piece) than Star Wars, even though I'd enjoy hearing Star Wars live very much.


----------



## DouglasGibsonComposer

I hope I am not going too off topic. One thing that strikes me as a possible factor in all of this is that Orchestra's today are "late adopters" of music period. Some people still think, as genius as they were, that Stavinsky and Ravel are modern. It might be an interesting question to ask which 10 living composers of modern concert music will we hear in the next 100 years. Often there is a huge drop off in peoples response after naming 3 or 4. Typically it could go John Adams, John Corigliano, Philip Glass ..........ahhh... ahh. Sadly, not many people can even name 10 living orchestral "concert music" composers.

The point I am trying to make is wether you consider yourself a concert writer or a film composer it is really tough to get orchestra's to play your music. I have been lucky to have 3 major orchestras play my music, but they always have segregated them to "New Music" concerts. 

You never know however what the future holds. I have been hearing about concerts were they are playing video game music and selling like 10,000 tickets. I saw that there is a tour of Lord of the Rings. Who know. Academically, I don't think Video or Film music will ever be embraced. But film and video composers don't seem to care about that, and vice versa.

Mind you, I overall agree and would echo the same thoughts as most of you have made. This all is just a side thought. I would have to say that using the line of thought Dave has put forth, John Williams is a master of the craft. Not his biggest fan aesthetically, but this guy is so good from a craft point of view. A master. A friend of mine told me about studying with John Williams at Tanglewood a number of years back. He said he walked into the room with his cue, and John is sitting there waiting for him, and asks to see his music. He looks around : No piano, no CD player just a film projector. John takes the sheet music, starts the film with one eye on the paper the other on the film. Stops the film and says " Here is where you go wrong." Sings back exactly what my friend wrote, sings back what he thinks should be there instead (mind you all inner voices of an orchestral score) and breaks into a discussion on Jungian psychology and archetypes and how this influences he approach to film scoring etc. He said he walked out of there completely blown away by how good he was.


----------



## JohnG

lux @ 6th August 2010 said:


> Its like directors and other people involved in the industry once enjoyed much more the "art" as it came out.



Few directors and producers with whom I've worked have spent much time attending orchestral concerts, opera, plays -- entertainment besides movies that involved an orchestra. 

In fact, since many of them "grow up" in their careers with synth scores, I find I'm frequently one of the first, if not the first composers they've seen use live instruments. Once they hear that they are hooked; and they are definitely a lot more impressed that one can drive a small orchestra than use ProTools.


----------



## lux

JohnG @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> lux @ 6th August 2010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its like directors and other people involved in the industry once enjoyed much more the "art" as it came out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Few directors and producers with whom I've worked have spent much time attending orchestral concerts, opera, plays -- entertainment besides movies that involved an orchestra.
> 
> In fact, since many of them "grow up" in their careers with synth scores, I find I'm frequently one of the first, if not the first composers they've seen use live instruments. Once they hear that they are hooked; and they are definitely a lot more impressed that one can drive a small orchestra than use ProTools.
Click to expand...


well i was more referring to the artistic side of a work. Its like once they just listened more the music. Its hard to explain in english. Its like great artists meeting together and respecting eachother work and abilities and often wondering positively about how much art and nice quality comes out from respective efforts.

All the technicalities, the real orchestras versus computers, and how much a director can be fashinated from one or another its just incidental imo.

But it is at the same time a sign of the times. Times where a "composer" is able to impress a director for being able to use at best the machine. to hit the buttons. Stuff which we all made at the very beginning of the personal computer era to impress the chickens is still working today. But it doesnt pertain to art, but the ability to appear as a good and collaborative worker. 

Which should be just an attachment of being a fuckin talented composer probably.


----------



## JohnG

I wasn't clear before -- sorry. 

I didn't mean to suggest that they are more impressed because of the technical aspects of conducting and communicating and working with an orchestra -- the opposite. Indeed, the fact that working with an orchestra depends on communication and direction is much more impressive to directors than technological or "technical" mastery. 

I think, possibly, this is because their own jobs are more like that. Like us, they use technology in their work, but the key to their jobs is the ability to draw some kind of artistic expression from human beings. When they see a composer doing that, they are impressed. Plus, ironically, the imperfections of initial performances and the back-and-forth between conductor and players allows more time for the director to fall in love, and to witness first-hand the subtle changes one makes in performance, changes that alter the music in important ways.

So I wasn't clearly expressing that distinction before -- technology versus orchestra. In fact, I think it's a big deal because of this distinction. While I'm demo-ing synth versions of cues, I wonder whether some directors privately think "if I had all that gear, I might be able to write music" if it's only synths. 

By contrast, only a fool could be confused into thinking that directing a real orchestra is something you could pick up in a couple of months from a manual, like Final Cut Pro or something.


----------



## lux

naw thats me which doesnt get a word decently 

thanks for clarifying...i understand your point now


----------



## stevenson-again

> I really do fail to understand why some of you seem to think that the limitations of the film medium are such a merciless and uniquely destructive quality-killer for the music. Me, I don’t see ANY musical or non-musical reason why movies can’t have truly, truly great music.



furthermore there is nothing to stop the composer rearranging the music into a more satisfying form once the its done its job in the film.

i agree with re-peat 100%. 

art occurs when some one experiences an emotional response to it. there are many layers and shades of emotional response which is why we like to distinguish between 'great' art and 'not-so-great' art. some of the most extraordinary moments, the most emotional and fascinating and novel experiences i have ever had in music have been responses i have had to film music. i cherish them as greatly or even more greatly than anything from the classical oeuvre - or anything i have experienced in concert.

its in the eye of the beholder, the ear of the listener. i chose to follow film music as a career when a concert music career was beginning to form because simply i felt more rewarded emotionally from music i heard in the film context. there are some incredibly talented composers writing absolutely extraordinary music and while it may not always be in the context of a traditional concert hall - if i have a sincere artistic response to it then i regard it as art.

i seek those moments where-ever i can find them, and i certainly don't limit myself to the concert hall. case in point; when my wife was pregnant i would drive her down to her yoga classes, and there was a irish pub nearby i would have a drink at while waiting for her. one night a bunch of irish guys came in sat round a table, took out their instruments and had an impromptu ceilidh. i came out of that pub tears of joy streaming down my face, completely blown away. i felt at that moment my notions of what constituted great music up until that point were utter wank.

eventually i reminded myself that i had had similar experiences in the concert hall too. i just stopped trying only to find them there.


----------



## Hardy Heern

I'm afraid film music is rather like the plate you eat your meal from in that fine restuarant.....you don't always notice it. It has to be _outstanding _to be memorable.

I find a lot of current film music to be 'me too' formulaic; and there's very little invention. This is proven as forums have sections or posts entitled 'Film music'; that in itself shows that it's become generic and people actually expect music of a certain type when they hear it. 

By invention or cleverness I don't mean making it discordant or harmonically jarring....that's easy. It may be 'different', true, but it's unpalatable to most...and that's why it's not popular in the mass market and surely most people writing film music want to be 'successful' and that does mean appealing to the mass market....I'm afraid. If you don't believe in this then you'd better compose as a hobby as you're not going to convert the masses.

What's _not _so easy is to make original, structured, developed and variational beautiful music. It's _still _possible if you're a _genuine _genius. It _hasn't _ALL been done as someone will prove again...and that's using the time honoured sound and scale pallet too.

What tickles me is that every so often someone comes along...using _all _the same sounds, which have been around for years and years and are _still _available to everyone, and does something _special _with them.

Abba is just one example of one of these happy occurrences.....and little could they have known what successful film music it would become too  .

Some of the best 'film music' has been where top notch and carefully selected classical pieces and/or pop pieces are juxtaposed. (that's a very big word...for me).

At the end of the day you really cannot beat a good tune with a good arrangement whether it's in the classical or pop vein or whatever.

It doesn't _have _to be complicated either....now _there's _the art and skill..... to really *move *people with simplicity....eg Ray Davies' latest variation on Days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcZNOdXcUSY

or what about Sinead O'Connors' 'Nothing compares 2 U' 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTQvT0W_0

In our heart of hearts we can all recognise those pieces of, both pop and classical, music where genius or in some cases, serendipity, has struck. 

When you listen to these simple 'tunes' or melodies, you think that's so simple...I must be able to write a 'hit' like that........but it's, actually, almost _impossibly _difficult.....unless you are _'touched' _, by genius or serendipity, at the time or writing and arranging.

Interesting thread Dcoscina! Thank you.


----------



## muk

In my opinion music should not be judged by the feeling it evokes. Feelings are subjective, musical quality is not (or at least only to a certain degree). I could list many pieces of classical music I personally find plainly boring but I do accept as great music. Contrary there's a lot of music that many people judge as plainly georgeuos but that is just made up of 32 repetitions of a simple cadenza. To put it harshly: pretty sounding crap. It might be nicely done but it's not art.
So neither the reaction of the listeners nor the notion of beauty can be used to determine if a piece of music is art or not. A lot of classical music doesn't want to be beautiful and is art nonetheless. It is far more difficult to determine which criterion can be used to distinguish between art-music and non-art. Craftmanship is a requirement but it is not sufficient (this is generally used to distinguish between the Kleinmeister (e.g. Stamitz, Wagenseil, Fasch and many more) and the ones who entered the canon.

Again, in my opinion there is no single criterion that can be used for this distinction. However, I think that thorough musical analysis of a piece of music can show whether it's "art" or not. If you analyse pop songs or film music most part of it might be good craftmanship, but it's not art-music. Most pop music relies on the simple construction plan of a beautiful melody (the refrain) and somewhat contrasting verses. That's not enough to be art eventhough it might be beautiful. Formally, most popsongs are very similar, because they are built around a very simple scheme of refrain and verse, sometimes with an intervening bridge or something. Look at classical sonata forms. Eventhough this is a much more sophisticated form by itself (well, the underlying idea. There is no such sing as *the* sonata form), no two pieces have an identical form. That's because there are sophisticated things you can do with the tradition of this form.

So I guess, in my opinion much of the film music today wouldn't be very interesting to analyse. It doesn't try to develop the art of music any further, it's just evoking certain moods (and that's it's job of course. It doesn't have to be art-music by all means). As Beethoven put it: to further advance, to evolve is the goal of art.
I hope that nobody takes offence, it's just my personal opinion. And sorry for the long post


----------



## jlb

Does anyone else buy this '_the music is only doing it's job if you don't notice it_' thing. I have never bought it myself.


jlb


----------



## mverta

No. There are times it's supposed to shine in the foreground, if the director says so. Spielberg says so, often. Ultimately, film music is mastery when it equally serves the triple masters of the director's dramatic intent, the legitimacy of academic review, and the emotional connection with the audience.

One is free to play with the definition of "great" film music all day and night if one wants to, but _enduring_ film music can stand on its own. This is the work still being performed to capacity crowds at symphonic venues -most of which was written in the 80's by a handful of guys. It is music which managed this triple feat.


_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos

Generally speaking, concert music has more depth than film music, one of the reasons, and a very important reason, is that film music will ALWAYS be slave to what pleases the audience and director. With concert music the composer will challenge with more audacity and originality the audience, mind you 90% of todays concert music I don't like, and I'm probably more a fan of film music, but that doesn't stop me from thinking this way. Gerswhin is a prime example, he had the choice of writing musicals and show tunes all his life and assure himself of lots of money, but after a while he preferred to take the direction of the concert music and we are very fortunate he did otherwise we would of never had An American in Paris, Rhapsody in Blues, Porgy and Bess etc... Of course his show tunes are gorgeous but they are not of the same grandeur as a concert symphonic work. And let's not forget that it is the concert works that have had the greatest influence on film music, which must indicate some depth.


----------



## Narval

I'm bored with techno. I like tango.


----------



## lux

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Generally speaking, concert music has more depth than film music, one of the reasons, and a very important reason, is that film music will ALWAYS be slave to what pleases the audience and director.



Actually some of the best operas performed and acclaimed taken from the classical repertoire have been created to please Kings, Queens, Patronizers, Critiques, Publishers, Dictators, Dad, Mom, Priests... The more you name the best.

I'm honestly not sure i get how pleasing a director or a generically defined "audience" would make such a big difference from all the "please the boss" praxis that made the music history as beautiful as it is now.


----------



## mverta

It doesn't. This idea that so many of the great composers of yesteryear were writing from some lofty perch of purity is apocryphal. It's an idea co-opted and corrupted by academics to justify their "artistically pure," boring, sterile music. Most great pieces were written from a "commercial" sensibility - to please an audience/to be popular. There was a time when the concept of making as wide a contribution through your work as possible wasn't seen as mutually exclusive with artistic value - in fact, it was regarded as the noble reason for the pursuit.


_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> It doesn't. This idea that so many of the great composers of yesteryear were writing from some lofty perch of purity is apocryphal. It's an idea co-opted and corrupted by academics to justify their "artistically pure," boring, sterile music. Most great pieces were written from a "commercial" sensibility - to please an audience/to be popular. There was a time when the concept of making as wide a contribution through your work as possible wasn't seen as mutually exclusive with artistic value - in fact, it was regarded as the noble reason for the pursuit.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Mike, with all due respect, didn't I just give an example with Gershwin? I'm sure I could find loads of examples as well from the past to prove my point. I think what you're saying is true, but don't you think there are nuances here and degrees of commercialism? You just can't put it all in the same bag.


----------



## mverta

Guy - I think you and I could argue that semantically for all eternity, and never be able to say we'd nailed it absolutely. But I DO suspect we have slightly different views on the depth possible in film music. I personally believe that the best film music is concert-like in its sophistication. In any case, we essentially agree!

_Mike


----------



## Narval

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> This idea that so many of the great composers of yesteryear were writing from some lofty perch of purity is apocryphal. It's an idea co-opted and corrupted by academics to justify their "artistically pure," boring, sterile music. Most great pieces were written from a "commercial" sensibility - to please an audience/to be popular. There was a time when the concept of making as wide a contribution through your work as possible wasn't seen as mutually exclusive with artistic value - in fact, it was regarded as the noble reason for the pursuit.


Then what ensures artistic value? Actually, what is artistic value? And who needs it? And those who need it, how do they recognize it when they "see" it?


----------



## mverta

Yeah, good luck with that. I'll be at the piano. 

_Mike


----------



## Narval

Piano is a very useful instrument.


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Guy - I think you and I could argue that semantically for all eternity, and never be able to say we'd nailed it absolutely. But I DO suspect we have slightly different views on the depth possible in film music. I personally believe that the best film music is concert-like in its sophistication. In any case, we essentially agree!
> 
> _Mike



You're right, we could argue that semantically for ever. I'm just pissed off because I have to go to the dentist!


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Mike, with all due respect, didn't I just give an example with Gershwin? I'm sure I could find loads of examples as well from the past to prove my point.


Actually, Guy, you might be in for a little dissappointment there. Mike and Luca are quite right. The bulk of classical music we revere has pure art was written for far less lofty purposes: either to earn money, or to earn respect, or as an obligation, or to win favour, or to climb up the social ladder, or to get students, or to pay off a debt, or to get laid ... Nothing much's changed there, you know. People have always been people and none of the Great Composers were in any way immune to (or above) the petty, small-minded, opportunistic schemes that govern the world (and the artistic circles in particular), then as they do today. And it's those schemes and basic human needs which have resulted in a large amount of the great music we now treasure. Not some elevated urge or desire to create art.

And Gershwin, I'm afraid, is a really poor example to illustrate the point you're trying to make. Gershwin's move into the area of serious music was in no small measure motivated by a very strong desire to get respect, to be taken serious. Perhaps he felt surrounded by too many people not unlike yourself, people who kept whispering in his ear that concert hall music has 'more depth' than other music, and would therefore bring him more prestige as a composer. In other words, it was just as much an ambitious move as it may have been a creative one. Besides, though this is venturing into slightly less verifiable territory, I think you'll find that the consensus on the quality of Gershwin's concert music is far less unanimous and positive as you'd like to be. Apart from 'Porgy & Bess' and possibly the 'Rhapsody In Blue', Gershwin's concert music appears nowhere in anyone's listing of the great works of the 20th century. Most of his great songs on the other hand, are universally recognized as his best, most inspired work. Gershwin was a superior melodist and songwriter — hors catégorie, no discussion — but ... a fairly undistinguished and uneven concert hall composer. (And that doesn't take anything away from the occasional moments of mind-boggling beauty which can be found scattered throughout his concert works.)

By the way, I'm of the opinion that pre-1995 Williams was a greater composer than Gershwin and Copland put together, certainly one showing a superior musical gift.

Anyway, I hope things go well for you at the dentist's.

_


----------



## Narval

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> The bulk of classical music we revere has pure art was written for far less lofty purposes: either to earn money, or to earn respect, or as an obligation, or to win favour, or to climb up the social ladder, or to get students, or to pay off a debt, or to get laid ... Nothing much's changed there, you know. People have always been people and none of the Great Composers were in any way immune to (or above) the petty, small-minded, opportunistic schemes that govern the world (and the artistic circles in particular), then as they do today. And it's those schemes and basic human needs which have resulted in a large amount of the great music we now treasure. Not some elevated urge or desire to create art.


You sound so very sure of what you are saying, but I think you are basing your argument on thin air. Do you really know what truly was in the mind of one composer or another while composing one piece or another? I don't see how you would know that. And that's makes Guy's (and anyone else's) assumptions as valid as yours.

Besides, I don't see how a presumed financial (or any other) motivation would change anything about the Brandenburg Concertos, the Sistine Chapel, the Neumann u87, or anything else really.


----------



## re-peat

Thin air? There are such things as letters, orders, contracts, books, testimonies and ledgers, you know. We happen to know exactly, to the last coin, why Beethoven wrote his symphonies, his piano sonatas and his string quartets. Or why Mozart wrote his concertos and operas. History has left us with very accurate documents on this subject. And the same applies for a surprising amount of composers.

But you're right: the reason why a work was written has no bearing whatsoever on the quality or greatness of a work. 

The 6 Brandenburg Concertos were _a gift_ by the way, in the hope of securing a job.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> By the way, I'm of the opinion that pre-1995 Williams was a greater composer than Gershwin and Copland put together, certainly one showing a superior musical gift.
> 
> Anyway, I hope things go well for you at the dentist's.
> 
> _



Well this statement alone says how much we differ on this matter, cause in my opinion all of JW works put together does not come to the heel of any of Gershwin's major works. And I'm actually surprise to hear you say that re-peat! I'm sure if you survey around the world among more knowledgeable musicians you will see that Gershwin is much more of a genius than JW. I say that based on the interaction I've had with thousands of people in my lifetime talking about the genius of Gershwin. He has passed the test of time for eternity, you have to give the man his earned credit. I'll always have admiration for JW, but as much as he is fantastic in his craft he is also a copycat.
Gerswhin is purely original and constantly touches people straight to the heart.

And let's not forget that Gewshwin died at 39, at that age JW was still an unknown. It really doesn't compare to me.


----------



## Narval

re-peat, let me repeat my question: Do you *really* know what *truly* was in the mind of one composer or another *while composing* one piece or another?


----------



## re-peat

*Narval,*

Does it matter? Music, I suppose. Or sex. Or hunger. Or the weather. Or the noise coming from the neighbours. Or piles. Or the Archduke's bad breath maybe? Or the number of tickets that would be sold for the upcoming concert. (This last one was, apparently, very often on Beethoven's mind.)

*Guy,*

Let’s not fence with any number of ‘knowledgeable musicians’ to help us prove our respective points. It’s silly. For any thousand you come up with, I can easily add another thousand who think like I do.

Believe me, I don’t deny Gershwin’s exceptional talent, I think I said so before, I simply am of the opinion that Williams has shown an even greater natural gift. Seriously, and even though his popularity may seem in contradiction with it, but in my mind, he is _the most underrated American composer ever_. It seems to me that most people, even those who claim to love his work, still don’t quite realize just how unique and monumental a musician he is.

But again: I'm always talking about the _pre-1995 _Williams. I don't know what happened around that date, but since then, he's been a completely different (and far less interesting or inspired) composer, one that actually fits your description of him quite accurately. This 1995-change is one of the great mysteries in music, as far as I'm concerned.

_


----------



## PoppaJimmy

Interesting thread all,

I think the reason _*why*_ a composer does a work can be entirely separate from what is in h/his mind while *composing* the actual work itself. 

There is indeed a great deal of documentation related to why various composers made particular works. You can definitely argue that in many cases the reasons were very much of the material world. 

However, once the commitment to write is made, what is in the mind while writing is harder to say. Probably, every different way of thinking we could mention was in somebody or another's mind. Some people would have artistic or spiritual goals, others commerical or egotistic ones, multiple combinations and everything in between. Even the same composer can have different thoughts from one piece to the next.

As I said earlier, I'm not in film music at all. However, it seems reasonable that you have that same range of motivations in the film composing world as everywhere else. Some people are purely commercial and all about 'giving them what they want' and others have higher aspirations even while trying to meet the requirements of the gig. I don't think this has changed in the last 600 years.

Be Well,


----------



## Ashermusic

So no one besides me thinks that the evolution of "concert hall" composers away from tonality compared to the necessity of film composers staying with it is even a factor?


----------



## Narval

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> *Narval,*
> 
> Does it matter?


Exactly. That's something we know nothing about, and it simply doesn't matter.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Re-peat, anybody could suppose that anyone is the greatest genius in the world, I know people who will say that Frank Zappa is a genius. Gershwin has been dead for a while now, and his music just keeps on getting more popular. If JW is not well considered in universities you cannot automatically attribute that to snobbism, you have to accept that there might, just might be a reason for this. He is undoubtedly the king of film modern film music, a great orchestrator but his craft is oriented to a higher degree of commercialism beyond what the traditional composers would do as stated by Mike, who sees no difference between todays composers facing commercial influence and past composers.


----------



## lux

well somtimes unconciliable positions are just inconciliable.

I think its important (and re-peat pointed it out well) to avoid a presoumpt "objectivity" of a certain position, which is no less than a personal (and for that reason respectable) artistic evaluation of a certain work or a serie of works. 

Which also makes it, without any doubt, "subjective".


----------



## mverta

If we cannot speak for others, we can surely speak for ourselves...

I was deeply affected by music as a child - the way it made me feel was a gift; I wanted to learn to write music so I could give that gift to other people. 

There is, in there, an undeniably "commercial" motivation - it dictated from the start that my work was not for me - it was for others. But the feeling of giving is a deeply satisfying one. I felt that to be the best composer I could, I had to be a master of the craft, so this is why I embraced study, and ultimately the artistic-merit/"art" aspect of the work.

Later, I understood the material realities of life, but it didn't change my approach, which I've always felt needed to be a balance - artistically masterful work, which is written to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. I've never understood why art and commerce are presented as mutually exclusive. But in any case, I would feel it extremely masturbatory - and an abdication of a responsibility - to write music for myself, alone. What inspires me are the smiles, and tears, of others - of people who have embraced a masterful piece of music; made it part of the very definition of their lives. 

My dream is to have written music that a lot of people truly enjoyed, made a comfortable living for myself and my family, and to have the academics agree that I knew what I was doing. 

So back to work... 


_Mike


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> (...) I know people who will say that Frank Zappa is a genius. (...)


Yes, I'm one of them. (And I'm very serious: a true genius.) 

As for Williams: look through that exterior functional layer, Guy. Listen to the music inside. The ideas. The invention. The beauty. That totally focused and inspired musical continuum, bar after breathtaking bar. Unparallelled, I believe, in any of Gershwin's works.
It may be filmmusic, it may be commercial, but it is sooooooo much more.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos

Mike, of course I agree with that, that is my goal as well, and I'm sure everyone else's,
but if we just take Beethoven for example, he certainly didn't write dissonances to make it commercial or because someone else was doing it, this was an important part of him, his personality, his character, his soul etc... it was so well crafted and honest that people connected with it. But if right from the start we fall into the influence of Hans Zimmer and JW for the dream of being a big hollywood composer and make lots of money, you will loose yourself in all that. Just look today how many people are imitating Zimmer.


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...) I know people who will say that Frank Zappa is a genius. (...)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm one of them. (And I'm very serious: a true genius.)
> 
> As for Williams: look through that exterior functional layer, Guy. Listen to the music inside. The ideas. The invention. The beauty. That totally focused and inspired musical continuum, bar after breathtaking bar. Unparallelled, I believe, in any of Gershwin's works.
> It may be filmmusic, it may be commercial, but it is sooooooo much more.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Well re-peat, I conclude I'm just not qualified or don't have the sensitivity to appreciate real beauty in music.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Oh, speaking of Zappa, I'm still trying to learn to play the bicycle. :wink:


----------



## re-peat

A little addendum to my previous post: the reason why I’m so taken with and fascinated by Williams’ best music is that, often, I just can’t understand how it was conceived. I can understand every bar of Gershwin’s music — meaning: _I can more or less ‘see’ the contours of the creativity that is required to write it_ — but in Williams’ best music, those contours fall outside my vision: there is a creative force at work that is simply beyond my musical comprehension. That level of musical imagination operates on a level where I am incapable to follow. And whenever that happens — as it invariably does with a.o. Stravinsky, Beethoven, Zappa, Bach and Mozart — I sense, or conclude, that I’m in the presence of genius.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos

Re-peat, music is not about analysis only but how it connects to the world, and JW is no match for that compared to Gershwin. And go to any musical institute and ask who they value more, JW or Gershwin, and come back to me. And no, it's not just snobbism, that's getting old...


----------



## mverta

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> But if right from the start we fall into the influence of Hans Zimmer and JW for the dream of being a big hollywood composer and make lots of money, you will loose yourself in all that. Just look today how many people are imitating Zimmer.




Well, first of all, commerce without craft is out of balance - that's not what I'm advocating. But I have always believed that if you learn to master the craft, your own undeniable voice comes out - leading to the very artistic and personal things you're talking about. I think the shallower the depth of your craft, the more "imitative" your work tends to be, because you don't really understand it, where it comes from, or how to control it. 


Regarding Zimmer: I have always been able to hear his imitators as imitators. When I finally got to meet him, and talk to him about his influences and process, I was not surprised to learn where the difference lay - his sound is HIS sound; it's what he really likes, what he really hears in his head, and it's not crafted for effect. It's not put-on; it's not phony. I think only Hans' "Hans" is legit. His imitators think it's a lot of sound design-y tricks and loops and stuff, the way Williams imitators think it's about woodwind runs and timpani crescendos.


_Mike


----------



## lux

discussion is stuck. When someone starts putting musical institutes in there's not much more to say


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Re-peat, music is not about analysis only but how it connects to the world, and JW is no match for that compared to Gershwin. And go to any musical institute and ask who they value more, JW or Gershwin, and come back to me. And no, it's not just snobbism, that's getting old...



You're a funny one, Guy. First you say that music is not about analysis only and then you instruct me to go to a musical institute - where they do little else but analyse - to find out about the value of music? Que?
But you're right: it is certainly not just snobbism, it's also narrow-mindedness, ignorance and a complacent lack of courage, curiosity and imagination.

_


----------



## synergy543

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> But I have always believed that if you learn to master the craft, your own undeniable voice comes out - leading to the very artistic and personal things you're talking about. I think the shallower the depth of your craft, the more "imitative" your work tends to be, because you don't really understand it, where it comes from, or how to control it.


Character and personality manifest themselves in different ways. I'm not sure Mussorgsky or Satie were masters of their craft they way their peers were. Still, they've left an indelible impression. Sadly though, today their voices may not get heard. Mussorgsky in his drunken stupor surely could not have mastered the complexities of MIDI mockups. Nor could anyone legally re-orchestrate his works for fear of copyright infringements.


----------



## mverta

With respect, I disagree that a single device or set of devices determines such merit. As for someone stepping up and providing you with examples to contradict an opinion you've already formed in absence of them - I wouldn't hold my breath 


"I don't really know about 'x', but I'm sure it's not as good as 'y'," is a tough place to debate from.

_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> With respect, I disagree that a single device or set of devices determines such merit. As for someone stepping up and providing you with examples to contradict an opinion you've already formed in absence of them - I wouldn't hold my breath
> 
> 
> "I don't really know about 'x', but I'm sure it's not as good as 'y'," is a tough place to debate from.
> 
> _Mike



Kind of a bit subtle.. Please make you statement more direct, I have no idea what you're talking about or/and if it's directed at me.


----------



## Guy Bacos

error post


----------



## re-peat

(double post)


----------



## re-peat

muk @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Now show me John Williams having done something similar with one of his admittedly great melodies. And then let's talk about genius again.


*Muk,*
 
With permission, but you're missing the essence of Williams entirely I believe, if you simply focus on the melodic aspect and isolate it from the structure in which it is imbedded. That's what I'm trying to say here. Most people, I get the impression, seem unable to step beyond Williams' flashy melodies, his boisterous romp and his virtuoso treatment of the orchestra — an understandable inability, granted, as this exterior layer is in itself already very satisfying — but there's a deeper and more rewarding layer behind it: the layer that drives music to its logical resolution. There's a sense of inevitability and urgency about this music, how he glides from one brilliant idea to the next towards his goal, that I only hear in music of the very best and most skilled composers.

And this is, for instance, also what's missing completely in nearly all of Gershwin: that strange, impossible to describe sensation that the music moves organically and instinctively towards its inevitable destiny. Gershwin, on a good day, writes very beautiful music, absolutely, but rarely does this music have that 'creative engine of inevitability', that irrational but glorious rush forwards. (There's a few sections in the first part of the 'Rhapsody in Blue' that have it, but it's certainly nowhere in his pianoconcerto nor in "An American in Paris" or any other of his concert pieces.)

Unfortunately, the pulse in Williams' best music is not something I can analyze or distill into a comprehensible scheme of musical techniques. It's something that I simply feel is going on (as unsatisfactory vague as that description is, yes), and beyond that, I'm completely helpless to communicate the sensation.

_


----------



## Narval

I think what you're describing is: musical development. And I tend to agree that it's this driving sense of coherent, meaningful development that the greatest of composers do have in common. Williams certainly does have it. Big time. In this sense, I understand why you are calling him a great composer even outside films.


----------



## mverta

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Mike, you have stated your idea about composing, and you based it in YOUR experience, so please respect that I am basing mine on MY experience as well and perhaps not one is better than the other? Mine works for me, and yours works for you, I don't thing you could generalize more than that, since we don't agree.



? I was responding to muk's post. :D 

_Mike


----------



## re-peat

Narval @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> I think what you're describing is: musical development. And I tend to agree that it's this driving sense of coherent, meaningful development that the greatest of composers do have in common. Williams certainly does have it. Big time. In this sense, I understand why you are calling him a great composer even outside films.



It's more than just 'development' actually. Williams' music, looked at (or listened to) superficially, is often quite fragmented in fact, and he rarely gets the space, for obvious reasons, to make work of a proper development of his ideas. 
I'm thinking more of his best music reaching a 'state' where you can only listen and say: "this had to come out exactly like it did, there was no other way." Or, to paraphrase Shaffer's Salieri: "Change one note and you get diminishment." That kind of thing. A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, but what I mean is: the very best music often sheds off its formal, functional and technical skin. A Beethoven symphony, for instance, is a perfect, organic 'being' and you sense that this symphony always had to be this way. That's the inevitability of great music. _It is not only held together by its form or structure, but it also seems as if its structure is a perfectly logical consequence of its content._ And that is VERY rare in music.
I'm not saying that Williams reaches this level in much of his work, but he certainly has (or had, anyway) the capacity to do so. In my opinion anyway. 

There is only one other film composer that comes close to this, I believe, and that is Franz Waxman. Oddly enough, I don't consider either of these the greatest filmcomposers of all time — other people have proven to have (or have had) far more flair and instinct for the medium — but to me, it's only those two that have taken their music to a level where it absolutely no longer matters why or in which circumstances it was written. We can only be very grateful that it was.

_


----------



## Narval

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> the very best music often sheds off its formal, functional and technical skin. A Beethoven symphony, for instance, is a perfect, organic 'being' and you sense that this symphony always had to be this way. That's the inevitability of great music.


Right. "Muss es sein?... Es muss sein!"


----------



## Guy Bacos

[quote:f4c3a6aa6d="Frederick Russ @ Sat òÿA   àžÿA   àŸÿA   à ÿA   à¡ÿA   à¢ÿA   à£ÿA   à¤ÿA   à¥ÿA   à¦ÿA   à§ÿA   à¨ÿA   à©ÿC   àrÿC   àsÿC   àtÿC   àuÿC   àvÿC   àwÿC   àxÿC   àyÿC   àzÿC   à{ÿC   à|ÿC   à}ÿC   à~ÿC   àÿC   à€ÿC   àÿC   à‚ÿC   àƒÿC   à„ÿC   à…ÿC   à†ÿC   à‡ÿC   àˆÿC   à‰ÿC   àŠÿC   à‹ÿC   àŒÿC   àÿC   àŽÿC   àÿC   àÿC   à‘ÿC   à’ÿC   à“ÿC   à”ÿC   à•ÿC   à–ÿC   à—ÿC   à˜ÿC   à™ÿC   àšÿC   à›ÿC   àœÿC   àÿC   àžÿC   àŸÿC   à ÿC   à¡ÿC   à¢ÿC   à£ÿC   à¤ÿC   à¥ÿC   à¦ÿC   à§ÿC   à¨ÿC   à©ÿC   àªÿC   à«ÿC   à¬ÿC   à­ÿC   à®ÿC   à¯ÿC   à°ÿC   à±ÿC   à²ÿC   à³ÿC   à´ÿC   àµÿC   à¶ÿC   à·ÿC   à¸ÿC   à¹ÿC   àºÿC   à»ÿC   à¼ÿC   à½ÿC   à¾ÿC   à¿ÿC   àÀÿC   àÁÿC   àÂÿC   àÃÿC   àÄÿC   àÅÿC   àÆÿC   àÇÿC   àÈÿC   àÉÿC   àÊÿC   àËÿC   àÌÿC   àÍÿC   àÎÿC   àÏÿC   àÐÿC   àÑÿC   àÒÿC   àÓÿC   àÔÿC   àÕ              òÿC   à×ÿC   àØÿC   àÙÿC   àÚÿC   àÛÿC   àÜÿC   àÝÿC   àÞÿC   àßÿC   ààÿC   àáÿC   àâÿC   àãÿC   àäÿC   àåÿC   àæÿC   àçÿC   àèÿC   àéÿC   àêÿC   àëÿC   àìÿC   àíÿC   àîÿC   àïÿC   àðÿC   àñÿC   àòÿC   àóÿC   àôÿC   àõÿC   àöÿC   à÷ÿC   àøÿC   àùÿC   àúÿC   àûÿC   àüÿC   àýÿC   àþÿC   àÿÿC   à  ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à 
ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à  ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à ÿC   à !ÿC   à "ÿC   à #ÿC   à $ÿC   à %ÿC   à &ÿC   à 'ÿC   à (ÿC   à )ÿC   à *ÿC   à +ÿC   à ,ÿC   à -ÿC   à .ÿC   à /ÿC   à 0ÿC   à 1ÿC   à 2ÿC   à 3ÿC   à 4ÿC   à 5ÿC   à 6ÿC   à 7ÿC   à 8ÿC   à 9ÿC   à :ÿC   à ;ÿC   à <ÿC   à =ÿC   à >ÿC   à ?ÿC   à @ÿC   à AÿC   à BÿC   à CÿC   à DÿC   à EÿC   à F              òÿC   à HÿC   à IÿC   à JÿC   à KÿC   à LÿC   à MÿC   à NÿC   à OÿC   à PÿC   à QÿC   à RÿC   à SÿC   à T


----------



## Guy Bacos

I've talked about so many other aspects in my arguments. Why pick on that one? Wouldn't be a cop out? :wink:


----------



## Frederick Russ

Half of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for John Williams. Many have gone on to other music interests but JW's legacy remains. Guy is entitled to his opinion (even if its dead wrong!  ) as others are entitled to disagree (sorry Guy o-[][]-o )

Edit: My composer is bigger than your composer.


(I kid I kid!)


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I've talked about so many other aspects in my arguments. Why pick on that one? Wouldn't be a cop out? :wink:


What other arguments? What do expect me to say to your comment that there's no passion or magic in Williams' music? I mean, the statement in itself already tells me that there's simply no point in trying to explain to you where the passion or magic might be found. You're obviously not receptive to it, so why bother? Your antennae for those qualities seem to be orientated differently than mine. Let it go, Guy. Let's call the whole thing off.

_


----------



## dcoscina

Jay I must disagree. Much concert music since the mid 90s has returned to tonality. The sterile Boulez school of post modernism has run it's course.

Guys like Adams, torke, Golijev, Pearce, etc all produce tonal based music that had some film score references.


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about so many other aspects in my arguments. Why pick on that one? Wouldn't be a cop out? :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> What other arguments? What do expect me to say to your comment that there's no passion or magic in Williams' music? I mean, the statement in itself already tells me that there's simply no point in trying to explain to you where the passion or magic might be found. You're obviously not receptive to it, so why bother? Your antennae for those qualities seem to be orientated differently than mine. Let it go, Guy. Let's call the whole thing off.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Sorry, because I disagree with you re-peat, I am not receptive??? Or are you ridiculing my comments about passion or magic? I hope one day to be intellectually as elevated as you re-peat.


Frederick, you have right to say I am dead wrong, if that makes you happy.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Frederick, you have right to say I am dead wrong, if that makes you happy.



As you have the same right with my opinions Guy.


----------



## re-peat

Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> OK, I get it. You guys would rather squabble about whose better, Williams or Gershwin


Well, with permission, Jay: no, you don’t get it. All that I’ve been trying to do here, is explain, to whomever might care to plough through my endless and often somewhat pompous paragraphs (an effort I can’t but applaud gratefully), my reasons for rating Williams as high as I do: a distinct top in the rich mountains of good music. That's about it really. And that Gershwin was chosen as someone to measure him against, is fairly accidental: partly because of Guy's inspiring interaction, partly because someone of Gershwin’s proportions was needed in my arguments as a reference, to give the differentation its required sense of scale. (Could just as well have used Milhaud.) That’s always the sad thing about trying to describe greatness, isn't it: you also have to name and describe not-so-greatness or slightly-lessness, otherwise no one knows how to measure things up. Anyway, I think I’ve made it clear enough on several occasions that I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the musician Gershwin. Any other opinion on the man would be fast approaching musical indecency, it seems to me.
So, again, as far as I'm concerned, this was _never_ a cockfight about categorizing-two-composers-according-to-presumed-greatness as such — the arrogance needed to even attempt such an endeavour is already way too painful to contemplate, I believe, let alone to carry it out. Having said that, I’ll admit that on occasion it might have looked embarassingly close.

_


----------



## mverta

A quick interjection: not that I'm not a huge Williams fan, and love the score to E.T., but to say it has roots in Howard Hanson's Romantic Symphony would be a polite understatement. Pound for pound, when listening to the entire raw cues from the film (versus a soundtrack) I think Superman may be the most sophisticated thing I've heard from him, in that it seems simple and boisterous on the top, yet has many layers of beautiful complexity beneath. Some under-dialog cues between Lois and Clark are just breathtaking in the way they develop, and easily rival the best symphonic discipline.


_Mike


----------



## Narval

mverta @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> A quick interjection: not that I'm not a huge Williams fan, and love the score to E.T., but to say it has roots in Howard Hanson's Romantic Symphony would be a polite understatement.


"Having its roots there" sounds more like a misleading exaggeration. Assuming that borrowing is bad (which is not) - how much of the ET score can be derived from that short winds motif? Not very much. And then how about the rest of it? As a polite understatement, you are being unfair here.


----------



## Guy Bacos

People on this forum are mostly film score fans, so anything against film composers is practically an insult to them. A few years ago I was moderator on a popular classical music forum, we had many list of greatest this, greatest that, top 100 composers etc... Not only JW was not well regarded on these list but wasn't even mentioned, and no film composers either, not even in conversations. I left that forum after a few years because I wasn't interested in just talking about Schubert's quintet No 12 or Hadyn's symphony no 734, I also knew that my new influences such as JW or Danny Elfman would be looked down upon. I think they were close minded but the same way people here can be defensive about their medium. JW on this forum according to Frederick, re-peat or Mike is a genius and on that other forum they laugh at that thought. On the other hand, Gershwin was highly appreciated on the classical forum and regarded as a genius but here he is, so, so. I try to stay in a neutral ground about this, but when someone starts to claim that JW is a genius, greater than Gerswhin and Copland together, I like to say, "cool it man!" I wouldn't be surprised if JW himself or any film composer for that matter, would find it ridicule the thought of people thinking they are greater than Gershwin. There is no sense arguing with re-peat, since he is hypnotized by JW and I am likely the same by Gershwin, just to be fair, but at least Gerswhin has past the test of time, and I think the classical forum like to use that fact, and I agree with that to a certain point, before we start popping 100 film composers name as geniuses. I think it's a shame people are so defensive about their medium. I've spent years on the classical forum and they are as stubborn about the quality of film composers as many people here of concert music composers. An interesting contrast. Imagine the war if both forums would merge!


----------



## Frederick Russ

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> There is no sense arguing with re-peat, since he is hypnotized by JW and I am likely the same by Gershwin, just to be fair, but at least Gerswhin has past the test of time, and I think the classical forum like to use that fact, and I agree with that to a certain point, before we start popping 100 film composers name as geniuses. I think it's a shame people are so defensive about their medium. I've spent years on the classical forum and they are as stubborn about the quality of film composers as many people here of concert music composers.



Good point. People can get extremely polarized. And by the way, I'm not against Gershwin's music and never said that JW was a genius, re-peat did. I did make a joke earlier to lighten things up but you chose to take it personally which honestly I thought was a little sad Guy especially coming from someone who I thought valued humor. Win/lose is an interesting proposition in that people seem to get their kicks by defaming favorite composers they know others like in a contest of egos and the ideologies that differ. In truth I think valid arguments from both sides have their merits. 

And please, when you make broad strokes and lump me in with them, stick with the facts because what I believe personally has never been mentioned in this thread. If you choose to get offended based on something I said in jest I guess you're welcome to go there too - the intention was not to offend but whatever.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Frederick, I've been on this forum not that long but quite active for the time I've been here. I think you should know by now I can get very passionate in my discussions, and I'd rather say "passionate" than angry or taking things personally, which I know I do on occasions, and I'm sure you've noticed I love humor, but I might of missed the humor that time. But I think I'm starting to wear re-peat down and he's about to admit he's dead wrong!


----------



## synergy543

Good points Guy. Many different perspectives and each valid in their own way. It would be nice to think that we could be more open minded however, humans being creatures of habit find ourselves gravitating towards our comfort zones. Just like E.T. phoning home. Now maybe a classical guy such as yourself should see if you can expand your own horizons and do some jazz? :mrgreen: 

And Mike, thanks for the pointers to the Hanson score. I wouldn't call Williams a plagerist, although there are more than a few borrowed orchestral devices from the third movement! An interesting study.

However, one doesn't really have to ask who will be remembered longer, Hanson or Williams? Maybe its the orchestral memes that are more important?


----------



## Frederick Russ

Guy Bacos @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Frederick, I've been on this forum not that long but quite active for the time I've been here. I think you should know by now I can get very passionate in my discussions, and I'd rather say "passionate" than angry or taking things personally, which I know I do on occasions, and I'm sure you've noticed I love humor, but I might of missed the humor that time. But I think I'm starting to wear re-peat down and he's about to admit he's dead wrong!



haha - now you ARE being humorous lol! 

If I ever visit Montreal we should hang out.


----------



## Guy Bacos

One thing I regret though is being so lousy at expressing myself, I wish I could write better and express myself more eloquently. On that side, I'm being badly beaten.


----------



## Guy Bacos

synergy543 @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Good points Guy. Many different perspectives and each valid in their own way. It would be nice to think that we could be more open minded however, humans being creatures of habit find ourselves gravitating towards our comfort zones. Just like E.T. phoning home. Now maybe a classical guy such as yourself should see if you can expand your own horizons and do some jazz? :mrgreen:



Jazz huh?


----------



## bluejay

mverta @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> A quick interjection: not that I'm not a huge Williams fan, and love the score to E.T., but to say it has roots in Howard Hanson's Romantic Symphony would be a polite understatement. Pound for pound, when listening to the entire raw cues from the film (versus a soundtrack) I think Superman may be the most sophisticated thing I've heard from him, in that it seems simple and boisterous on the top, yet has many layers of beautiful complexity beneath. Some under-dialog cues between Lois and Clark are just breathtaking in the way they develop, and easily rival the best symphonic discipline.
> 
> 
> _Mike



I'm glad someone mentioned this. I've always been surprised that this doesn't come up more often when discussing ET. There is a huge amount of Hanson's influence in that score (and it's more than just the winds motif).

Anyway I'm a huge fan of both Williams and Gershwin but not sure how relevant that is.

I am seeing a return to tonality in classical music over in the UK. Also the Classic FM radio station (which is admittedly aiming at the everyman) plays a lot of film music.


----------



## Dave Connor

Muk, I appreciate your admiration of Beethoven but there's only a very few artists in all of history that can be compared to him and they have names like Bach, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Mozart and so on. Even they have a hard time keeping up with the man considered by many to be the greatest artist that ever lived (irrespective of the field.)

Johnny Williams is some kind of genius to be sure and has affected or even changed film history but not all of history.


----------



## Narval

bluejay @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> There is a huge amount of Hanson's influence in that score


Huge? If you call that "huge," then what would you call the influence of (guess) in this piece? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xotoDy5806Y


----------



## stevenson-again

> Well this statement alone says how much we differ on this matter, cause in my opinion all of JW works put together does not come to the heel of any of Gershwin's major works.



coming in a little late, but by god i am 100% with repeat and mike on this. but i would go further and say JW may be the most underrated composer of all time. there is alkan and scriabin perhaps, but i absolutely agree. i don't care why he wrote the music he did, from where it came, or how it happened. i don't care that he is not the greatest musical innovator. the sheer craft, the complete mastery of orchestral writing....i absolutely speak of him in the same breath as ravel, prokofiev, mahler - anyone really.

i happen to be very close friends some players from the LSO. they play the masterpiece repertoire day in day out. listen to how they rate his music. they absolutely regard it as every bit as amazing as some of the very best music they play, and in fact it has more of an effect because they become jaded with the usual repetoire.

i also have a large amount of his hand written scores....don't ask me how. black market as it were. the detail, and left out, it's the utter confidence and knowledge of how to get where he wants to get to is breath-taking. i certainly don't think we will see the like again in our lifetimes, although there are many worthy contenders.


----------



## dcoscina

It's one thing to not care for Williams music but to invalidate or otherwise slight his skill at composition is just plain ignorant. It's also a shortcut to thinking to chock his entire canon up to copying classical pieces. That throne is inhabited by King Horner

I listened to the final cue from. ET the other day and for those who say this is without passion is totally ridiculous


----------



## muk

> It's one thing to not care for Williams music but to invalidate or otherwise slight his skill at composition is just plain ignorant.


Did I give the impression of invalidating Williams composing skills? That was not my intention. I'm with you when you say he's a gifted composer, a genius orchestrator, one of the best (if not the best) film music composer of today etc. But analysing his music (again, I don't know many of his works) so far just didn't give me the same results as, say a piece by Bernd Alois Zimmermann. I didn't find self-reflexivity, grappling with tradition, a sophisticated handling of form etc. in his music. I'm not even stating that it's not there. It's just that nobody could show me such things so far. But personally, I think in his film music it *is not there* because in my opinion that's not the purpose of film music. 

But by advocating Williams so determinedly you got me interested in his concert music. Maybe analysing one of these works will change my mind

Oh, but please stop calling me ignorant (or didn't you mean me?), narrow-minded, snobbish, whatever. I did look at some of his music and think I'm moderatly stating my opinion, which I believe is reasoned enough to make a statement. It's really not me just saying his music is crap


----------



## Ashermusic

dcoscina @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Jay I must disagree. Much concert music since the mid 90s has returned to tonality. The sterile Boulez school of post modernism has run it's course.
> 
> Guys like Adams, torke, Golijev, Pearce, etc all produce tonal based music that had some film score references.



Well, obviously I do not agree with you about Boulez being sterile. Listen to "Le Marteau Sans Maitre" and tell me if you really find it sterile.

Secondly, the mid 90s was not so long ago. If concert hall music is to gain back the listeners they lost when tonality was abandonedit will take a while.

But the real question is, can there be anything tonal that is truly "forward" or merely mining depths that have already been mined as well or better? 

And for the film composer, as great as a guy like John Williams has been (and I revere him), is there anything he wrote that strictly on musical terms like melody, harmony, counterpoint, and rhythm, was not already done somewhere in the concert hall literature years before?

Ultimately I think the film composer nowadays needs to be "forward" thinking when the film calls for it to be, and not when it does not. It is not our primary purpose.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ok, let"s get one thing straight, and I say this with all the admiration I have for him, Williams music is not more than a collage of 20th cent composers, and without originality, but cleverly put together for the silver screen. Of course he deserves a lot of credit for doing it so exceptionally well, but that's where it starts and that's where it ends. There is no real innovation as Jay mentioned, any passage of any of his music that can't be found in one of the 20th cent composers. If you have a good historical background of the 20th music, he is showing nothing new, all déjà vu. This is surely why in musical institutes he is not well regarded, because contrary to the average folks who went from Beethoven to Williams, they have studied in depth 20th cent composers, and probably much more than anyone who has posted in this thread, and they don't seem to care for a collage of the great concert music composers. Perhaps some people are now forgetting the great 20th composers, I'm sure if they would start to revisit the repertoire of these composers, they would be much less impressed with Williams. Yes! Yes! I know some people keep claiming they know all that repertoire, but I doubt they are as qualified as musicologists in universities, (sorry Lux, I do think this fact should not be neglected, to be fair) cause I can't see why they would think this way. JW is so omnipresent that so many of the real geniuses are now in the shade. I am convinced that with time JW will always have an important place in film music, but many of the 20th composers will emerge and be fully recognized as oppose to have taken a back seat to JW.

For me it's a no brainer, just ask any conductor, orchestra members or musical institutes if they regard JW higher than Gershwin, they will say: "No way!" But re-peat wants to attribute this to ignorance, snobbism etc... So he is the only normal person among all these people? I'm wondering who is the snob here. I'm just putting facts together, I didn't even talk about my personal taste in this post, and if you decide to to close your eyes and bypass all that, than the conversation is over.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> And for the film composer, as great as a guy like John Williams has been (and I revere him), is there anything he wrote that strictly on musical terms like melody, harmony, counterpoint, and rhythm, was not already done somewhere in the concert hall literature years before?



Exactly!


----------



## Guy Bacos

If we just look at JW's orchestration and big brassy sound when it calls for we go, wow!
Why don't you have a listen to some of Strauss works, the greatest orchestrator ever with Ravel, and see how it compares, you will go: WOW!!!! His orchestration is a ton superior to JW's in my book, unfortunately, it doesn't have the contemporary commercial side and wasn't adapted to the silver screen. But all we see is JW, JW, JW, JW, like he invented music. Geeze! There's a fine line between using the great composers of the past to make your own style, as it should be, and using the composers of the past to make a super collage.


----------



## JohnG

I don't think it's one or the other, Guy. I have heard and read many who say a lot of the same about Bach -- he was the apotheosis of a style, but not the inventor, that his techniques were well known and had been mined many times before.

Even in his own time, I've read that he was considered old hat, a relic of a former age. Were it not for Mendelssohn, I am not sure if we'd ever have heard of him and his dusty old fugues.

But he did it better than, as far as I know, anyone else of the era with the possible exception of Handel (but who, personally, I don't enjoy or admire as much).

Doing the same old thing but doing it a heck of a lot better than has previously been done is, I think, a valid means of earning the title, "genius." 

"True wit is nature to advantage dressed What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed." --Alexander Pope

Even though I seek it myself and do prize it, the value of innovation over mastery has been exaggerated ever since the Romantic period, and has led to more charlatans in art, music and poetry than it has inventive geniuses.

Besides, if we want to pick on someone for borrowing what was already going on at the time, Gershwin would not remain unscathed. Everyone is stuck, to some extent, with his time and with his audience. Not that this is bad, it's just how it is. If there was someone in 1750 writing like Alban Berg, we wouldn't know today, because his work would have been lost and he'd have starved.

But he would have been an innovator.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Excellent point John. I agree one does not have to be an innovator to make his place in history if the craft surpasses it all, which is the case with Bach, indeed, he was by far extremely conservative, and that hurt him towards the end. It is his mastery of counterpoint and beauty that made him the great genius.

So yes, I'm ready to give that credit to JW, but not as much as we tend to, since I don't see him being more crafty than many of the 20th cent composers. But this is where we probably differ.

Do you know the Warsaw piano concerto and the story behind that? They originally wanted Rachmaninov to do the music for this movie, Rachmaninov not interested, they got Richard Addinsell to write a concerto very, very similar to Rachmaninov's style. When you look at this concerto, and the writing closely, it is a 4th rate Rachmaninov piece of music. But that piece was highly popular at the time and still is, but Rachmaninov emerge much higher meanwhile. If The Warsaw Concerto hadn't benefited from the popularity of the silver screen, very little people would of heard or cared for that piece, even though it has nice melodies and deserves some attention.


----------



## JohnG

Well I guess you are saying, "JW is a master craftsman but if it weren't for the movies, he wouldn't be so popular."

Maybe, but if it weren't for John Williams (and all those great players), who knows? Might Star Wars, in the clutches of lesser hands have been embarrassing and subject to ridicule?

In short, while it's hard to argue definitively against your point, I think in JW's case it may cut both ways.


----------



## Guy Bacos

No disagreement there.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Williams music is not more than a collage of 20th cent composers, and without originality (...) There is no real innovation as Jay mentioned, any passage of any of his music that can't be found in one of the 20th cent composers. If you have a good historical background of the 20th music, he is showing nothing new, all déjà vu. This is surely why in musical institutes he is not well regarded, (...)
> For me it's a no brainer, just ask any conductor, orchestra members or musical institutes if they regard JW higher than Gershwin, they will say: "No way!" But re-peat wants to attribute this to ignorance, snobbism etc... So he is the only normal person among all these people? I'm wondering who is the snob here.(...)


Excuse me, but it is invariably minds and institutes of very narrow scope and frail self-confidence who laud ‘innovation’ and ‘originality’ as if those were artistic qualities in themselves. They aren’t. There is nothing instrinsically musical about being original or innovative. In itself, originality is not a musical achievement, it has no musical value or meaning whatsoever. It may make entertaining copy for the history books, but that’s all.

Of course, Williams’ work uses the musical grammar and vocabulary that was formulated long before him. You think we haven’t noticed that as well from the very second we were first introduced to his work? You think we are deaf to the fact that his music often builds on achievements by other composers? And so what if it does? That’s his idiom of choice, that’s how he can express himself best. That’s the language that obviously gives him the most artistic satisfaction and pleasure, and which he embraced to the full because he knew instinctively, like great artists always do, that that was his best tool for realizing and sharing the music he had in him. He didn’t choose to become anything else, no, he chose to become a composer who uses a fairly conventional and well-established idiom. I mean, what’s wrong with that? Besides, that’s not the point anyway. The point is that even though he may use a musical grammar and vocabulary that’s very familiar, _the way he uses it and what he does with it, is completely his._ Williams’ music is Williams’ music, no one else’s. We all recognize it the moment we hear it. (A quality he shares with Gershwin and other great composers.) And it reveals, better than any other language or idiom could do, his phenomenal and unique musical talent, in the most complete way. (To anyone who’s prepared to listen anyway.) Simple as that. The man went through a 20-odd year phase during which he simply overflowed with gorgeous and exciting musical ideas, one even more breathtaking than the other. The fact that many of these ideas are firmly rooted in the past, doesn’t take anything away from their abstract and timeless (!) musical beauty and is, artistically, a completely irrelevant (and pathetically silly, if you ask me) observation.

I know, it always looks very good to be able to say that composer X or Y is not an original. Oh, how learned and sophisticated we appear by saying such things. But really, there is nothing that reveals a cowardly lack of musical insight more sharply than measuring a composer’s achievement with such a childish and cheap simplification. Do we fault Bach, Sibelius, Elgar, Schubert, Poulenc, Shostakovitch, Gershwin or Brahms (to name just a few) with a similar disdain, for not being innovative and original? Is Stravinsky’s entire oeuvre from the twenties onwards a complete and utter creative failure because it clearly originates from and assimilates many formal and stylistic elements of the past? Is Mozart a complete hack because he built his music on Haydn’s stylistic and formal legacy? Should virtually all musical institutes and concert halls be burned to the ground because they usually prefer to celebrate the past rather than embrace the future? (Yes, Guy, the very same places that you rely on to help you condemn Williams for being old-fashioned and un-original. Oh, the irony ...)

And finally, Guy, a friendly word of warning: up until now, I've managed to ignore your stupid remarks at my or my opinion's expense — it's not a pretty sight watching you flounder through this conversation, fueled by frustration, impotence and chagrin, I must say — but if you want to start playing this nasty and personal, be aware that you’ve got some unpleasant things coming. Just so you know.

_


----------



## Narval

I wish I could see Guy Bacos saying to John Williams in his face: "Mr Williams, with all due respect I think your music is nothing more than a collage of things from other composers." I wish I could have that filmed and youtubed, including John Williams' soft, gentle laughter, followed by the thunderous sound of the world wide web rolling on the floor laughing. :lol:


----------



## Guy Bacos

I just had an exchange with John that was pretty civilized, but I'm not going to start a war with you re-peat, since I know I'm no match for your trademark witty sarcasms to others. The only thing I'm saying and will always stand my ground, is if or whenever you say JW pre-1995 output is greater than Gershwin, Copland and whoever all put together, I will be right there to defend my ground.

Nice talking!


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> Well I guess you are saying, "JW is a master craftsman but if it weren't for the movies, he wouldn't be so popular."



Funny... I was arguing the opposite the other day. Would Spielberg og Lucas be what they are today without Williams? Would we have forgotten about Star Wars and Jaws? Great films, and great filmmakers, but the success of the films are surely in part due to Williams. 

In reality it cuts both ways of course - they lifted each other up - but I don't think one can underestimate the importance of the music in these films and their brands.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Oh, and... *John williams is the maaaaaan!*


----------



## JohnG

Since part of what we’re debating is whether film music can ever be Great Art, and in turn, who gets to define what Great Art is and where it comes from, I thought through the following.

*Where Does Great Art Come From?*

I bet on music written for an audience, paid for by someone else.

Arm’s length transactions, I believe, have produced the best results historically. Art-for-money has brought us Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Bach, Fielding, Raphael, Rembrandt, Dickens – all worked for money, for patrons or a broader audience. All suffered through then-current, probably annoying, trends and fashions of the day in their craft. All were subject to the petty vexations of commerce, coping with the disappointment of losing out to less-able rivals who, nevertheless, sometimes attracted a larger, adoring audience, or charmed away a coveted job.

A few great creators were rich, or at least were born into enough money that they had little to worry about financially for at least a part of their lives – Richard Strauss, Alban Berg, Tolstoy. But not too many. For the most part, the artists of the past whose work has lasted beyond their lifetimes worked for money.

This definition captures Beethoven, Mozart & co., but also includes Gershwin, John Williams, Waxman, Zimmer et alia, Rogers and Hart, The Beatles, Eminem, Lady Gaga, Snoop -- whatever. I think there’s a reason why each of these has been called “a genius” by various composers in this and other v.i. threads. 

Sure, there’s plenty of rubbish out there that will not Stand The Test Of Time, but I will be very surprised if the art that does so fails an essential test:

*That many people simply want to hear it (to view it, or to read it) without being motivated by something beyond seeking diversion, curiosity about the thing itself, or “just liking” it. * In other words, they take an interest not primarily because they have to write a paper on it or need a dissertation topic, and certainly not because its greatness only becomes apparent in the pages of an academic explication, but because it gives pleasure.

The details of how great art is actually generated – how the artist zeroes in on the set of ideas, craft elements, and feelings that actually produce something personal and unique and fresh and “forward” – I think that varies but, however it comes about, I think nothing lasts in the long run without the ability to provoke the reaction, “I like it” in an intelligent but unindoctrinated audience.

*Do Motivations Matter?*

It doesn't matter to me (except out of idle curiosity) what the purpose of the writing is, whether it's a lofty goal or, by contrast, a desire to impress a girlfriend / boyfriend, trying to make money, escaping a soul-destroying job alternative, rivalry with other composers / bandmates, seeking everlasting greatness, or sheer vanity.

And that’s because it’s hard to discern motivation, even if one sifts through letters and other documents. Motivations slip easily away from view, even from the artist himself – though money was almost certainly a large part of it, most of the time, for most composers, the impulse to sit down and write something is hard to capture in words. 

On the other side of the transaction, I don’t think it matters what the motivations are of those paying (up to a point). Teenagers out on a date, wanting to dance, trying to seduce someone, an impresario / producer trying to make money, or just fun.

So I argue that, whatever the specific notion in the artist’s or consumer’s mind at the time, we don’t really need to know, because we have the work itself, which, when it’s as dazzlingly attractive as Beethoven or Shakespeare, speaks for itself. 


*Where Doesn’t Great Art Come From?*

Part of the relentless condemnation of music-for-hire by academia (and even at times on v.i. control) stems, I believe, from a conflation of money and popularity, on the one hand, and low-brow bourgeois tripe, on the other. Put differently, this line adopts the supposition that anything written for money and served to a mass audience automatically is disqualified from a “serious” musician’s consideration.

Whether or not, however, mass art can produce or is producing art worthy of the name, as I look around, I fail to see the world festooned with Great Art jetting forth from the academic world, or from the cartloads of art paid for by well-meaning organisations that are supporting arts that can’t support themselves (in other words, government-grant art / music / literature). Not that there couldn’t be some great composers in academe; very possibly there are. But I object to a clutch of false premises rife in universities and in know-it-all circles generally:

1. That only professors and “those qualified” are able authoritatively to identify, dissect, and specify genius;

2. The popularity of a work renders it automatically suspect and reveals it to be dangerously lacking in requisite rigour;

3. Academics and the otherwise-degree'd are not susceptible to vogues, fads, and trendiness;

4. That composers in the olden days – Bach etc. – were higher-minded, devoted purely to the Pursuit of Art, possessed only well-justified (if large) egos, were exempt from petty rivalries and fame-seeking, and generated Great Works unsullied by pursuit of girls, free drinks, a cushy place to work, and so on; and

5. That merely emotional music / art / literature, however powerfully loved (Dickens, Tchaikovsky being two examples), while it must be tolerated, is in actual fact beneath the notice of serious academics.

And I base my case against academe and the arts not just on these arguments, but on the results, which in my opinion have been totally disastrous.

*Where Have the Academics Left the Arts?*

So what is the result of academics seizing the helm and steering the arts? For my answer, I look to the marketplace for the arts.

How busy are concert halls? How many poetry magazines are there today? How many people, even the educated, feel free to like or dislike a work of art or a piece of music without reference to whether it’s on some “approved” list? Does one feel susceptible to being made a fool of by expressing dislike of a piece of art, only to learn that, say, the V&A paid millions for it because it had been approved by academics as “groundbreaking?” Does the announcement of new works of the sort championed by academics excite anticipation or, instead, a desire to flee?

I think we know the answers to all these questions. Few people, even among the well-educated, anticipate with pleasure new music, poetry or art, and I place the blame squarely on the Academy’s failure in leadership.

The history of this debacle goes back at least 50 years. Championing a combination of what, by around 1945 or 1950, had become a rigid and almost unassailable “canon” of Old Guys, plus a more recent crop of dissertation-ready music, with its systems to analyse, structural rigour, and harmonic ideas rooted not in enjoyment but physics or some other realm of intellectual novelty, The Academy has produced empty concert halls and generated a feverish urge, even among regular concert-goers, to hasten away from any music labelled “modern.” 

How is that good for music? Hasn’t the same relentless rejection of popular work produced the same scorched earth seen in many of the arts? Serious poetry, to take one example, has been relegated to oblivion nearly everywhere in the West.

Meanwhile, academically-sponsored art itself seems engaged in extended seppuku, crabbed and tangled with explicit and implicit rules for art that surely throttle the natural creative impulse.

How likely is Great Art to appear from the hand of the average academic with a full teaching load, with time to write at most a 20-40 minute piece in an entire academic year that he or she knows will be subjected to some kind of analytic scrutiny instead of just heard and liked, or not-liked? How likely is Great Art to appear from a composer-in-residence whose main task is to trot out music that the faculty and / or the committee approving his re-appointment will prize?

My guess is not too likely. I am not sure whether a film composer will overcome (or maybe already has, as re-peat has argued) the shortcomings and pressure of the medium, and produce something so good that “they would not willingly let it die.” I guess I think it’s very early to be sure what, in 50 or 200 years, will still be admired. But I’d bet on commerce to beat out the products of an Institute Of Learning.

Ironically, the result of the strenuous efforts of academics seeking to guard us from low-brow music is that the overwhelming majority of new orchestral music is produced for media. Of all orchestral music written in the last 20 years, what proportion is represented by film and TV? 90 percent? 99?

I am willing to place my bets there, in music-for-hire, rather than any Milton Babbitt or Luciano Berio or other composer whose work is so dense and difficult that it requires an instruction manual, or “historical perspective,” or decades of study to appreciate. 

Who has the time? I listened at age 12 or 14 for the first time to Beethoven’s third symphony, and that was it – instant admiration, astonishment; powerful feelings of all sorts, with no study, no manual.

And while that instant recognition of something you want to hear again may not be the only criterion, the academics’ explicit rejection of such instant delight, to me, is a sure sign of a institution that has missed the forest for the trees.

For good or ill, I believe film music has replaced opera and church music -- the mainstays of former times. And, if one accepts that idea, I believe that if we are to see great music written, it will be in film where we find the bulk of it.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Ok, let"s get one thing straight, and I say this with all the admiration I have for him, Williams music is not more than a collage of 20th cent composers, and without originality, but cleverly put together for the silver screen. Of course he deserves a lot of credit for doing it so exceptionally well, but that's where it starts and that's where it end



guy, jumping without having gotten to the end of the thread, buit i can't stay with you here.

from the perspective of the 20th century, brahms is regarded extremely highly. yet brahms was not an innovator either. by the standards of the time he lived, he did not advance harmony or musical form at all, only restate it with the kind of exquisite clarity you could probably only find in one other composer - bach.

i do admire innovators, people who find a fresh voice or re-imagine what we know well. i have to hand it to zimmer for that. not the hugest chops in the world, certainly compared to williams, but man he has really tried to find different ways to get the job done, especially recently.

but i also admire composers who take what they have and craft it so superbly. bach was not especially innovative, yet he and brahms rank as 2 of my all time favourite composers. beethoven is probably top of the heap for being able to do both (IMO), innovate and craft.

williams is right up there. such a vast amount of his music is so incredibly well written as to to defy belief at times. so satisfying on every level. not only can he bang out incredible tunes everyone can remember, but deeper than that his orchestration and mastery of every facet compositional technique known to us. he stands, truly on the shoulders of the masters before him, but he stands tall and reaches summits beyond most of us.

i know full well why he is not regarded as he should be within the academia. it's because academia is subject to the vagaries of cliques and 'gentleman's' clubs as any other walk of life, probably more so. it's pretension. the inability to accept film music as worthy of study is because it hasn't been studied and worth not accepted. somebody would have to go out on a limb and face down ridicule for championing music written for a warner brothers film, or for disney, and in my fairly considerable experience of academia, i have never seen that sort of intellectual courage in those circles.

i have sat in the audience of certain contemporary music, and those attending all tended to be the same faces - other composer writing similar kinds of music. this was really discouraging to me when i was starting out. who did i really want to write for? it becomes a self-congratulating clique of composers and musicians seeking to impress one another. i would think back to my ceilidh at the pub and go...nah. not for me.



> For me it's a no brainer, just ask any conductor, orchestra members or musical institutes if they regard JW higher than Gershwin, they will say: "No way!" But re-peat wants to attribute this to ignorance, snobbism etc... So he is the only normal person among all these people? I'm wondering who is the snob here. I'm just putting facts together, I didn't even talk about my personal taste in this post, and if you decide to to close your eyes and bypass all that, than the conversation is over.



i do ask conductors and orchestral musicians and made the point that friends in the LSO regard performing williams music as high points in their career. i remember them describing recording part of 'revenge of the sith' and half the orchestra had tears streaming down their faces the music was that moving. and these guys as stiff and jaded as you can get.


----------



## Narval

JohnG @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I believe film music has replaced opera and church music -- the mainstays of former times. And, if one accepts that idea, I believe that if we are to see great music written, it will be in film where we find the bulk of it.


It will be, it already is, and it has been this way since the days of Korngold, Rozsa, and Herrmann.

Of course, some self-appointed "elite" still refuses to accept its failure and inadequacy, but that's their own problem.

Excellent post, btw.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Rohan, I doubt we'll advance much more about our differences, although I appreciate your post. But since you mentioned Bach and Brahms, let's talk about them. Bach as I said in an earlier post to John, had nothing innovative in his music, so we agree on that, but his level of counterpoint in the most aesthetic way is unsurpassed. I can't see any areas where JW distant himself from some of the great 20th cent composers, and this is where we differ and probably will agree to disagree.

About Brahms, he brought romanticism in a unique way, as opposed to Tchaikovsky, he rigidly structured in forms the romantic style in a unique way, so he is credited for originality. Also Brahms style is very recognizable, his textures, harmonic language and orchestrations. I don't think you could under estimate his originality.


----------



## re-peat

*John,*

If there were such things as Awards for Forummembers in a Posting Role, I would instantly hand the most prestigious one to you. Really. I'm at a loss for words. And not just because I agree with virtually everything you've written (I would be equally radiating with admiration if I disagreed), or because you obviously appreciate the value of a carefully and lovingly written text (and the kind respect that such care and attention signifies to the readers), but most of all because it invites and stimulates serious thought and a healthy, productive exchange of viewpoints.
Unfortunately, I fear I have to dissappoint you on this last point because, like I already said, I completely agree with every syllable of this truly remarkable and beautiful post. I sincerely hope that one day, you'll write something that I disagree with.

I've just switched on my printer to capture your writings on real paper, and this is the first time, in all the years I've visited forums, that I felt the desire to do so.

_


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> I can't see any areas where JW distant himself from some of the great 20th cent composers, and this is where we differ and probably will agree to disagree.



Recognizable and instantly hummable melodies perhaps?

Btw. have you listened to JW beyond his suites and "[insert character]'s theme"? I guess you have, but I'm just asking to be sure. There is some pretty impressive and complex stuff in an album like The Empire Strikes Back. If you want to listen to some of his less tonal stuff, War of the Worlds is pretty interesting as well.


----------



## Narval

Anyone said Close Encounters of the Third Kind? (or lack of them...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbUGsbZW ... re=related

A total masterpiece! The ending, starting with 8:50 - absolutely breathtaking. Music at its best!


----------



## stevenson-again

john (re-peat - it is almost embarrassing to be so strongly in agreement) that was an incredible post. a complete and erudite summation of the entire issue and of my own frustrations i have felt with this particular subject. i am not printing it, but i *am* saving it and it will be going straight to the pool room.

(any aussies here...?)

i wrote my post before i had read yours and frankly it seems juvenile in comparison. but by god it feels good to read something that so perfectly captures an issue like this so succinctly.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Christian Marcussen @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I can't see any areas where JW distant himself from some of the great 20th cent composers, and this is where we differ and probably will agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recognizable and instantly hummable melodies perhaps?
Click to expand...


In that case the Beatles are way ahead of JW.

But seriously, if you want to talk about *melodies*, just put JW and Gershwin side by side and let's compare their melodic skills. It is no contest, JW is nowhere in the same league as Gerwshwin for melodies, if someone contests this, you will have to tell me your definition of a melody please.

While I'm at it, let's put them side by side on other aspects:

*Harmonic Language:* Once again no contest, Gershwin's language is totally unique, highly original and most of all universally accepted and embraced by all level of musicians. JW, honestly a very plain harmonic language, and not well regarded in musical institutes. Sorry, I don't buy the snob factor.

*Originality of Style:* I've just talked about the harmonic language, Gershwin has many other original trademarks in his style, rhythmic aspect for one, and how he makes melodies rhythmically interesting, an innovation as well. JW: Not very original, nothing innovative So advantage Gershwin here.

*Major works that stand on their own from A to Z:* This is really a no contest category. An American in Paris, Rhapsody in Blues or Porgy and Bess just to name a few, JW has nothing that even comes close to these masterpieces. Superman is fantastic but still doesn't compare at all.

*Orchestrators:* Both are in command of their orchestras, almost even here, but I'd still give the edge to Gershwin.

I'm sure I could go on and add more categories which will show more differences between a real genius and an excellent composer.


----------



## stevenson-again

btw - guy. it is great to have dissenting voice. without it this thread would have been extremely boring. i salute thee.


----------



## stevenson-again

one thought though guy, i rather suspect that you are thinking of a narrow kind of JW's music. there is rather a lot than just the bombast of superman or star wars. how about 'catch me if you can'? strikes me as command of a complete different harmonic language right there.

but if you want to say, 'was gershiwn more original in style than JW'? i dare say you would have a case. but if you ask me if he is accomplished within that style, then i am afraid i don't think gershwin is even close.

i am not particularly wild about gershwin. perhaps he is more original than JW, i don't know. i don't like his music enough to care to find out. we get down to personal taste then and i prefer JW by far.

part of the whole issue is about whether JWs music should stand on their own. i would easily put on 'seven years in tibet' before i would want to subject myself to the dvorak cello concerto, despite all its pretty tunes. and i would reach for 'memoirs of a geisha' long before i would want to listen to rhapsody in blue - though i quite like that piece. gershwin does not move me. JW does. often.


----------



## muk

Btw a lot of Beethoven's music, among other things the Eroica and most of his late works, has not instantly been understood by the greater part of the public.

John, on one point I strongly disagree with you: You simply cannnot take popularity, comprehensibility or "instant recognition" as the criterion defining good music/art. The fact that you instantly liked Beethoven's symphony on first hearing doesn't make it good music. The fact that you didn't understand Berio doesn't make it bad music.

Have a look at the comments about this piece of music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72HsHfhxiUg&feature=fvst

What do you think, how many people would gladly dump one of Beethoven's symphony for this piece? And I assume we don't have to discuss the artistic value of it, do we? Or how many people do like Dan Brown much more then Shakespeare? Goethe's Faust is so unbelievably complicated one cannot totally understand it in a lifetime, no matter how many "manuals" you read. Does it make it bad literature? It does make it literature that is not read as often as Dan Brown however.

And another point: I don't think that beautiful or popular music is suspicious to academics. Shallow music is


----------



## Guy Bacos

As I said, we won't get anywhere debating this, but one thing is for sure, whether re-peat likes it or not, JW has yet to proven he is at the same genius level as Gershwin. You could claim this on your personal preferences, but facts, history, critics, musical institutes all show that these 2 composers are not in the same league. 

As a pianist, I've played a lot in clubs, did people ask me to play JW, no! Did people asked me to play Gershwin? Constantly. Why is that? Not because his music is more pianistic, but because his music is close to the heart, it is genuine, honest, real, not just an amalgam of styles.


----------



## JohnG

Actually -- I love Gershwin! One of the few records I owned as a young lad was a complete recording of "Porgy and Bess," and I've listened to it with great pleasure many times.

But I must gently raise a question about the claim of profound originality, as I think it's a little strained. A huge number of GG's ideas, to my ears, seem couched in the vocabulary of songs and music halls and ragtime of the day. Chord progressions, even though played lustrously on an orchestra, that come straight out of jazz -- rhythms often ditto. I thought I heard or read somewhere that jazz guys -- black guys -- complained that he got all the credit for material they'd originated because he was white and wrote for orchestral instruments.

I'm not running the guy down -- I love his music and I think it's original enough. But to place him far above JW based on claims of originality, I don't know if I can swallow whole. And repeated references to the approval of academics don't really bolster the case convincingly.

By the way -- stumbled across an interesting essay on the grip of academics, particularly Schoenberg, on music and creativity in the 20th and 21st centuries. I don't know if it's completely accurate, but nevertheless quite interesting:

http://jackgibbons.blogspot.com/2010/02 ... sness.html


----------



## JohnG

muk @ 8th August 2010 said:


> John, on one point I strongly disagree with you: You simply cannnot take popularity, comprehensibility or "instant recognition" as the criterion defining good music/art.



I don't, and, if you read carefully what I wrote, didn't in my post.

I object to the near-automatic rejection by academics of anything popular or enjoyable. I object to the yoking of popular with "shallow," to use your word. I think it's wrong-headed. Plus, it ignores the reason they have their jobs in the first place: enjoyable works by Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Austen, Rembrandt, and so on, without whom few of their fee-paying students would have been lured to college in the first place.


----------



## germancomponist

We all are musicians and the most of us know the most film music composers. 

But the rest of the people do not so. There are so many people who watch films in the cinema but never think about the film music composers. And many good film music is the music that they do not recognize as music, because it is so well written to the film... . o/~ 

I am missing great noticeable melodies in the films, as there were a lot in the very past.

Hey friends, don`t fight for your opinions! 0oD


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I'm not running the guy down -- I love his music and I think it's original enough. But to place him far above JW based on claims of originality, I don't know if I can swallow whole. And repeated references to the approval of academics don't really bolster the case convincingly.



John, I'm sure you have your share of academic credits as well. But when I was studying music at McGill University, I didn't get the feeling that there was a mission to keep all film composers away and especially JW. I think some people might be getting a bit paranoid about this "snob" factor. What would be the purpose of pushing away a composer with such genius, if that was the case? Sorry, I just don't buy that, and I find it pretty cheap the description re-peat does about these musical institutes.

Also John, you can't just accept argument that will favor JW and push back the ones that don't. You have to consider ALL the factors IF you want to play fair.


----------



## Narval

Somebody needs to get off the soapbox, start his own thread and bullheadedly profess there his compulsive obsessions. I would suggest a very original title:



Frederick Russ @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> My composer is bigger than your composer.


And a very original soundtrack for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDuebLakCqc


----------



## JohnG

Well, I see JW as a genius of Bach's stripe, by contrast, say, with Bartok. JW is an astonishingly brilliant composer who seems very happy, for the most part, using and innovating with tools that are already out there, working in a popular medium. But that ignores so much of what's delightful and impressive to me about his music.

Frankly, I blush to try to define JW, given that I haven't heard probably half of his opus, but if one accepts the above description as directionally correct, he might not quite stand against all comers. Given the rabid insistence on originality in academia, to the near-exclusion of many other considerations, if that's the only yardstick, and it ignores or gives little credit for "mere" innovation, then you have an argument, I suppose. But one that would also exclude, or at least diminish, Bach and Tchaikovsky. 

And originality, as currently defined in academe, is highly overrated. The so-called "multimedia" art that I see in Western museums -- London, LA, NY at least -- to me is laughable. Sure, it's inventive, but for the most part it ranges from sophomoric victimhood-art, to rank foolishness or nonsense. In my opinion, largely a fraud.

But I part ways with the academics because I don't define the rules of the discussion that way, because I _don't_ ignore innovation or mastery that transcends what's been done by others -- JW's mastery of so many areas is staggering -- beyond belief, almost. Beyond Tchaikovsky's, to make a direct comparison. And on top of that there's a kind of perfection in his embrace of film, his spotting, his turns around drama, a perfection that is usually absent, or at least pitifully diminished, in most film composers' work.

But perhaps the difference between us on the subject (a difference that, after all, may not be so wide as the amount of typing might suggest) is this -- I do, personally, think academics suffer from such blinders that I can't even call it snobbism. It's beyond that; it represents cataclysmic ignorance and a willful disregard of what music constituted up until about 1935 or 1950. I don't know when concert music ceased to be a medium whose new productions people embraced and willingly sought out, but that's the case today.

There's this enormous body of music being created for real, live audiences today, but it lies outside the range of where the academics are willing to look. I realise that they genuinely don't like popular music -- no problem. But instead of being content with "I don't like it," they damn it completely and won't even have a look.


----------



## Guy Bacos

stevenson-again @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> btw - guy. it is great to have dissenting voice. without it this thread would have been extremely boring. i salute thee.



Hehe, :D 

And I want you to know I hear you, and can certainly appreciate your personal preferences. But I have to rebuttal if that's not what I believe, right?  Anyway, this is a forum about discussions, and this is what we're doing.


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I do, personally, think academics suffer from such blinders that I can't even call it snobbism. It's beyond that; it represents cataclysmic ignorance and a willful disregard of what music constituted up until about 1935 or 1950. I don't know when concert music ceased to be a medium whose new productions people embraced and willingly sought out, but that's the case today.
> 
> There's this enormous body of music being created for real, live audiences today, but it lies outside the range of where the academics are willing to look. I realise that they genuinely don't like popular music -- no problem. But instead of being content with "I don't like it," they damn it completely and won't even have a look.



I'm glad you started off by saying "I do, personally", which means this is your point of view, you then said: "I think", which I appreciate, but that also means you don't know that for sure, right? So if we are going to dismiss what we personally think, that doesn't work for me. I mentioned a lot of facts, and if anyone here is going to want to dismiss an argument, I'd appreciate if it was based on facts. Otherwise this debate is only based on personal preferences and what we "think" is happening.


----------



## Lex

...to me, scoring to picture is an art form and it's rather pointless to discuss the "greatness" of piece of music thats written for a scene while disregarding the scene or whole movie it's written for.

It's like listening to an opera but muting all the singing parts.

In this art form, scoring to picture, JW is genius, at least he is for me and my ears, heart and brain.....and for me it's not really about tunes everyone can remember (hell Scooter can do that), it's about tunes/themes that are memorable AND that everyone emotionally connects to characters/story of the movie/scene it was written for, immediately.

Also in this art form, compared to JW, Gershwin was a clumsy beginner unless the movie had a lot of singing and dancing, and basically a Broadway play on celluloid.

Personally, while I recognize Gershwins originality, skill and creativity, his music bores me to tears more often then not.

And Guy, if people in clubs ask you to play Lady GaGa and never ask you to play JW does that academically prove us that GaGa is a genius and JW isn't??

Apples, oranges and bloated egos.

aLex


----------



## Guy Bacos

This is why I earlier said, this forum is a film composer forum mainly, and I know I can't count on many people here to share my view, however, the world is much larger than this single forum and I like to have a broader mind than some comments such as Lex saying: "Gershwin bores me to tears." That's great aLex, excellent argument. :roll: Anymore like that?


----------



## JohnG

Guy Bacos @ 8th August 2010 said:


> I mentioned a lot of facts, and if anyone here is going to want to dismiss an argument, I'd appreciate if it was based on facts. Otherwise this debate is only based on personal preferences and what we "think" is happening.



Ok, then. It's my personal experience with academic music, which I assume is as much of a "fact" as any of us has presented here, you included, Guy.

I don't read your personal anecdotes as being "facts," for what it's worth and I am surprised at such a condescending phrase. As I read it, I am getting your opinion supplemented by stories, which I do find interesting and illustrative of your point of view, though not conclusive proof of anything beyond there being, as I am sure there are, plenty who'd agree with you. 

For example, the fact of most everyone in academics ignoring film music -- something you've repeated yourself several times so I guess we can accept it as a fact? -- doesn't prove anything against what either of us is arguing, it only describes how academics are behaving. 

And I don't see quarreling about the question of whether Gershwin drew heavily on the songs, ballads, folk tunes, jazz and other song-based music that was around at the time. I think it's obvious that he did. And did marvelous things.

So I ask the courtesy of not insinuating that your case is proven and mine is merely opinion, when I think it quite clear that we are having a discussion that is almost entirely based on opinion and judgement, which we bolster with observations, arguments, and ideas drawn from personal experience.


----------



## Lex

...plenty of arguments in my post, seems you didn't catch any.

Do you recognize scoring to picture as an autonomous art form?

Do you think Gershwin could score a scene better then JW?

Are you capable of enjoying a marriage between the scene and the score as piece of art ?

Those could be interesting things to talk about, and argument points if you wish.

"Gershwin bores me to tears" is a statement about my personal artistic preferences and taste in music, certainly not an argument....argument for what exactly?

aLex


----------



## Guy Bacos

Fine John, repeat, etc..

JW is the greatest. Happy??

I'm out!!!!!


----------



## re-peat

Guy,

This post should have followed your GG-JW contest a bit more rapidly, but it took me a few minutes to type it.

And as for that comparison: well yeah, why not? Simply list every possible musical element in the book and confidently proclaim Gershwin the obvious winner in each category. Damn, why didn’t any of us, Williams lovers, think of that? So simple. No need for any serious argumentation, no need for anything really, no, just say A is better than B — _why? because it is_ — and be done with it.

The sad problem sneaking up on you however, is that your pseudo-informed description of each composer’s merits or flaws, is highly questionnable, often blatantly wrong (you can throw nearly everything you said about harmony, orchestration and originality straight in the garbage bin) and at times simply compassion-provoking. For all I care, you might just as well have said that Gershwin had a more impressive hairdo than Williams does. No contest indeed.

Anyway, I could go over each point with you and refute, or at least question, a lot of your claims, but I’m affraid that would see me doing exactly what I proclaimed earlier (to Jay, this community and myself) I never intended to do in the first place. So, suffice to say, I hope, that:

(1) both Gershwin and Williams had (or have) an unusually great talent for melody
(2) neither of them used (or use) an original or innovative musical language (if you insist on thinking otherwise about Gershwin, you might want to revisit your 19th and 20th century music history books, and the chapters that deal with American music in particular, or maybe consult with your hordes of qualified professors).
(3) both have given us exquisite music in generous quantities
(4) Gershwin’s command of the orchestra often sounds stiff, laborious and painfully acquired, whereas Williams continuously displays the most effortless and natural virtuosity — and functional virtuosity at that — which easily matches Ravel’s, Respighi’s, Korsakov’s or Strauss’s (to name the four most obvious ‘colour orchestrators’). You may question a lot if you like, but not Williams' stunning and unique handling of the orchestral pallette. And I am not just saying this for you or anyone else to accept it blindly, no, a simple unbiased listening session will reveal this quickly, to any objective listener, to be the case.

If you'd like some elaboration on any of the above, I'm sure I'll read about it.
This is about it for now.

_


----------



## germancomponist

Has anyone read my last post?..... .


----------



## Ashermusic

JohnG @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I am willing to place my bets there, in music-for-hire, rather than any Milton Babbitt or Luciano Berio or other composer whose work is so dense and difficult that it requires an instruction manual, or “historical perspective,” or decades of study to appreciate.



I am a film composer and I have spent a lot of years loving, studying, and respecting great film music.

But I have NEVER experienced a moment simply listening to a piece of film music that thrilled me emotionally as well as intellectually to match the day when Avram David had me close my eyes and listen to Luciano Berio's "Circles."

At the time I thought I hated all avant garde music, understood NOTHING about it and had never seriously looked at its scores. and that it was all bullshit. That was my "light bulb" moment.

After that both my mind and ears were open in a way that they had not been and I was able to start to appreciate Boulez, Stockhausen, Varese, Webern, etc. for the great music that much of it is.


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Guy,
> 
> This post should have followed your GG-JW contest a bit more rapidly, but it took me a few minutes to type it.
> 
> And as for that comparison: well yeah, why not? Simply list every possible musical element in the book and confidently proclaim Gershwin the obvious winner in each category. Damn, why didn’t any of us, Williams lovers, think of that? So simple. No need for any serious argumentation, no need for anything really, no, just say A is better than B — _why? because it is_ — and be done with it.
> 
> The sad problem sneaking up on you however, is that your pseudo-informed description of each composer’s merits or flaws, is highly questionnable, often blatantly wrong (you can throw nearly everything you said about harmony, orchestration and originality straight in the garbage bin) and at times simply compassion-provoking. For all I care, you might just as well have said that Gershwin had a more impressive hairdo than Williams does. No contest indeed.
> 
> Anyway, I could go over each point with you and refute, or at least question, a lot of your claims, but I’m affraid that would see me doing exactly what I proclaimed earlier (to Jay, this community and myself) I never intended to do in the first place. So, suffice to say, I hope, that:
> 
> (1) both Gershwin and Williams had (or have) an unusually great talent for melody
> (2) neither of them used (or use) an original or innovative musical language (if you insist on thinking otherwise about Gershwin, you might want to revisit your 19th and 20th century music history books, and the chapters that deal with American music in particular, or maybe consult with your hordes of qualified professors).
> (3) both have given us exquisite music in generous quantities
> (4) Gershwin’s command of the orchestra often sounds stiff, laborious and painfully acquired, whereas Williams continuously displays the most effortless and natural virtuosity — and functional virtuosity at that — which easily matches Ravel’s, Respighi’s, Korsakov’s or Strauss’s (to name the four most obvious ‘colour orchestrators’). You may question a lot if you like, but not Williams' stunning and unique handling of the orchestral pallette. And I am not just saying this for you or anyone else to accept it blindly, no, a simple unbiased listening session will reveal this quickly, to any objective listener, to be the case.
> 
> If you'd like some elaboration on any of the above, I'm sure I'll read about it.
> This is about it for now.
> 
> _



Nothing to add re-peat, you seem so sure of everything you say, so keep enjoying JW as the greatest.


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> [
> And finally, Guy, a friendly word of warning: up until now, I've managed to ignore your stupid remarks at my or my opinion's expense — it's not a pretty sight watching you flounder through this conversation, fueled by frustration, impotence and chagrin, I must say — but if you want to start playing this nasty and personal, be aware that you’ve got some unpleasant things coming. Just so you know.
> 
> _



I can vouch for this, Guy. You will not be nastier than Piet once it goes down that way.


----------



## Narval

Tell a girl that her doll is not prettier than her friend's doll, and then try explaining your statement and talking aesthetics with her. This is all you can hope to get, at best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaZQtU04YI0


----------



## lamboguy

I am going to carefully step in here and make a quick comment...without reading more than 2 posts in this thread.

I love film music, and have written for both tv and films.

I left primarily because ultimately I am more interested in the music without images than music with images. Once you have the images (and I say this also as past president of the Visual Music Alliance) the vast majority of people focus on the images and the music is in second place.

Sort of "pure music" -- like maybe (one of thousands of great examples) Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue -- I find more interesting because it stands up for itself. It has to. It is not background music, and I'm sorry to say this, but with all my experience with film -- I don't care who is writing what, 99% of the time film music is background music.

Of course, I LOVE great film music. I think Psycho is one of the greats of all time, and I'd put the music right up there with the film. Heck...maybe even better than the film (if that's possible).

But that's because I am a composer, and I listen to that sort of thing. The vast majority of people will not even hear the music in Psycho -- and probably don't even know there are screeching strings in the shower scene...they're just scared to death by the image, and the music supports that. 

This is my experience -- most people focus on the film and are unaware of the music.

When you write for film (or tv), ultimately you are giving more shape to the film, but the film is still "king."

When you write just music, the music is king -- whether it's any good or not. (And that's the hard part, making music that will stand up for itself)

Ok -- I honestly don't know what's going on in this thread, but I just wanted to add my .02 because of the interesting subject line.

Best to everybody,

Fred


----------



## Guy Bacos

John, I enjoyed our PM chat.  If all the comments on this thread were exchanged through PM or in a pub, there would be a lot less friction.


----------



## JohnG

Apropos lambo's point, one question that Guy and I were kicking around the question of which film composers might be able to write really compelling concert music.

And a related question is, "what specifically would you do?" as far as development of material, and pacing. These (among many things) are just so different between (most) film music and (most) concert music.

The expectations would be many and would have to be sorted out as well. Just how complex ought the music to be? Should it sound like your film work?

One example I like is a J Goldsmith concert piece called, "Christus Apollo," which I enjoy a lot. You can hear that it's him, I think, but it's clearly a standalone piece with enough depth and robustness to stand on its own, not some adapted suite of "favourite themes" or something like that. 

Amazon's review reads, in part:

Using a then-chic dodecaphonic technique, the composer applies his mastery of color and dynamics to ensure that the music never lapses into tone-row clichés, invoking the medieval as often as the futuristic. But even if Goldsmith now admits the 12-tone system has become an ironic anachronism, it detracts nothing from the dark, rhythmic fury of the 1970 "Music for Orchestra" that opens the set. It's music with sonic parallels to some of the composer's great sci-fi scores: Planet of the Apes, Alien, et al. -- Amazon.com


----------



## dcoscina

I'm going to add another thought here on this topic. Sergei Prokofiev, my favourite composer of all time, dabbled in film scoring and of course was a renowned concert composer. He even bridged the two mediums by adapting his scores for Eisenstein's films to a Cantata (Alexander Nevsky) and Oratorio (Ivan the Terrible). 

when I was in college, Prokofiev was always the butt end of a smart remark from my profs like "he's middle of the road" and was lumped together with other "lesser composers" like Vaughan Williams, Samuel Barber, Shostakovich. At the time, being a young student, I accepted my prof's observations without question. As I have gotten older, studied more works by Prokofiev, I have come to the conclusion that most of these guys were full of shit. Utter rubbish. They loved and lived by Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Crumb, and Varese. I listen to those pieces and yeah, some of them rock like Arcana, but most if not all of the have the emotional appeal of a lobotomy. And I think my profs had very little understanding of his compositional breadth and prowess. His Violin Concerto #1 is a splendid virtuosic essay while his Fourth Symphony aches with a sentimentality and emotion, compounded with deft use of structure, that inspire awe. 

While Stravinsky was putzing around with his Neo Classicism, Prokofiev composed an amazing Classical Symphony that never abandoned his own harmonic architecture but still adhered to the classical principles. This is harder than it would appear. 

Why am I bringing up Prokofiev? Because it seems like a big part of the argument on this thread is that film composers cannot be competent or even celebrated concert composers or vise versa. 

Guy, I don't mean to insult you but I find Prokofiev much more diverse and compelling than Gershwin (his 2nd Piano Concerto eats Rhapsody in Blue for breakfast as far as I'm concerned). I get much more out of Romeo and Juliet than I ever will with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos. And for modernism, all I have to do is look to his Third Symphony mvmt 3 to hear the downward glides in the violins that inspire a demonic vision. 

I don't buy that a film composer has to be of lesser compositional fortitude than a concert composer. Vaughan Williams scored Scott of the Antarctic and adapted that into his Sinfonia Antarctica and Shostakovich likewise scored many a film. 

now I'm rambling but at some point I wanted to address this misnomer. The only reason we don't have the same duality in current film composers is because some of them are inept posers with a shitload of gear and a lot of nameless orchestrators and ghost writers.


----------



## Ashermusic

dcoscina @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I'm going to add another thought here on this topic. Sergei Prokofiev, my favourite composer of all time, dabbled in film scoring and of course was a renowned concert composer. He even bridged the two mediums by adapting his scores for Eisenstein's films to a Cantata (Alexander Nevsky) and Oratorio (Ivan the Terrible).
> 
> when I was in college, Prokofiev was always the butt end of a smart remark from my profs like "he's middle of the road" and was lumped together with other "lesser composers" like Vaughan Williams, Samuel Barber, Shostakovich. At the time, being a young student, I accepted my prof's observations without question. As I have gotten older, studied more works by Prokofiev, I have come to the conclusion that most of these guys were full of [email protected]#t. Utter rubbish. They loved and lived by Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Crumb, and Varese. I listen to those pieces and yeah, some of them rock like Arcana, but most if not all of the have the emotional appeal of a lobotomy. And I think my profs had very little understanding of his compositional breadth and prowess. His Violin Concerto #1 is a splendid virtuosic essay while his Fourth Symphony aches with a sentimentality and emotion, compounded with deft use of structure, that inspire awe.
> 
> While Stravinsky was putzing around with his Neo Classicism, Prokofiev composed an amazing Classical Symphony that never abandoned his own harmonic architecture but still adhered to the classical principles. This is harder than it would appear.
> 
> Why am I bringing up Prokofiev? Because it seems like a big part of the argument on this thread is that film composers cannot be competent or even celebrated concert composers or vise versa.
> 
> Guy, I don't mean to insult you but I find Prokofiev much more diverse and compelling than Gershwin (his 2nd Piano Concerto eats Rhapsody in Blue for breakfast as far as I'm concerned). I get much more out of Romeo and Juliet than I ever will with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos. And for modernism, all I have to do is look to his Third Symphony mvmt 3 to hear the downward glides in the violins that inspire a demonic vision.
> 
> I don't buy that a film composer has to be of lesser compositional fortitude than a concert composer. Vaughan Williams scored Scott of the Antarctic and adapted that into his Sinfonia Antarctica and Shostakovich likewise scored many a film.
> 
> now I'm rambling but at some point I wanted to address this misnomer. The only reason we don't have the same duality in current film composers is because some of them are inept posers with a shitload of gear and a lot of nameless orchestrators and ghost writers.



Wow! I share your love of Prokofiev but I simply have not seen a film he has scored so whatever the music is, I cannot judge how well it works with the film. And of course if it does not work well with the film, then it will have missed its primary function. The same with R. Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich, but then, I don't put them in the same league as concert hall composers as Prokofiev anyway. Personally, I would much rather listen to Berio than Shostakovich and certainly Bach more than R.V. Williams. 

And it has nothing to do with compositional fortitude, it has to do with the job description. You are a talented composer who I admire but when and if you score more films, I think you will understand.


----------



## Guy Bacos

dcoscina @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Guy, I don't mean to insult you but I find Prokofiev much more diverse and compelling than Gershwin...



Ok, but my daddy is stronger than yours.  

John, we've reached a common ground and a problem we both acknowledge about the impracticability of performing film scores as concert music. In a selective process, you could probably dig out a lot of stand alone pieces among film scores. Let's not debate anymore which God is greater, but why is film music clumsy in an concert orchestra venue. The quality is right up there among the better film composers, but can you take the score as it is and use it in a concert including all the incidental music passages? This is where it gets clumsy and stand alone pieces are essential. 

The other day when watching Toy Story 2 for the 10th time, there is a segment in there where the music is superb, has a start and end, with a fun ABA form, and I would certainly see that music as a concert piece, I have to admit the organized form really helped me and made me want to listen to it over and over again. The problem is, although the rest of the music is still great, I have a hard time seeing how it could be set up for concert music. I don't think forms were invented for nothing, the brain needs some organization when listening to music, well stand alone music.


----------



## Narval

dcoscina @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> I find Prokofiev much more diverse and compelling than Gershwin (his 2nd Piano Concerto eats Rhapsody in Blue for breakfast as far as I'm concerned). I get much more out of Romeo and Juliet than I ever will with Bach's Brandenburg Concertos.


Here you go again...

Why oh why some people can't admire their favorite composers without trying to put down other people's favorite composers? Making negative comments about Gershwin, does that ad anything to the stature of Prokofiev? Looking down on John Williams says anything about Gershwin? This looks more like name-dropping to me. Or like magical thinking: wearing a red t-shirt that reads "7 - Villa" to feel like a soccer specialist, or even a player. :roll:


----------



## JohnG

Guy Bacos @ 8th August 2010 said:


> John, we've reached a common ground and a problem we both acknowledge about the impracticability of performing film scores as concert music. In a selective process, you could probably dig out a lot of stand alone pieces among film scores. Let's not debate anymore which God is greater, but why is film music clumsy in an concert orchestra venue. The quality is right up there among the better film composers, but can you take the score as it is and use it in a concert including all the incidental music passages?



I am slightly wrong-footed by this one, Guy. I don't know when anyone suggested that one could take a whole film score, unedited, and just slap it out as a concert piece, especially including the incidental music, which doesn't even make it onto soundtrack CDs.

David indirectly addresses this issue with the point about the suites of Prokofiev; JW and Goldsmith made arrangements of suites, and others as well.

What point in the discussion are you aiming for with this?


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Guy Bacos @ 8th August 2010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> John, we've reached a common ground and a problem we both acknowledge about the impracticability of performing film scores as concert music. In a selective process, you could probably dig out a lot of stand alone pieces among film scores. Let's not debate anymore which God is greater, but why is film music clumsy in an concert orchestra venue. The quality is right up there among the better film composers, but can you take the score as it is and use it in a concert including all the incidental music passages?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am slightly wrong-footed by this one, Guy. I don't know when anyone suggested that one could take a whole film score, unedited, and just slap it out as a concert piece, especially including the incidental music, which doesn't even make it onto soundtrack CDs.
Click to expand...


I don't know and don't care if anyone said it or not, I'm saying it, it's more of a point I'm making and I thought it had some relevance. I don't just mean incidental music but long slow passages that, Ah nevermind! Too complicated... 

I'm really tired of this thread!!!


----------



## dcoscina

Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Wow! I share your love of Prokofiev but I simply have not seen a film he has scored so whatever the music is, I cannot judge how well it works with the film. And of course if it does not work well with the film, then it will have missed its primary function. The same with R. Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich, but then, I don't put them in the same league as concert hall composers as Prokofiev anyway. Personally, I would much rather listen to Berio than Shostakovich and certainly Bach more than R.V. Williams.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with compositional fortitude, it has to do with the job description. You are a talented composer who I admire but when and if you score more films, I think you will understand.



Jay, I'm a little surprised you haven't seen Alexandre Nevsky nor Ivan the Terrible Pts 1 & 2. If you had, you would know that they contain some of the finest music put to imagery in the history of cinema on this planet. Eisenstein actually re-cut the Battle on the Ice because he loved Prokofiev's music so much and didn't want him to alter the pace and tempo after he'd edited the scene. There are a million film composers who have ripped or quoted Nevsky- most notably Poledouris' Conan which has several quotes from Nevsky. Prokofiev's Nevsky is one of the most influential film scores of all time. A little known film composer named Bernard Herrmann once remarked that Ivan the Terrible was one of the greatest film scores of all time.

Guy: I'm sure your dad is tougher than mine. My dad is a neuroscientist. But seriously, I didn't mean to slight your fave composers to push up mine- just to illustrate a point about the misnomer about the skill of film composers as opposed to concert composers.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Participating in this thread has been more degrading than anything else. I like to consider myself a musician of good taste, but I seem to be wrong in everything I say, about my taste, about my views. Quite insulting at the end of the day!


----------



## dcoscina

Guy. I think you are a terrific musician and composer, and I definitely see where you're coming from- I just have a different POV. Mine isn't right any more than yours is wrong. They are just different. I only wished to provide a contrasting perspective, not insult you. 

Best, 

David


----------



## Ashermusic

dcoscina @ Sun Aug 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I share your love of Prokofiev but I simply have not seen a film he has scored so whatever the music is, I cannot judge how well it works with the film. And of course if it does not work well with the film, then it will have missed its primary function. The same with R. Vaughan Williams and Shostakovich, but then, I don't put them in the same league as concert hall composers as Prokofiev anyway. Personally, I would much rather listen to Berio than Shostakovich and certainly Bach more than R.V. Williams.
> 
> And it has nothing to do with compositional fortitude, it has to do with the job description. You are a talented composer who I admire but when and if you score more films, I think you will understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jay, I'm a little surprised you haven't seen Alexandre Nevsky nor Ivan the Terrible Pts 1 & 2. If you had, you would know that they contain some of the finest music put to imagery in the history of cinema on this planet. Eisenstein actually re-cut the Battle on the Ice because he loved Prokofiev's music so much and didn't want him to alter the pace and tempo after he'd edited the scene. There are a million film composers who have ripped or quoted Nevsky- most notably Poledouris' Conan which has several quotes from Nevsky. Prokofiev's Nevsky is one of the most influential film scores of all time. A little known film composer named Bernard Herrmann once remarked that Ivan the Terrible was one of the greatest film scores of all time.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Interesting Dave, I will try to find it and see it. But as for "Eisenstein actually re-cut the Battle on the Ice because he loved Prokofiev's music so much and didn't want him to alter the pace and tempo after he'd edited the scene" I doubt that would ever happen today. 

In "North By Northwest" the climactic scene at Mt. Rushmore is all Hermann's music, no wind whipping around, rocks sliding , etc. That too would never happen today. So maybe that is all part of it.

Even so, how many Prokofiev sized talents are out there, concert hall or film? Is he really a realistic measuring stick? If so, we are ALL screwed


----------



## Ashermusic

[quote:a1b62782ae="Guy Bacos @ Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:19 pm"]Participating in this thread has been more degrading than anything else. I like to consider myself a musician of good taste, butò ¥   àgM ¥   àgN ¥   àgO ¥   àgP ¥   àgQ ¥   àgR ¥   àgS ¥   àgT ¥   àgU ¥   àgV ¥   àgW ¥   àgX ¥   àgY ¥   àgZ ¥   àg[ ¥   àg\ ¥   àg] ¥   àg^ ¥   àg_ ¥   àg` ¥   àga ¥   àgb ¥   àgc ¥   àgd ¥   àge ¥   àgf ¥   àgg ¥   àgh ¥   àgi ¥   àgj ¦   àgm ¦   àgn ¦   àgo ¦   àgp ¦   àgq ¦   àgr ¦   àgs ¦   àgt ¦   àgu ¦   àgv ¦   àgw ¦   àgx ¦   àgy ¦   àgz ¦   àg{ ¦   àg| ¦   àg} ¦   àg~ ¦   àg ¦   àg€ ¦   àg ¦   àg‚ ¦   àgƒ ¦   àg„ ¦   àg… ¦   àg† ¦   àg‡ ¦   àgˆ ¦   àg


----------



## muk

What I'm really irritated an disappointed about is the way most of you talk about academics. You're accusing them all of being ignorant, snobbish and what not. Why this frustration? I can't speak for american institutes but at my university, film music isn't overlooked at all. There are courses, held together with people from film sciences. What I learnt there is that you have to choose the pieces you discuss carefully, because much of film music (but by all means not all of it) is lacking the intellectual depth of sophistication the classical canon delivers.

So here's my opinion frankly: intellectual depth and sophistication separates music from art-music. Analysis is a method to identify intellectual depth and sophistication. That's how I see it. If you do agree on those premises, you have a foundation to share *reasoned* opinion about music (and not just talking about feeling, emotion, perception, beauty. And that's what happened in this thread a lot in my opinion). That's actually what the ignorant people at musical institutes do where I come from. Now, if I should stumble upon an analysis of any composer identifying such sophisticated depth, I'd gladly add him to my personal canon.




> John, on one point I strongly disagree with you: You simply cannnot take popularity, comprehensibility or "instant recognition" as the criterion defining good music/art.
> I don't, and, if you read carefully what I wrote, didn't in my post.



By reading your post again I see that you're right. You didn't. Apologies for getting you wrong. It was this phrase that made me think you did:


> And while that instant recognition of something you want to hear again may not be the only criterion [...]


Now sth you got me wrong:


> I object to the yoking of popular with "shallow," [...]


 In fact, I didn't :D As I get it it's what you are objecting to academics, that they are thinking that all beautiful music is necessarily shallow. As for me, I certainly don't think that this is true


----------



## re-peat

JohnG @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Apropos lambo's point, one question that Guy and I were kicking around the question of which film composers might be able to write really compelling concert music. And a related question is, "what specifically would you do?" as far as development of material, and pacing. These (among many things) are just so different between (most) film music and (most) concert music.


I don't really see a problem. Any score with enough moments of abstract musical interest can easily be transformed into a satisfying concertpiece, I believe. Besides, form and development in music needn't be limited to academically approved or classical structures. "Rhapsody In Blue" is a good example: it was often criticized by the highbrow elite for being formally weak -- and from a strictly academic viewpoint this is true of course -- and yet, everybody who has any musical sensitivity, can quite easily hear that this Rhapsody is about as solid a sequence of musical events as any. Nowhere near as constructed or rich as, say, a Beethoven symphony, but rather a very organic yet well-organized flow of startling music ideas. And it works. Its 'form' results from Gershwin's instinctive knowing how long he could stretch certain passages, when he needed to shift gear or hold back, when the thematic focus needed changing, etc. .... It's a very free structure, true, but it certainly is a structure. The Rhaspody, like any great piece of music, has this 'arc', starting at the very beginning and spanning the entire work, holding it together with a perfectly satisfying, natural logic. The wonderful thing about the Rhapsody is also that its various musical ideas all seem to fertilize one another and they're obviously all rooted in the same musical ground. And this is, I believe, also one of the important reasons why the work, as a whole, holds up so well. (Unlike, say, "An American In Paris", "The 2nd Rhapsody", the pianoconcerto, the "Cuban Overture" or the "I Got Rhythm Variations": all these works sound, to me anyway, disjointed and assembled with great difficulty, i.o.w. they don't have the 'arc of musical logic' which the Rhapsody has.)

The great *Nino Rota* has adapted several of his scores for the concert hall, and with great success. "La Strada", for example, is a most enjoyable piece of music, even if you haven't got a clue what it was originally written for. In almost every Rota score (at least, the ones I know) houses a great concert piece, in my opinion.
Many of *Philippe Sarde*'s orchestral scores would make for terrific concert hall experiences. And the same goes, I believe, for *George Fenton*.
And if *Goldsmith* had found the time, I'm convinced that he too could have turned several of his scores into major concert pieces. The music for "Outland" for instance, has always been pregnant with a dark, brooding symphony of great interest, to my ears. And that's just one out of many possible Goldsmith-examples. ("Planet Of The Apes" is a masterpiece as it is, no need to adapt anything there, or very little anyway, even though it might prove very difficult to reproduce the electronic sounds and delays, which are essential to the music, satisfyingly and with the required accuracy during a concert performance.)

But then there are other superb filmcomposers where I can't see the transplant from score to concert piece happen as easily. *Bruce Broughton* for instance, surely a magnificent filmcomposer, and yet I can't think of any of his scores that would survive the move to the concert hall intact. Strange. Maybe it's because Broughton's thematic material is not always self-contained enough. And because his scores are tied together with long stretches of purposeful, but strictly functional, musical carpeting. Take "Silverado": let's say that needs to be turned into an 'Americana'-type of ballet or suite, like Copland's "Rodeo" or "Billy The Kid" ... What material, other than the rousing main theme, is there to work with? Or even his splendid music for "Young Sherlock Holmes": try as I may and despite its many moments of musical interest, I simply don't hear any concert piece, in whatever shape or form, in this work.

_


----------



## stevenson-again

> Did people asked me to play Gershwin? Constantly. Why is that? Not because his music is more pianistic,



because the music is more appropriate for that setting. 

i actually do find it amazing that you would even consider gershwin in JWs league let alone superior. just because one is better accepted by academia than the other hardly is any kind of 'proof'. it may well be that taste is getting in the way of objectivity.


----------



## re-peat

stevenson-again @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> (....) because the music is more appropriate for that setting. (...)


Indeed. People in cocktail bars also tend to ask for Richard Clayderman, or Elton John's horrible but very appropriately titled "Song for Guy".

_


----------



## stevenson-again

> Participating in this thread has been more degrading than anything else. I like to consider myself a musician of good taste, but I seem to be wrong in everything I say, about my taste, about my views. Quite insulting at the end of the day!



i agree with jay you are taking this a bit personally. i have enjoyed your contrary argument and you have forced out of re-peat and john extremely eloquent, cogent, and enjoyable responses.

i can absolutely vouch for you as being a musician of good taste - perhaps better taste than you think of yourself as having. because at the risk of upsetting you further, i would vastly prefer to hear your own music than gershwin's, who you clearly deeply admire. so, to me, your instinctive tastes are more preferable to me than your stated ones. but at the end of the day it is taste and that's surely fine isn't it?

i don't think i need to add anything to what john and re-peat have discussed regarding academic acceptance. johns last post saying that it is beyond snobbishness, it is more like ignorance, is my experience.

i should also say that i still receive commissions for concert works, and a few of my concert works get performed quite often. i haven't left the scene altogether, but if i am i completely honest, i derive more satisfaction from writing and listening to music written for film than i generally do modern concert repetoire.


----------



## jlb

Personally I think there are too many of these I like this composer, I don't like this one on the forum. We are never going to agree. I participated in an 'is Brian Wilson a genius' discussion, and from now on I am just going to avoid these arguments. I know Brian Wilson is a genius, end of story. (Was listening to 'The Warmth of the Sun, the version with Willie Nelson, I would recommend it. That is a TIMELESS piece of music, as fresh as the day it was written, like a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt, you have to just sit back and think 'I couldn't write that' and he wrote it when he was 20 or something).

Anyway I thought the point of the forum was for us to help each other make better music by understanding how to use VI's/DAWs better, not argue about whose composer is best.

I am interested in music that stands up with and without the picture, eg Vangelis, Howard Shore, Morricone etc, that is what I am after

jlb


----------



## re-peat

jlb @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> We are never going to agree.


Of course we are never going to agree. Agreeing is neither the goal or the point. The point is: exploring what each of us finds appealing, fascinating, moving and/or valuable in different types of music and why that is so (if it can be explained adequately, that is). Or why certain things are considered weak and mediocre. Something can be learned from such an exchange, don't you think?
If you say, for example, that Brian Wilson is a genius, that might trigger someone, even if he or she doesn't agree, to discuss the issue with you, learn something from it, and then maybe go and search out the man's wonderful music. No? If I say that I consider Frank Zappa 100 times the genius that Wilson ever was, that might set you off thinking (once you manage to get over the initial indignation). You're certainly not supposed to agree. But if you think about it, honestly and thoroughly, and if we allow and stimulate each other to argument the case for or against, I believe that's a VERY positive outcome. 
If Guy claims that Williams is only a so-and-so melodist, that's something that makes me think about it. (Not for very long, but anyway.) Is it so? And why does Guy, who is certainly not a musical fool or illiterate, say that it is? And what are my arguments for saying that it isn't? All very interesting and worthwile, I find. Or why is filmmusic often considered unsatisfactory background music whereas Händel's "Music For The Royal Fireworks", which was just as much utilitarian background music, is considered full-grown art? Isn't it fascinating to ponder and discuss such questions?

We don't have to agree on anything. Disagreement is much more productive (and way more fun too).

_


----------



## jlb

Yes it is interesting I agree, but it doesn't help me improve my music. Which is all I am interested in, and the point of the forum as far as I am concerned. From what I can see, you don't get anywhere in this incredibly competitive game unless you are 100% focused on learning, improving, always. 

jlb 

Didn't Zappa call one of his children 'Moon Unit'? Must be a genius!


----------



## re-peat

jlb @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Yes it is interesting I agree, but it doesn't help me improve my music.


Indirectly, it might. If, through discussion and disagreement, you discover new music, new ways of appreciating music, or new insights regarding music, your own music might very much benefit from all of this. I am open to much more different types music today then I was 4 years ago -- music which now influences my own stuff --, and that is in no small part thanks to meeting (and struggling) with different opinions, preferences and appreciations on this very forum.

_


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> But then there are other superb filmcomposers where I can't see the transplant from score to concert piece happen as easily. Bruce Broughton for instance, surely a magnificent filmcomposer, and yet I can't think of any of his scores that would survive the move to the concert hall intact. Strange. Maybe it's because Broughton's thematic material is not always self-contained enough. And because his scores are tied together with long stretches of purposeful, but strictly functional, musical carpeting. Take "Silverado": let's say that needs to be turned into an 'Americana'-type of ballet or suite, like Copland's "Rodeo" or "Billy The Kid" ... What material, other than the rousing main theme, is there to work with? Or even his splendid music for "Young Sherlock Holmes": try as I may and despite its many moments of musical interest, I simply don't hear any concert piece, in whatever shape or form, in this work.



"Tombstone" perhaps? Love that music and it seems more appropriate for concert than his equally fantastic "Young Sherlock Holmes".


----------



## stevenson-again

> Yes it is interesting I agree, but it doesn't help me improve my music. Which is all I am interested in, and the point of the forum as far as I am concerned. From what I can see, you don't get anywhere in this incredibly competitive game unless you are 100% focused on learning, improving, always.



again, i can't help but agree with re-peat on this. actually we really have to thank guy for his opposing views. he is someone we all respect and admire so when he says things we don't agree with we have to justify why we think what we do. either it challenges our views (with any change in them coming much much later) or helps to articulate them.

i personally feel that some of the posts here have helped me understand my own personal instincts, frustrations, doubts and inclinations. as such, it means i can approach an issue like this in the real world (say i wanted to get a job at a university or justify why i want to write a piece of concert music in the way i want to write it) far better armed with clearer views. i don't have to just lamely say, 'it's the vibe of it...'.

and if guy hadn't been here to really challenge us with passion and intelligence, would we have had johns fantastic post a little while back on the thread?


----------



## dcoscina

I don't know about anyone else but I gave found this thread utterly edifying. Re-peat and JohnG have given us essay quality posts to chew on. And I want to thank Guy for bringing his thoughts to the table because it stimulated much of those terrific retorts. 

I honestly have learned a lot here.


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> jlb @ Mon Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are never going to agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are never going to agree. Agreeing is neither the goal or the point. The point is: exploring what each of us finds appealing, fascinating, moving and/or valuable in different types of music and why that is so (if it can be explained adequately, that is). Or why certain things are considered weak and mediocre. Something can be learned from such an exchange, don't you think?
> 
> We don't have to agree on anything. Disagreement is much more productive (and way more fun too).
> 
> _
Click to expand...


Absolutely right WHEN, and only when, it is done between peers in a respectful manner. If not, then it becomes all heat with no light.

I actually think that by and large, that IS what happened in this thread so kudos to all the main participants (yes, even you, Piet  not only for their well expressed ideas but the way they comported themselves.


----------



## jlb

That's what I mean, people are getting wound up about whether Stravinsky is better than Gherswin or whatever, who cares they are all dead anyway. I want to learn how to improve my skills from talking to fellow composers, end of story.

jlb


----------



## re-peat

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Absolutely right WHEN, and only when, it is done between peers in a respectful manner. If not, then it becomes all heat with no light. I actually think that by and large, that IS what happened in this thread so kudos to all the main participants (yes, even you, Piet  not only for their well expressed ideas but the way they comported themselves.


You know, Jay, no offense, but those types of posts from you irritate me beyond description (and unfortunately, you post a lot of them): “Listen up, children, here is the head Jay Asher and, as always, he has presumed the authority to tell us how we did during this discussion. And since it appears we’ve all behaved well according to his high standards, we all get a friendly little tap on the back.”

I really don’t need your smug, self-righteous and patronizing kudos, Jay, as well as they may have been intended. It’s not only degrading, it also takes the joy out of the whole thing, as far as I’m concerned.

_


----------



## jlb

Again don't rise to it

jlb


----------



## Guy Bacos

I don't mean to walk out abruptly like a child, but I don't see any point in expressing myself other than giving an opposition, as Rohan delicately pointed out, but for every comment I make not supporting JW as the king, I get a new pack of wolves, and a wolf here and there taking advantage of the situation, without naming names trying to purposely annoy me, and frankly I'm getting a bit tired of playing the role of "Mr Smith Goes to Washington".

I pointed out that people constantly asked for Gershwin in clubs, and the ONLY and ONLY answer people here are willing to accept is that it's because it's more appropriate for cocktail music. The possibility that he is a strong favorite, among all the music I play, can be attributed to the fact that his music speaks stronger than others, is not an option, not even a small possibility, it's just because it's more, or seemingly more cocktail music, and this argument shuts the case. Well, there's nothing more to say then.

This is a pro-JW and film score forum, as I said, on another "classical" forum, the situation would be reversed. 

But most of all, I like to think, as a composer, I've been doing something right, including my influences, notably Gershwin, I base my arguments on my own experience as a musician. So I already got the message that I have it all wrong, I don't see the point of continuing to express myself, just to have a new pack of wolves come down on me.

Sorry, ran out of desire on this thread.


----------



## muk

A pitty, Guy. I'm with you on this one. I don't think John Williams is one of the greatest composers ever. But I believe if the contrary should be proven we would have to grab one of his scores and talk about his music actually


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> I pointed out that people constantly asked for Gershwin in clubs, and the ONLY and ONLY answer people here are willing to accept is that it's because it's more appropriate for cocktail music.


But it is, isn’t it? I doubt many cocktail pianists could manage to hold on to their jobs for very long if they insisted on entertaining their audiences with renditions of “The Asteroïd Field” or “The Barrel Chase” or a selection from “Black Sunday” or “Images”.
Then again, if you had gone through the trouble of preparing a nice arrangement of, say, “Princess Leia's Theme” or the love music from “Superman”, or maybe some music from “The Accidental Tourist” or the “Short Round Theme" from “Temple Of Doom” (just a few random examples), I’m convinced you could have brought a blissful smile to many a face.

There is no denying that Gershwin’s language is closer to what people expect to hear from a cocktailbar pianoplayer. And there is no demeaning element in that observation, it’s just how it is. After all, the traditional cocktail or lounge pianostyle is a direct descendant from Gershwin’s most popular music. Everybody expects to hear “The Man I Love”, “Someone To Watch Over Me” and “Summertime” in those places. (One wonders what would happen though if you treated your audience to the finale of Gershwin’s pianoconcerto. Or to his 1st and 3rd Prelude. I doubt the management would ask you back.)

We all know how well-loved Gershwin’s music is, you know. No need to tell us. We go out in the world too. But using the fact that he’s often requested in cocktailbars as an argument to prove that he’s a better composer than Williams or that he “connects more with people” is just plain nonsense. If you say such things, you have to be ready for some opposition.

_


----------



## Narval

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> I don't mean to walk out abruptly like a child, but I don't see any point in expressing myself other than giving an opposition, as Rohan delicately pointed out, but for every comment I make not supporting JW as the king, I get a new pack of wolves, and a wolf here and there taking advantage of the situation, without naming names trying to purposely annoy me, and frankly I'm getting a bit tired of playing the role of "Mr Smith Goes to Washington".


Mr Smith Goes to Washington?? Looks to me more like Lady Gaga goes to New York's Citi Field Stadium:







You know, Mr Victim, when you go dressed like that to a baseball match, expect some laughters and a few sexist comments. On top of the well-deserved claps, that is.


----------



## JohnG

You know, Narval, I think that Guy has shouldered a load here that has been interesting and enjoyable. And I assume his first language is French -- maybe yours too -- so there's a bit more work there as well.

I am grateful to him for it and for his perseverance; and I don't think it's nice to call him names.

Maybe several people on this thread have been a little sensitive now and then, myself included, but I think we are all making efforts, some more than others, to keep the rhetoric in check.

So I don't see Guy playing a victim. I think he's convinced of his perspective and I appreciate some of the points he's made, which have given me pause for thought.

Among other things, it has made me wonder whether, if James Newton Howard or HZ or JW or (pick your favourite film hero) had spent his life on concert music or ballet or something other than film, what the result might have been? Something magic, or something less so?

I don't really know but it does remind one that there is only so much time and that if one wishes to do something well one can't squander the time one has.

So thanks again to Guy for the discussion.


----------



## mverta

Amidst all the intellectualism, I felt this discussion had a bit of disingenuous baiting in it, personally. And I'm not surprised that the "Composer A is superior to Composer B" thing didn't reach a conclusion - that one was over before it started. 

But one thing I do know is that orchestral music today is brought to masses through film music, not concert music, so if making that sort of contribution is your goal, you know where to put your efforts. I can stop 10 non-musicians on the street and probably get 10 of them to sing me the Jaws theme, 8 of them to sing Raiders, and zero of them to sing anything by Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Holst... which I consider a nearly God-like achievement in the 21st century: to have orchestral music which has entered the lexicon like it was the 17th century again... 

Much as I love the concert composers whom are clearly the shoulders upon which Williams, Goldsmith, et. al. have stood, it was film music which brought me into this profession. Other than my Star Wars soundtrack, my parents filled the house with the Stones and the Beatles. And given a choice right now between hearing Goldsmith's Star Trek: TMP score live, and anything from the standard repertoire, I'd be at the Goldsmith concert in a heartbeat. I guess this is why I've always wanted to do film, and have never had concert aspirations.

Anyway...

_Mike


----------



## Lex

JohnG @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Among other things, it has made me wonder whether, if James Newton Howard or HZ or JW or (pick your favourite film hero) had spent his life on concert music or ballet or something other than film, what the result might have been? Something magic, or something less so?



Thats a really interesting question John, and even if they did, would majority show much interest or know about them at all?

I mean how many people here know about Don Davis concert work? How many are dying to hear his 3 act opera "Rio De Sangre" in October? Does anyone likes Goldenthal 's "Othello"? Did anyone had good fortune to catch his "Grendel"?

Would be curious to know.

aLex


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> I can stop 10 non-musicians on the street and probably get 10 of them to sing me the Jaws theme, 8 of them to sing Raiders, and zero of them to sing anything by Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Holst...



That's only because these blockbuster films are constantly in your face, you'd have to be from another planet to not be aware of these themes, even though they are excellent and very well crafted. If these people on the street could sing to you a chiclet gum commercial theme, does that mean anything more about this music and if they can't sing Beethoven's 9th symphony does that reveal anything special? I would vouch with what you're saying if these pieces had made it this popular as concert pieces, but we'll never know that. But for the time being JWs music got an enormous help from motion pictures to make his music this popular.


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> First off all I played only in places where people knows about the good repertoire, not in cheap clubs (...)
> 
> (...) Re-peat, this has NOTHING to do with cocktail music, that is you who insists on that, yes, it could be played very well for evening music, just like most Chopin, some Liszt, some Rachmaninov, that doesn't mean these pieces are cocktail music. I play Air for the G string by Bach in my own rendition, it doesn't mean it's cocktail music
> 
> (...) I don't mean to be disrespectful but I find your analysis of his music pretty shallow.



Guy,

Sorry, but now you're loosing it. Big time. Of all the people participating in this thread, I have actually been one of the very few heaping continuous and lavish praise on Gershwin. Read the previous pages. Come to think of it, I am in fact the only one who zoomed in on one of his works to try and explain why I think it is as good as it is. Shallow? Moi? You, the great Gershwin-admirer here, haven't even tried anything of the sort. 
The only really negative thing I said about him is that his orchestration often sounds a bit laborious and weak, and that's a verdict Gershwin himself agreed with: read up on his contacts with Maurice Ravel. You see, desperate as you are, you like to make it appear as if I don't know what I'm talking about, but unfortunately for you, I do, you know. Rather well, in fact. I know my Gershwin just as much as you do yours. And I'm also beginning to sense that I actually respect him more, by admiring him for what he was, than that you do for what you were told he's supposed to have been.

And where did I ever say that Gershwin makes cocktail music? I never said anything of the sort. Can't you read?? Why twist and simplify what I say so as to fit your own narrow-minded perspective? Can't you retort with anything more grown-up and substantial? You do love Gershwin deeply, don't you? Doesn't that inspire you to formulate something honest and authentic about him, instead of just twisting and belittleing other people's counter-arguments?

And please, please, for George's sake, don't reply with another one of your "Fine, re-peat, you seem to know everything best. I'm out of here."-things, or feeling all sorry for yourself, being victimized by a pack of wolves. Dear, oh dear ...

Oh, and finally, do excuse me for having the impertinence of imagining you playing in a vulgar cocktailbar for the common folk like us. Of course, the great Guy Bacos only plays the most distinguished venues, visited exclusively by Qualified People with the finest taste and a deep knowledge of the classiest repertoire. I should have known, sorry about that.

_


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat,

Everything I said on that post was ONLY to support some points, *I had no other intentions* and I certainly wasn't making any distasteful references.... Perhaps you took something personally? Why try to make me look pretentious re-peat? The only thing I said that could of been out of line is when I said "your analysis of Gershwin is pretty shallow". Other than than, I think you have gone bananas my friend.


----------



## dcoscina

I'm listening to the new Varese recording of the complete score to Spartacus and I find the opening credits as complex, stirring and artistically profound as anything I have heard from any other composer in the 20th century. We might not have any new composers who are able to match something like Alex North but film music history has produced composers who were monster musicians.


----------



## germancomponist

Friends, ......., don`t fight for your opinions! It is not worth it. Everyone is allowed to have his own opinion.

I really understand Guy`s points but also re-peat`s. In the past I did many jobs as a guitar and piano player on dinner parties, and in my repertoire there are many film music pieces. And when I played these music, I very often saw this very happy smiling in the faces of the listeners... .


----------



## re-peat

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> (...)Everything I said on that post was ONLY to support some points, *I had no other intentions. *


We all do that, Guy, we all say things to support the point(s) we want to make. But that's no excuse for debating unfairly and it certainly doesn't give you the right to distort my words into simplistic statements which I never said.

But hey, enough of this. Let's make up and shake hands. What do you say? Sincerely. You love music, I love music, we all love music. We shouldn't be bickering, but rather enjoy ourselves and share that great and generous treasure that is Good Music.

_


----------



## muk

Why is everybody so fond of having his composer conjuring happy smiles in the listeners faces? Are we back again at beautiful = good = the purpose of music?
Mike, I think you could easily turn that argument around: instead of asking how many people on the street can sing the main theme of jaws, ask how many people have seen jaws and what percentage of those who did do know the name John Williams. But again, it doesn't say anything about his music. You can ask people to hum a tune by Mozart and I guess Für Elise wouldn't come up infrequently.
Seriously, I'm baffled how often arguments are based on assumptions what people like and what they request. How can you behold "the people's" opinion as authorative and at the same time totally trash academics opinions? Do the "normal" people intuitively know more about music than "academics"? That's just plain silly


----------



## Guy Bacos

re-peat @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (...)Everything I said on that post was ONLY to support some points, *I had no other intentions. *
> 
> 
> 
> We all do that, Guy, we all say things to support the point(s) we want to make. But that's no excuse for debating unfairly and it certainly doesn't give you the right to distort my words into simplistic statements which I never said.
> 
> But hey, enough of this. Let's make up and shake hands. What do you say? Sincerely. You love music, I love music, we all love music. We shouldn't be bickering, but rather enjoy ourselves and share that great and generous treasure that is Good Music.
> 
> _
Click to expand...


No problem with that re-peat, I've always supported your well articulated posts on numerous threads and am also a fan of your music. So here's to great composers such as JW and Gershwin, there's room for both. o-[][]-o


----------



## dcoscina

If we cannot have civil discussions about music or art, I think it's a sign that there's no hope for our species....sigh.


----------



## Narval

muk @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> How can you behold "the people's" opinion as authorative and at the same time totally trash academics opinions? Do the "normal" people intuitively know more about music than "academics"? That's just plain silly


Right, but what you are missing is: Everything is good when it supports MY view. It's all about the ME, you know. Not academics and "the people." Not Gershwin and Alex North - they are all just pretexts and opportunities for publicly flexing MY muscles. An obsessive-compulsive need for attention, the mark of the genuine primadonna.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Not to open a new can of worms, hopefully the opposite, but depending on people's personality this may influence their sensitivity to certain musical styles. I'm sure re-peat, John, Mike or Rohan can appreciate JW more than I can, and perhaps I am more sensitive to Gershwin's music. I hope this is being respectful because it is meant be positive. So I would think in this case, it's a dead end (rather than someone being dead right or dead wrong) to try and convince others of what you believe in or your own personal taste. I think I will still think the same way on my death bed about Gerswhin and others the same for JW. 

Something we will have to accept and live with.


----------



## JohnG

muk @ 9th August 2010 said:


> Do the "normal" people intuitively know more about music than "academics"?



In aggregate, and over time, yes.



muk @ 9th August 2010 said:


> That's just plain silly



Why is it silly to think that normal people know more about music than academics? In former times, one way academics spent their time was to analyse the music of widely popular artists and try to say something more elaborate about it than "wow, that's great." They would seek to discern what techniques had been used; how the artist thought of materials, approach, concept; what the artist's aspirations were -- stories about the artists, even. 

The silly normal people prized Mozart and Beethoven and Shakespeare and Rembrandt, and at some point universities gave way from a purely Classical (Greek and Latin) curriculum and began to teach about these extremely popular composers, writers and artists. And to some extent they still do that.

But Noooo

Your post illustrates the now-current view foisted on normal people that only experts, and specifically only professors and others with credentials, have the requisite knowledge to identify good music or art or poetry. You write, muk, as if it is self-evident that normal people's opinions couldn't possibly be as valid as those of professors.

While I like and even love some of the "nutty professor" music to which my teachers introduced me, I still object to the notion that _only difficult music is worthy of their and, in consequence, our time, and that anyone who disagrees is to be pitied as shallow and even stupid_. 

For reasons of habit, predilection, and career, teachers quite naturally dwell on the densest and most difficult pieces, precisely because those pieces offer the best meat for the skills they've honed so thoroughly and because such pieces are a lot more interesting to spend a semester or a couple of years on if one is writing a paper.

I've already written rather a lot on what I think the result of this "only professors/experts can tell you what is good" mentality -- disaster in the form of audiences rejecting most or all new work. Why? Because the work must be very difficult to pass muster with the critics, and then its principle impact on an audience (who only get a single listen) is alienation. 

And a further loss, even a tragic one, is that the audiences in turn lose the benefit of the experts, because they often find the music / poetry / art so off-putting that they have no interest in learning about it.

I count on the marketplace delivering its judgement, including professors but _not_ excluding normal people. In the long run, merely dense and difficult is not going to cut it, if that's the chief draw.


----------



## kid-surf

Can I be down to earth for a sec? Thanks.

I believe this thread is a great example of why some composers do not truly understanding the role of film music and as a result of looking at it from one specific vantage-point only. 

Let me put it this way, nearly EVERY filmmaker's passion project--that one script they love beyond any other work they've written, the script they would call "my best work..my most TRUE work"--that movie will never get MADE. Sadly. Never ever, not for 99.99% of the working writers and filmmakers.

*Not to give the hack writers and directors a free pass.

Generally speaking, in the studio world and now encroaching in the high end indie world, you are scoring a writer/director's SECOND best idea. It only makes sense that you would therefore write your second best music. Unfortunately, the film/TV industry isn't where ANYONE goes to create their best work, nearly every bit of it is truncated. Everyone is working with this handicap, even the dude who wrote and/or directed the thing you're scoring. 

Don't tell anyone I said this but: My TV show is absolutely not my best work. Instead it's the best work I could deliver given all the confines of the medium and the [myopic Hollywood] environment. I had other show ideas that where more true to who I am but they were not UNDERSTOOD. They were too far outta the box. Not so ironically they would have given a composer more to work with. Imagine that. BUT, I had to create something that was palatable. So given that industry directive I came up with this show. Not so ironically, people were able to understand it, they got involved, even excited. And now I may have the chance to give a composer a J-O-B. But only because I *didn't* write my best work.

Although, I believe the film I'm writing right now 'may be' my best work to date. If it gets made it will give a composer far more opportunity to explore more meaningful music. But it's still not the same as creating music unto itself. Writing film music can never be that. Just as writing film can never be writing a novel. You are perpetually working from within a small little box.

And let's not forget the role evolution plays: One day man figured out how to speak. Then he figured out how to write. Then he figured out how to paint and sing. The fact is, those individuals had a blank slate. They were piecing together the basic principles of mankind, snaring it to paper, or canvas, or stone, or stringed instrument, etc. Once we evolve once more, from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens into whatever comes next, we may at that point find an even more profound and thorough way to express art. So, when we look at mythology or Shakespeare or even the Bible, it's not that they were such better writers or philosophers so much more in tune with the human condition, merely they were the first to document it. At this point the modern day writer is left to merely elaborate. But that will again one day change when mankind is no longer humankind but something else, something beyond. You didn't ass-u-me we had reached the end of the road, the pinnacle of enlightenment, the last version of man, did you? That would be extremely arrogant and short sighted. But us humans are pretty good at not deciphering the obvious and find it difficult to see beyond the end of our collective noses. This is just the beginning. We are in fact very primitive in our understanding of almost everything. We don't yet even understand how our brains work, or why. We don't understand the universe in which we live. 

...And yet we argue the merits of this art over that. It all strikes me as so very trite when we peel away the smear to focus on what is really being said, and by who. Us, us humans who don't know much about anything, much less why we create this thing called art. But I suppose this particular debate is all part of evolution, an evolution that to us humans moves as slow as the growth of a fingernail in one second. But it is moving at breakneck speed as it relates to the beginning of mankind.

But I do suspect that we create art as it should be [collectively] in order to evolve mankind toward a higher degree of enlightenment. I suspect we are attempting to become godlike, the signs are everywhere and exponential, and in fact we are on a path to succeed in that quest for the seemingly unattainable. We used to burn witches at the stake. The Romans were notoriously barbaric. How many millions did Genghis Kahn murder [which, comparatively, at the time was a large population of planet earth]? We are a far more civilized society than ever before. Take a look at the strides we've made in the last 50 years in religion, race, women's rights, animal rights, sexual orientation, cross cultures, etc. And now with one foot firmly planted in the global information age we are on an exponential [moore's law] path toward enlightenment. One step closer to becoming godlike and therefore no longer the human race but some new race of earth inhabitants [in large part due to science/evolution]. But what then? That's the million dollar question. Will we even *need* art at that point? I'm not convinced we will. Maybe just maybe we'll finally "get" each other without the need for this crutch called "art". Art may become anecdotal "earth was once inhabited by an extremely primitive breed called the human race...they relied on this thing they called 'art' as a way to express what they didn't understand about themselves, before the Homo Sapiens we had the Neanderthals. We are further enlightened through science and evolution. We no longer rely on such primitive means. Art is obsolete in our society." That, or perhaps there will be new art that we are too myopic [as Homo Sapiens] to comprehend at this point. Shit...if we brought back someone [a renowned composer for example] from the 1800's into the 21st century they would be flabbergasted, they would assume *their* world had been taken over by witches and witchcraft, the Devil's doing [every bit of our modern day technology would strike them as witchcraft, people in their day were drawn and quartered for far less. And the town watched with glee this form of entertainment]. Not sure Martians existed back then as a theoretic threat [notice how the threat in films and novels, which mimic or try to predict our lives, has DRASTICALLY changed over such a relatively short period of time?]. This world is changing faster than most of its inhabitants realize. But that's what the human brain does, everything becomes elastic and fluid and linear, time specifically. We say "wow, that seemed like just yesterday, has it really been that long?" Yes, it has been that long, you are a victim of exponential change. A type of change that exists in this century in ways that previous centuries have not had to ponder. Many societies went unchanged for hundreds if not thousands of years. Not true of today's world. Shit...I'm communicating to you [the entire planet should they choose to log onto this site] on a thing called the internet. A thing that didn't exist when I was born. A thing that barely existed 15 years ago. A thing that is nowhere near done evolving. 

...Although Da Vinci would likely say to himself "I knew it! I was right." This is only the tip of the iceberg. So, I ask you to take a few steps back to decipher the big picture. What is *really* going on in this form of human connectivity we call 'art'? 


Please excuse my typos, grammatical errors and plain pedestrian way of putting things...I'm not in the mood to edit that which I am not being paid to write.

Anyway...back to writing my movie that I hope one of you gets to score. I do believe it's my best work yet, but that's no guarantee it will get made. It's only a guarantee that it "should" be made.


----------



## JohnG

Kid, I think you have described exactly the circumstances under which ALL great art has historically been produced.

There's always some director / producer / Pope / Arch-Duke / etc. through whose taste, pocketbook, schedule, preconceptions one has to fight to produce anything at all. And he can always change his mind.

But out of that battle, to do one's best despite the vexing constraints, has come the Pieta, Henry IV, Beethoven's violin concerto, and all the rest of it.

(enjoyed the bit about evolution too -- funny and thought-provoking)


----------



## kid-surf

I agree with you, John. Art is a battle, always. And great works have been realized. The greatest works perhaps realized under the greatest constraints.

I suppose that's what editing is for. To 'hide' the best aspects out of sight from those who may not understand why it's great and therefore tell you "no...I will not pay you to create that for me". 

Otherwise, just throwing some thoughts into the wind...


----------



## madbulk

Oh man, this is like Xmas. 

You guys ever look at a headline from the portal that you've ignored for a while... say "Bored with Film Music," for example. You think, "That's been up here a while. I'll check it out." 
Then you see that it's gone 8 pages. 
And you see something a little contentious is going on.
Then you go back one page just to get a little context.
Then at the top of the penultimate page you see Jay saying something like, "I"m just telling you Guy, Piet can get little nutty if you get him ticked off." Something like that, doesn't matter exactly what.
Point is, I'm just thinking, "Awesome! THANK YOU!! I can't wait to tuck into this later!"
Where's that "DONATE" button?!


----------



## Guy Bacos

You do know this is a reality show, right?


----------



## re-peat

dcoscina @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> If we cannot have civil discussions about music or art, I think it's a sign that there's no hope for our species....sigh.


Musicians shouldn’t talk civil about music, Dave. The deserve and owe one another something better, something more profound. Let the people in dinner jackets talk civil about music. Let the upstanding citizens at cocktail parties talk civil about music and art.

We should do one better. Without resorting to unpleasantness, of course. But I certainly don’t mind a good, heated intellectual fight. A shame it is always considered uncivilized if one does.

Usually, when people say ‘civil’, they mean that dumbed-down, boring, perfectly correct but also perfectly meaningless, totally harmless, condescending, mildly cynical “Oh, I am not standing in your sunlight, am I?”-kind of civility, something which I find unbearably horrible and insulting, to both the subject of the discussion — music, art — as well as to those people who devote their entire being to it with complete love, passion and dedication.

I don’t like talking civil about music. In fact, I very much hate it.

_


----------



## stevenson-again

you like talkin' derti....


----------



## Narval

kid-surf @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Once we evolve once more, from Neanderthal to Homo Sapiens into whatever comes next,


Homo Sapiens didn't evolve from Neanderthals, they were contemporaries. Then at some point the Neanderthals got extinct. Not completely though, some are still fighting music... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGajM3mQY7s


----------



## kid-surf

Technically you are correct, contemporaries. We both coexisted for a time, no question.

What I meant by "we" is that the top of the food chain evolved. I feel a kinship in some regard to those who happened to walk upright in our [planet earth's] past and whomever happens to walk upright in the earth's future. We'll not be kings of this domain forever...we potentially have an expiration date same as Cro-Magnon, same as Neanderthal.

...Which, by the way, has more to do with what music and the arts mean now and will mean in the future than any of this talk here which only amounts to discussing symptoms and not root causes.


----------



## mverta

muk (et. al.) - what I'm saying is that there are a lot more non-musicians than musicians - a lot more "pedestrian/ignoramuses/little people/whatever-pejorative-you-want-to-use," than those of us with our refined, lofty tastes. I think when you can bridge this valley with music, you have done an amazing thing. When the gang member who listens only to rap has brought the Raiders theme into his life, likes it, and embraces it, that is miraculous, and that's why it's my goal.

Personally, whether that rap artist knows if it's John Williams or not is totally irrelevant. I could give a crap if people remember my name or not. If I had to choose between having fame/recognition, but only 10,000 people who benefitted from my music, or total anonymity/obscurity, but 1,000,000 people who benefitted, I'd take the anonymity in a second. I am not the only one who finds my value in what I do for others, not in what I do for myself. It just happens to work out that doing for others IS doing enough for myself.


So, for me, it's a numbers game, and I root for any music that finds itself widely adopted. Who cares why? The gift is the gift.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> muk (et. al.) - what I'm saying is that there are a lot more non-musicians than musicians - a lot more "pedestrian/ignoramuses/little people/whatever-pejorative-you-want-to-use," than those of us with our refined, lofty tastes. I think when you can bridge this valley with music, you have done an amazing thing. When the gang member who listens only to rap has brought the Raiders theme into his life, likes it, and embraces it, that is miraculous, and that's why it's my goal.
> 
> Personally, whether that rap artist knows if it's John Williams or not is totally irrelevant. I could give a crap if people remember my name or not. If I had to choose between having fame/recognition, but only 10,000 people who benefitted from my music, or total anonymity/obscurity, but 1,000,000 people who benefitted, I'd take the anonymity in a second. I am not the only one who finds my value in what I do for others, not in what I do for myself. It just happens to work out that doing for others IS doing enough for myself.
> 
> 
> So, for me, it's a numbers game, and I root for any music that finds itself widely adopted. Who cares why? The gift is the gift.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Mike, that is a worthy goal for many kinds of music but not for film music except in a secondary or tertiary role. The job of the music for a film is to serve the picture and if the picture requires accessible music, then we should provide it and less or even inaccessible music, then we should provide that.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Dave Connor

Actually it was shows like the Twilight Zone and Combat in the 60's that brought very sophisticated music (even 12 tone) into the average American home. Film has also done that and continues to. So it really is a matter of what serves the film the best whether it is very simple or very complicated. That diversity really is one of the glories of film.


----------



## ChrisAxia

Another fascinating thread. Some great posts!

Jay, I'm with Mike on this one. I feel exactly the same way. Why should we not hope that our music for film/tv/video game not be appreciated even though it's primary purpose was to support the visuals? ' Thematic' scoring is what I have been lucky enough to do for the past 4 years and it's very humbling when people contact me to say how much they liked the music and if the soundtrack is available. I just wish I had a fraction of the talent of composers like JW, and like most here, I am striving to improve, but I hope I can continue to do this for many years to come and that it is appreciated by some of the audience. 

~Chris


----------



## Ashermusic

ChrisAxia @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Another fascinating thread. Some great posts!
> 
> Jay, I'm with Mike on this one. I feel exactly the same way. Why should we not hope that our music for film/tv/video game not be appreciated even though it's primary purpose was to support the visuals? ' Thematic' scoring is what I have been lucky enough to do for the past 4 years and it's very humbling when people contact me to say how much they liked the music and if the soundtrack is available. I just wish I had a fraction of the talent of composers like JW, and like most here, I am striving to improve, but I hope I can continue to do this for many years to come and that it is appreciated by some of the audience.
> 
> ~Chris


Oh I do not disagree with the goal as long as it does become the primary goal so that the music shines but the picture suffers.

As Dave just said, it depends on the film.TV show. The nature of "The Twilight Zone" i.e allowed for some innovative music but I am sure that it would not have worked quite as well for "Lassie." 

I get emails every week telling me how much people love my theme and score for the 90's series "Zorro" and that is gratifying, but the simple truth is I wrote the same kind of generic Spanish stuff that George Bruns wrote for the Disney version and James Horner did for the Bandera-Hopkins film.

It is what it is and what the picture required.


----------



## ChrisAxia

Nice work though understandably sounds dated now. Thanks. 

~C


----------



## Guy Bacos

Great theme song Jay. Did you have other musical implication in the series?


----------



## Ashermusic

Guy Bacos @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Great theme song Jay. Did you have other musical implication in the series?



"Nice work though understandably sounds dated now. Thanks. 

~C"

@ Chris
Yes, Chris is certainly does sound dated and yet people still seem to like it. 

That was the second version I did. The original was with a male singer and more traditionally Spanish. But the head of the Family Channel wanted a more contemporary arrangement even though the show was set in old California and wanted me to use his cousin to sing it. She was a ood singer but she had a bad cold that day after flying in to Los Angeles from Las Vegas and it was a bitch assembling a decent vocal performance. The end credit version features a good guitar lead by Carl Verheyen of Supertramp.

@ Guy Yes I did all the underscore as well with a small orchestra (24 players if memory serves) and some MIDI to re-enforce it. Some of it is there on YouTube.

As I say I am constantly being asked by email "where can I buy the soundtrack?" which of course is not available. They are finally however apparently releasing the series on DVD this fall/winter.


----------



## germancomponist

muk @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Why is everybody so fond of having his composer conjuring happy smiles in the listeners faces? Are we back again at beautiful = good = the purpose of music? ...
> 
> Seriously, I'm baffled how often arguments are based on assumptions what people like and what they request. How can you behold "the people's" opinion as authorative and at the same time totally trash academics opinions? Do the "normal" people intuitively know more about music than "academics"? That's just plain silly



muk, the most people on the world are no musicians but the most of them like to listen to "their" music. Whats "their music"? Only the style or art they like, and sure they are allowed to like this or that and not the other... . 

And when I say I saw happy smiles in the listeners face when I played film music I think this is because they then think about the film what they like. 

For example when there are more older listeners and I play "As time goes bye", Lilly Marleen, The Bonanza Theme, The Waltons and more something like this these listeners are happy because I have touched their feelings in a good manner. 

I know that all this music is not the best written concert music, maybe far away from Mozart, Beethoven or Gershwin, but it is good film music. I hope there will come the time when unforgettable melodies go back to film music.


----------



## Narval

Dave Connor @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> So it really is a matter of what serves the film the best whether it is very simple or very complicated. That diversity really is one of the glories of film.


Yes, and failure to embrace that diversity may play a big role in getting _bored with film music.
_
Granted, some scores fall flat when listened to in stand alone, but most times it sure is exciting to follow the film-music interplay, in all the diversity and cleverness of the ways that film and music support each other.


----------



## mverta

Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Oh I do not disagree with the goal as long as it does become the primary goal so that the music shines but the picture suffers.



Why would ever think I suggested otherwise? My contributions in this thread have been as brief as I can make them; a central theme of which is that I feel music should serve the triple masters of the picture/director, the art/craft, and the audience at large equally well - a trait found in the best film scores, in my opinion.


_Mike


----------



## stevenson-again

> Mike, that is a worthy goal for many kinds of music but not for film music except in a secondary or tertiary role.



gee i am really not sure about this. i know what you are trying to say - that the music primary goal is to serve the film, but for me the music that best serves the film (better simply functions ok) is music that has an inherent logic. when the music feels successful without the pictures, placed against them it creates a subtextual glue that gives the film an extra or heightened psychological logic and brings out more than exists in the pictures alone. that effect exists on a continuum - so in striving for excellent music for picture it is the same path as striving for excellence in musical form.

they are not separate goals!

i am talking beyond mere atmospheric noodling which blights so much of film music these days.

in that sense music works like ballet or opera - and i really feel the best film music, when arranged into suites much as you would ballet or opera can and should stand on its own.


----------



## mverta

Yes, this is one of my central points. Music is a language, and when the music underscoring a picture succeeds in having its own cohesive and independent structure while serving the picture perfectly at the same time, that balance is the mark of the best work. It can be heard in the scores which are fully developed and concert-like listens on their own outside of the picture; in stark contrast to the bulk of work produced today, which outside the picture, has no internal structure or story, and in missing that syntax, is not inherently motivating; merely motivating (or not) in context. You can write music which works with picture just fine, but can't stand on its own. You can write music which does both. I feel the best work does both. It's 1000x harder to do and requires tons more craft.


_Mike


----------



## muk

John


> Your post illustrates the now-current view foisted on normal people that only experts, and specifically only professors and others with credentials, have the requisite knowledge to identify good music or art or poetry. You write, muk, as if it is self-evident that normal people's opinions couldn't possibly be as valid as those of professors.


True, I firmly believe that commercial success (or failure) does not indicate anything about the artistic quality whatsoever. Again, Dan Brown as an example. He's certainly not one of the most artistic writers of today, yet he sells probably most copies of his books. If you really take the number of sold copies as an indicator on what's good or bad art, you'd might be forced to place Hans Zimmer above John Williams. Or doesn't peoples opinion count in this case?
While I personally think that "pleasing" the audience is one factor that should not be neglected in music (as admittedly many of the contemporary "concert music composers" do) for it's own sake I do also believe that it doesn't matter a lot in determining the artistic value of a piece. But the really great composers imo achieved both: uncompromised artistic value *and* comprehensive beauty. Just think of Haydn, Mozart... But also think about Bach or late Beethoven. The Great Fugue does never show up in a musical request program, and yet... If it was "peoples" opinion deciding what's high art, this one would be out in a second
Oh and I don't ridicule the "common people" as ignoramuses or anything. Their (ours in fact, "academics" are as well a part of them as anybody else) opinion does count and should be considered. It's just that I do *also* value "experts" opinions, which some of you obviously don't. I can't say which one's more accurate generally, I'd like to decide in each case individually on which to believe more personally.
And finally, I don't think that artistic value (intellectual depth) and popularity are mutually exclusive. I don't think that high art has to be of such a complexity that it can't be understood.

Out of curiosity: what do you all think about Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings score? (It's not a catch question btw, I'd really like to know)


----------



## muk

On a sidenote: have you realized that what you are discussing right now, whether film music should primarily support the pictures or not, is similar to the discussion some centuries ago about opera (whether the music should be primarily supporting the play or the other way round)?


----------



## re-peat

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> Mike, that is a worthy goal for many kinds of music but not for film music except in a secondary or tertiary role.
> 
> 
> 
> gee i am really not sure about this. (...)
Click to expand...

Me neither. Good filmmusic is always a lead (f)actor in a film, even if it isn't perceived as such. You can cast different actors in the leading roles of, say, 'Jaws' without really changing the impact of the film (except maybe for the irreplaceable Robert Shaw), but you can't do that with the music without fundamentally changing the experience of watching that movie. 'Star Wars' without Harrison Ford would still be very much 'Star Wars', but 'Star Wars' without John Williams would be a different movie altogether (and a far less memorable one, I find).
And the same thing applies for any well-scored film: change the music and you end up with different movie. Good filmmusic always has a prime role: it triggers and controls the various ways in which we respond to a movie MUCH more than any other element of a film. Even the greatest actor, the greatest screenwriter or the greatest director isn't capable of what good music is capable of.

_


----------



## stevenson-again

> True, I firmly believe that commercial success (or failure) does not indicate anything about the artistic quality whatsoever. Again, Dan Brown as an example. He's certainly not one of the most artistic writers of today, yet he sells probably most copies of his books. If you really take the number of sold copies as an indicator on what's good or bad art, you'd might be forced to place Hans Zimmer above John Williams. Or doesn't peoples opinion count in this case?



you are only judging artistic merit on sales. that's pretty flawed. i guess by that measure a ford focus is superior to a bugatti veyron, or french fries is superior pork belly.

ask the same people whether they derived deeper satisfaction from one form of music or another. i took some of my brothers footy mates to see rite of spring once. lads in their late teens never been to a classical music concert in their lives and never really listened to anything classical. they were blown out of their minds and still talk about it. they still like their pop music and consume it, and it's lasting effect is essentially nostalgic but boy oh boy could they differentiate between what they consume and the sumptuous meal they had the hands of mr stravinsky.

mike asserts, correctly in my view, that expert opinion should not be the ultimate arbiter of taste. we came to say that because re-peat and john made the extremely important and well put point that academic circles fail to recognize the extreme quality, craft and historical significance of the contributions made truly great composers who happen to write primarily in film.


----------



## muk

@stevenson-again: you got several of my points wrong.



> you are only judging artistic merit on sales


 No I'm not. I'm warning about doing so, I'm arguing against it.



> that expert opinion should not be the ultimate arbiter of taste


 True and I never said it should. But I'm trying to say that taste has nothing, absolutely *nothing* to do with artistic quality.
I hope there's nothing wrong with my post. I meant it exactly the other way round as you put some of it's arguments. Could be because of my language problem


----------



## Narval

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> change the music and you end up with different movie. Good filmmusic always has a prime role: it triggers and controls the various ways in which we respond to a movie MUCH more than any other element of a film. Even the greatest actor, the greatest sceenwriter or the greatest director isn't capable of what good music is capable of.


True. And all those greatest guys combined with the greatest of the greatest music are incapable of what the ticket buyer is capable of. Which is: assigning value to what she sees and hears. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a lame slogan that doesn't even begin to describe that power.


----------



## kid-surf

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> Good filmmusic always has a prime role: it triggers and controls the various ways in which we respond to a movie MUCH more than any other element of a film. Even the greatest actor, the greatest sceenwriter or the greatest director isn't capable of what good music is capable of.




Sorry, gotta call bullshit on that comment. 

I mean, you are essentially telling us that you can score any narrative under the sun whereby elevating it to greatness as you are the primary creative component [otherwise please rephrase, I'm curious to understand what you mean to say]. I find that idea absurd at best. Delusional at most. That is, taking the comment at face value and assuming you did not misrepresent your philosophy.

Fact is, a film composer is always only as good as the material he's scoring TO. That's the rub.

THE most important creative' in the filmmaking process is the screenwriter.

Analogy: The screenwriter is to a car its engine. A composer is to a car its pretty paint job. Both are necessary for ultimate fulfillment, though one more than the other. Without the screenwriter we can't get from point A to point B - the primary requirement of an automobile. We can't call this a car without an engine. Though, pretty paint jobs exist elsewhere, as they should.

Not to start a war...but if a composer said that to me I'd say "Glad you're passionate about your work, but you're far too passionate to work with me. Kick rocks..." And I'm someone who respects the value of composers and the craft of composing more than 99.98% of writer/producer/directors you'll come across.


But maybe I read you wrong...I hope.


----------



## re-peat

I just _knew _you would reply to that comment, Kid.

We disagree though, I fear. A filmcomposer is NOT only as good as the material he's scoring. In fact, one has got nothing whatsoever to do with the other, in my opinion. You're seriously underestimating the power of good music here (not to mention: the pride of a composer who his committed to give it his/her best), and I could easily name you dozens of films where the composer rises FAR ABOVE the material he/she had to provide music for. 

I also disagree entirely with your analogy. The music can be just as much the engine of a movie as the screenwriter's part in the proceedings is. It often is and usually much more even: the engine, the steering wheel, the wheels and the paint job. And even the road signs which indicate to the audience in which direction the movie will be going.
Take any movie that has a great score, and try to imagine some of its scenes without (or with worse) music, and you can't but arrive at the conclusion that good music is very often the major player at many moments throughout a film. I've always considered this completely obvious. No? Good music, applied with insight and with a feel for dramaturgy to a film, is WAY more powerful than any other ingredient of a film. Really, given enough time, it would be absolutely no problem to give you countless examples of this. Maybe just one now, for starters: strip virtually any Spielberg/Williams film of its music and you're left with viewing experiences which are immediately a whole lot less entertaining, exciting, gripping, overwhelming (if, at least, these are qualities which you associate with watching these films). You may change parts of the story, the camera angles, the editing, the casting, the dialogue, the sets, the special fx, etc. and the movie will still remain fairly intact, but change the music and, woosh!, the whole thing loses at once a lot of its vital power and appeal.

Of course, we're talking about movies here where music is allowed or even required to play that role. I am aware that there are many other kinds of films, films which are better served with a completely different approach to scoring (or hardly any scoring at all), resulting in music which has a much less prominent presence.

And of course, a screenwriter is essential to a movie. No script, no movie. I know that. But the eventual impact a film will have on its audience is every bit as much dependent on the quality of the composer as on the quality of every other possible participant. And I maintain: in many cases A LOT more on the composer than on anyone else.

All of what you're saying is perfectly true in the case of movies with bad or average music, but movies _with good music_ ... that's a different chemistry altogether.

_


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I do not disagree with the goal as long as it does become the primary goal so that the music shines but the picture suffers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would ever think I suggested otherwise? My contributions in this thread have been as brief as I can make them; a central theme of which is that I feel music should serve the triple masters of the picture/director, the art/craft, and the audience at large equally well - a trait found in the best film scores, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Then we agree, sir. Would you also agree with me however that often in order to accomplish the first and the second, we may have to sacrifice the third?

IMHO one of the best film scores I ever saw and heard was the late Jerry Fielding's score for "Straw Dogs." It was quite dissonant and worked great with the film. Well a lot of people HATED it because of the dissonance, but it clearly was the right choice.

I don't think as composers that when we write we can be thinking about the audience at large. The director and/or producer we are working for is our audience. and it is more their job than ours to consider the larger audience.


----------



## lux

kid-surf @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good filmmusic always has a prime role: it triggers and controls the various ways in which we respond to a movie MUCH more than any other element of a film. Even the greatest actor, the greatest sceenwriter or the greatest director isn't capable of what good music is capable of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, gotta call [email protected]#t on that comment.
> 
> I mean, you are essentially telling us that you can score any narrative under the sun whereby elevating it to greatness as you are the primary creative component [otherwise please rephrase, I'm curious to understand what you mean to say]. I find that idea absurd at best. Delusional at most. That is, taking the comment at face value and assuming you did not misrepresent your philosophy.
> 
> Fact is, a film composer is always only as good as the material he's scoring TO. That's the rub.
> 
> THE most important creative' in the filmmaking process is the screenwriter.
> 
> Analogy: The screenwriter is to a car its engine. A composer is to a car its pretty paint job. Both are necessary for ultimate fulfillment, though one more than the other. Without the screenwriter we can't get from point A to point B - the primary requirement of an automobile. We can't call this a car without an engine. Though, pretty paint jobs exist elsewhere, as they should.
> 
> Not to start a war...but if a composer said that to me I'd say "Glad you're passionate about your work, but you're far too passionate to work with me. Kick rocks..." And I'm someone who respects the value of composers and the craft of composing more than 99.98% of writer/producer/directors you'll come across.
> 
> 
> But maybe I read you wrong...I hope.
Click to expand...


"calling fo bullshit" is not exactly a nice move in a thread which keeps on a good discussion root.

I find the entire screenwriter vs. musician vs. photographer vs. director vs. compositor quite an obnoxious discussion. 

Its evident even to the less gifted that a movie is a result of concurring arts. Its always been. One of the reasons some of actual cinema doesnt deserve a good opinion is imo because this concurrency has been lost, where a couple of sectors alone made the movie (lets say visual effects department) while all the rest of the guys/girls just do the most boring homework.

Of course we disagreed a lot on that in the past too as youre the "it doesnt have to hurt" guy on this forum. 

I respect that. But I'm not sure who deserves a call for bullshit on that


----------



## re-peat

First time I heard *Straw Dogs*, I thought on several occasions that I was listening to an orchestral version of "L'Histoire Du Soldat". The score is littered with fragments which are straight transcriptions and quotations from Stravinsky's music. A strange choice, considering the plot, storyline and setting of the film. 

Anyway, here's [ò#   à¹1#   à¹2#   à¹3#   à¹4#   à¹5#   à¹6#   à¹7#   à¹8#   à¹9#   à¹:#   à¹;#   à¹<#   à¹=#   à¹>#   à¹?#   à¹@#   à¹A#   à¹B#   à¹C#   à¹D#   à¹E#   à¹F%   à¹—%   à¹˜%   à¹™%   à¹š%   à¹›%   à¹œ%   à¹%   à¹ž%   à¹Ÿ%   à¹ %   à¹¡%   à¹¢


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> First time I heard *Straw Dogs*, I thought on several occasions that I was listening to an orchestral version of "L'Histoire Du Soldat". The score is littered with fragments which are straight transcriptions and quotations from Stravinsky's music. A strange choice, considering the plot, storyline and setting of the film.
> 
> Anyway, here's http://users.telenet.be/re-peat/StrawDogs.mp3 (a short collage with a few of these fragments), taken from the Bay Cities "Jerry Fielding Film Music" album (BCD-LE 4001/02). If this isn't Igor Stravinsky, I don't know what is. And Jerry Fielding won himself an Oscar nomination with it.
> 
> _



Yeah, yeah, and people say John WIlliams stole the Superman theme from Richard Strauss and other stuff from Holst and Jamie Horner stole this and that from so and so, etc. 

Stravinsky himself said something like "good composers borrow, great composers steal."

I don't give a big rat's behind. ALL film music composers stand on the sturdy shoulders of the masters.The music was exciting and worked perfectly with the picture IMHO. It was unsettling music for an unsettling story and Fielding richly deserved his nomination.


----------



## JohnG

well, there's standing on shoulders, and nicking bits. And definitely this example is very close to the latter.


----------



## Ashermusic

JohnG @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> well, there's standing on shoulders, and nicking bits. And definitely this example is very close to the latter.



No more so than lots of other scores IMHO. It just is maybe more obvious (to us) with this one because for film music it was more unusual.


----------



## re-peat

Not surprised that you can't (or refuse to) tell the difference, Jay, but Fielding in 'Straw Dogs' is literally grabbing bits from "L'Histoire", _unchanged_. Plagiarism in the purest, most embarrassing meaning of the word. 
The ONLY compositional link between Williams' "Superman" theme and Richard Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" on the other hand, is the interval of the upper fifth. Furthermore and this is important, unlike Fielding's approach (which has no extra-musical significance as far as I know), Williams' link is meaningful as well because, through Strauss, he's referring to Nietzsche where the 'superman'-idea originated. Quite clever, actually. So: BIG difference between these two examples, and in more ways than one.

But I'll agree with you that, with or without Stravinsky's input, "Straw Dogs" is a great score, just like every other Fielding score. A master composer, no doubt. ("The Mechanic" and "Lawman" are my favourites at the moment.)

Let's maybe ask Nick Batzdorf what he thinks. He's a great "L'Histoire du Soldat"-fan I seem to recall.

_


----------



## JohnG

Hi muk,

Your responses have been very interesting and welcome, because they have caused me to think further than I otherwise would about a subject that is, I think, important. So thank you for that.

Possibly owing to a language issue, however, to some extent your responses address points that I didn't actually make. You have now a couple of times written back with some indignation with responses that, at least as I read them, don't address what I was saying. 

Moreover, as I read what you have written I find that perhaps we don't disagree very much -- in fact I am starting to think that we mostly do agree. 

So, in an effort to try to address a couple of issues:

1. Nobody here -- certainly not I -- equates popularity with artistic merit. The one does not grant the other. But, I am saying that it has become fashionable, particularly in academic circles, to assume that there can be no connection between the two, to dismiss in horror even the consideration of the artistic merits of anything that actually _is_ popular. This is another thing entirely, as I'm sure you will agree.

Not only that, but many academic composers actively seek to offend or displease an audience, even trying to out-do each other in driving audiences up a wall. I have seen reviews chortling about how some piece made members of the audience leave, and what a success that was. A New York Times piece by an active academic composer repeated the now taken-for-granted saw that, without offending someone, a piece couldn't possibly have any artistic value or be considered daring and new. 

To me it is nonsense to link the two; and not merely harmless nonsense. Indeed, it has had the pernicious effect of driving ever more people away from new music. Of course one has to acknowledge that it's possible to write something that upsets some people but that has real artistic merit. But it's equally possible that such pieces are merely sophomoric, irritating bilge.

It may be that a great new work will offend, but offense doesn't guarantee greatness. Just because audience members storm out does not mean one has written "Le Sacre du Printemps."

2. I too am interested in expert opinions. I am therefore all the more dismayed, disappointed and disgusted by an academic culture that has in effect shut off academics from the rest of the world (certainly in music) to such an extent that we no longer get the benefit of their views beyond, occasionally pained grimaces at the very idea of sullying their brains with contemplating film or pop music.

I know there are film departments at universities. And I also know the abysmal regard in which film professors are viewed by the philosophy, English, and art department professors.


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> Not surprised that you can't (or refuse to) tell the difference, Jay, but Fielding in 'Straw Dogs' is literally grabbing bits from "L'Histoire", _unchanged_. Plagiarism in the purest, most embarrassing meaning of the word.
> The ONLY compositional link between Williams' "Superman" theme and Richard Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" on the other hand, is the interval of the upper fifth. Furthermore and this is important, unlike Fielding's approach (which has no extra-musical significance as far as I know), Williams' link is meaningful as well because, through Strauss, he's referring to Nietzsche where the 'superman'-idea originated. Quite clever, actually. So: BIG difference between these two examples, and in more ways than one.
> 
> But I'll agree with you that, with or without Stravinsky's input, "Straw Dogs" is a great score, just like every other Fielding score. A master composer, no doubt. ("The Mechanic" and "Lawman" are my favourites at the moment.)
> 
> Let's maybe ask Nick Batzdorf what he thinks. He's a great "L'Histoire du Soldat"-fan I seem to recall.
> 
> _



It is not that I "can't" or "refuse to", it is .that I have not listened to Straw Dogs in 20 years and probably just as long for "L'Histoire Du Soladat" and certainly not concurrently. Now add to that the fact that I could not care less either way about how much or little we perceive that he borrowed/stole or Wlliams borrows/steals or Horner borrows/steals and you are now at my position.

When egregious stealing occurs with non-PD music there is generally a lawsuit and that is what lawyers are for.


----------



## re-peat

No need to get all wound up, Jay. Sorry about that. It's just that you mentioning "Straw Dogs", gave me a chance to share something about that score which I've always found quite remarkable. 
What's just as remarkable though, is reading you say that you, a film composer, haven't listened to _"one of the best scores I ever heard"_ (your words) in 20 years! You always wait that long with listening to your favourite music? 20 years?? I can't imagine myself ever waiting 20 years with works that I treasure that much. Life's too short for that. But hey, nevermind.

_


----------



## Narval

Ashermusic @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> When egregious stealing occurs with non-PD music there is generally a lawsuit and that is what lawyers are for.


Yeah, great approach, don't listen think and evaluate for yourself, let the lawyers do it for you. Also, very logical - no lawsuit, no stealing.

I also think your previous quote from Stravinsky "good composers borrow, great composers steal" can hardly justify plagiarism. At least it's very hard to believe that that's what Stravinsky meant. Now, I don't presume to know what he meant, but I suspect it was one of his _épater les bourgeois_ frequent jabs, also subtly self-ironical considering that he stole it.


----------



## Ashermusic

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> No need to get all wound up, Jay. Sorry about that. It's just that you mentioning "Straw Dogs", gave me a chance to share something about that score which I've always found quite remarkable.
> What's just as remarkable though, is reading you say that you, a film composer, haven't listened to _"one of the best scores I ever heard"_ (your words) in 20 years! You always wait that long with listening to your favourite music? 20 years?? I can't imagine myself ever waiting 20 years with works that I treasure that much. Life's too short for that. But hey, nevermind.
> 
> _



I am not wound up. I am not on the Fielding Foundation payroll.

Yes I do go that long. Generally I will not go back to it unless I am researching for a similar project because:

1. I am working.

2. I am listening to other stuff I am not familiar with.

3. I am learning more about technology, since helping others has become part of my livelihood.

4. I am reading a book.

5. I am spending time with my family.

6. I am wasting time posting on forums like these :lol:


----------



## Narval

Once again, the neverending Ode to ME - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDuebLakCqc


----------



## rgames

JohnG @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> It may be that a great new work will offend, but offense doesn't guarantee greatness.


Agree on that and I've run into a lot of folks who seem to miss that point (not just in the arts, either). I bet 99.9% of music that appears to be crap when first heard remains crap for all eternity.

It's not just the classical/film music world, either: there are plenty of pop music lovers who try to "out-indie" each other by heaping praise on bands that nobody has ever heard of and that are, by most accounts, quite bad. But they have that mentality that if you've heard of the band, it can't be good.

rgames


----------



## kid-surf

Re-peat.

Nah...

You're seeing the process through only the eyes of a composer. After all, I may have seen it your way before I became a screenwriter, now I know better. Now I clearly understand that delusion of grandeur, which is exactly what your philosophy is. [I don't mean to be offensive, only specific]



> . In fact, one has got nothing whatsoever to do with the other, in my opinion.



It's actually kind of shocking that you'd feel that way. The only reason the particular music exists is in order to "support" the FILM. The film is not there to support the music. Believe it or not.




> You're seriously underestimating the power of good music here (not to mention: the pride of a composer who his committed to give it his/her best)



I'm giving music the value it deserves to have in film/tv, which is secondary to the story, as the music is a result of the story. If you'd like to find the societal value of the music, go off and write a score sans a film, now try to SELL it. Or better yet, give it away and ask these people who often they've listed to it. Film is a marriage of creatives to achieve the whole. The most important factor is what the film is ABOUT. Just is...

Also, nobody gets extra credit for "hard", only "good". I respect any and every creative to the nth degree but I will never give credit for harder. As it is really hard to create the most nauseating work ever known to man, maybe even harder than creating the most beautiful.



> and I could easily name you dozens of films where the composer rises FAR ABOVE the material he/she had to provide music for.



And yet the AUDIENCE doesn't care. Hence the true 'value' as determined by society. To other composers, sure they are enamored. But the fact remains, that composer was not able to circumvent the medium whereby saving the film through music. 



> The music can be just as much the engine of a movie as the screenwriter's part in the proceedings is. It often is and usually much more even: the engine, the steering wheel, the wheels and the paint job. And even the road signs which indicate to the audience in which direction the movie will be going.



Again with a myopic POV. The problem your POV cannot skirt is that fact that you are following a map dictated by the screenwriter. You can't say "this woman is crying here, but I'd rather she be happy so I will write happy music instead". Instead, you are following the map, articulating and making more clear the SUBTEXT [in the best examples of a composer doing the job they were hired to do].



> Take any movie that has a great score, and try to imagine some of its scenes without (or with worse) music, and you can't but arrive at the conclusion that good music is very often the major player at many moments throughout a film. I've always considered this completely obvious. No?



We absolutely agree on that point. Great music is a primary component. Yes, completely and blatantly obvious.



> Good music, applied with insight and with a feel for dramaturgy to a film, is WAY more powerful than any other ingredient of a film.



False. Here's proof positive: If your assumption was true it would not be the composer writing music TO the film and therefore screenplay it would, instead, be the screenwriter who writes a screenplay TO the music. But that's not the way it works. 



> Really, given enough time, it would be absolutely no problem to give you countless examples of this. Maybe just one now, for starters: strip virtually any Spielberg/Williams film of its music and you're left with viewing experiences which are immediately a whole lot less entertaining, exciting, gripping, overwhelming (if, at least, these are qualities which you associate with watching these films). You may change parts of the story, the camera angles, the editing, the casting, the dialogue, the sets, the special fx, etc. and the movie will still remain fairly intact, but change the music and, woosh!, the whole thing loses at once a lot of its vital power and appeal.



You got some of that right. A fòw   àÎEw   àÎFw   àÎGw   àÎHw   àÎIw   àÎJw   àÎKw   àÎLw   àÎMw   àÎNw   àÎOw   àÎPw   àÎQw   àÎRw   àÎSw   àÎTw   àÎUw   àÎVw   àÎWw   àÎXw   àÎYw   àÎZw   àÎ[w   àÎ\w   àÎ]w   àÎ^w   àÎ_w   àÎ`w   àÎaw   àÎbw   àÎcw   àÎdw   àÎew   àÎfw   àÎgw   àÎhw   àÎiw   àÎjw   àÎkw   àÎlx   àÎqx   àÎrx   àÎsx   àÎtx   àÎux   àÎvx   àÎwx   àÎxx   àÎyx   àÎzx   àÎ{x   àÎ|x   àÎ}x   àÎ~x   àÎx   àÎ€x   àÎx   àÎ‚x   àÎƒx   àÎ„x   àÎ…x   àÎ†x   àÎ‡x   àÎˆx   àÎ‰x   àÎŠx   àÎ‹x   àÎŒx   àÎx   àÎŽx   àÎx   àÎx   àÎ‘x   àÎ’x   àÎ“x   àÎ”x   àÎ•x   àÎ–x   àÎ—x   àÎ˜x   àÎ™x   àÎšx   àÎ›x   àÎœx   àÎx   àÎžx   àÎŸx   àÎ x   àÎ¡x   àÎ¢y   àÎmy   àÎny   àÎoy   àÎpy   àÎ£y   àÎ¤y   àÎ¥y   àÎ¦y   àÎ§y   àÎ¨y   àÎ©y   àÎªy   àÎ«y   àÎ¬y   àÎ­y   àÎ®y   àÎ¯y   àÎ°y   àÎ±y   àÎ²y   àÎ³y   àÎ´              òy   àÎ¶y   àÎ·y   àÎ¸y   àÎ¹y   àÎºy   àÎ»y   àÎ¼y   àÎ½y   àÎ¾y   àÎ¿y   àÎÀy   àÎÁy   àÎÂy   àÎÃy   àÎÄy   àÎÅy   àÎÆy   àÎÇy   àÎÈy   àÎÉy   àÎÊy   àÎËy   àÎÌy   àÎÍy   àÎÎy   àÎÏy   àÎÐy   àÎÑy   àÎÒy   àÎÓy   àÎÔy   àÎÕy   àÎÖz   àÎ×z   àÎØz   àÎÙz   àÎÚz   àÎÛz   àÎÜz   àÎÝz   àÎÞz   àÎßz   àÎàz   àÎáz   àÎâz   àÎãz   àÎäz   àÎåz   àÎæz   àÎçz   àÎèz   àÎéz   àÎêz   àÎëz   àÎìz   àÎíz   àÎîz   àÎïz   àÎðz   àÎñz   àÎòz   àÎóz   àÎôz   àÎõz   àÎöz   àÎ÷z   àÎøz   àÎùz   àÎú{   àÎû{   àÎü{   àÎý{   àÎþ{   àÎÿ{   àÏ {   àÏ{   àÏ{   àÏ{   àÏ{   àÏ{   àÏ|   àÏ|   àÏ|   àÏ	|   àÏ
|   àÏ|   àÏ}   àÏ }   àÏ}   àÏ}   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ~   àÏ   àÏ   àÏ   àÏ   àÏ   àÏ   àÏ    àÏ!   àÏ"   àÏ#   àÏ$   àÏ%   àÏ&   àÏ'              ò   àÏ)   àÏ*   àÏ+   àÏ,   àÏ-   àÏ.   àÏ/   àÏ0   àÏ1   àÏ2   àÏ3   àÏ4   àÏ5   àÏ6   àÏ7   àÏ8   àÏ9   àÏ:   àÏ;   àÏ<   àÏ=   àÏ>   àÏ?   àÏ@   àÏA   àÏB   àÏC   àÏD€   àÏE€   àÏF€   àÏG€   àÏH€   àÏI€   àÏJ€   àÏK€   àÏL€   àÏM€   àÏN€   àÏO€   àÏP€   àÏQ€   àÏR€   àÏS€   àÏT€   àÏU€   àÏV€   àÏW€   àÏX€   àÏY€   àÏZ€   àÏ[€   àÏ\€   àÏ]€   àÏ^€   àÏ_€   àÏ`€   àÏa€   àÏb€   àÏc€   àÏd€   àÏe€   àÏf€   àÏg€   àÏh€   àÏi€   àÏj€   àÏk€   àÏl€   àÏm€   àÏn   àÏo   àÏp‚   àÏq‚   àÏr‚   àÏs‚   àÏt‚   àÏu‚   àÏv‚   àÏw‚   àÏx‚   àÏy‚   àÏz‚   àÏ{‚   àÏ|‚   àÏ}‚   àÏ~‚   àÏ‚   àÏ€‚   àÏ‚   àÏ‚‚   àÏƒ‚   àÏ„‚   àÏ…‚   àÏ†‚   àÏ‡‚   àÏˆ‚   àÏ‰‚   àÏŠ‚   àÏ‹‚   àÏŒ‚


----------



## kid-surf

lux @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> kid-surf @ Tue Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good filmmusic always has a prime role: it triggers and controls the various ways in which we respond to a movie MUCH more than any other element of a film. Even the greatest actor, the greatest sceenwriter or the greatest director isn't capable of what good music is capable of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, gotta call [email protected]#t on that comment.
> 
> I mean, you are essentially telling us that you can score any narrative under the sun whereby elevating it to greatness as you are the primary creative component [otherwise please rephrase, I'm curious to understand what you mean to say]. I find that idea absurd at best. Delusional at most. That is, taking the comment at face value and assuming you did not misrepresent your philosophy.
> 
> Fact is, a film composer is always only as good as the material he's scoring TO. That's the rub.
> 
> THE most important creative' in the filmmaking process is the screenwriter.
> 
> Analogy: The screenwriter is to a car its engine. A composer is to a car its pretty paint job. Both are necessary for ultimate fulfillment, though one more than the other. Without the screenwriter we can't get from point A to point B - the primary requirement of an automobile. We can't call this a car without an engine. Though, pretty paint jobs exist elsewhere, as they should.
> 
> Not to start a war...but if a composer said that to me I'd say "Glad you're passionate about your work, but you're far too passionate to work with me. Kick rocks..." And I'm someone who respects the value of composers and the craft of composing more than 99.98% of writer/producer/directors you'll come across.
> 
> 
> But maybe I read you wrong...I hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "calling fo [email protected]#t" is not exactly a nice move in a thread which keeps on a good discussion root.
> 
> I find the entire screenwriter vs. musician vs. photographer vs. director vs. compositor quite an obnoxious discussion.
> 
> Its evident even to the less gifted that a movie is a result of concurring arts. Its always been. One of the reasons some of actual cinema doesnt deserve a good opinion is imo because this concurrency has been lost, where a couple of sectors alone made the movie (lets say visual effects department) while all the rest of the guys/girls just do the most boring homework.
> 
> Of course we disagreed a lot on that in the past too as youre the "it doesnt have to hurt" guy on this forum.
> 
> I respect that. But I'm not sure who deserves a call for [email protected]#t on that
Click to expand...


It's a figure of speech. 

I don't understand the "it doesnt have to hurt" comment. Can you rephrase? :D

Otherwise, I didn't draw first blood. Only responded.


----------



## Ashermusic

Kid -Surf, your fundamental understanding of the role of music in film is correct, IMHO.


----------



## kid-surf

mverta @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> You can write music which works with picture just fine, but can't stand on its own. You can write music which does both. I feel the best work does both. It's 1000x harder to do and requires tons more craft.



Not necessarily, because you're assuming a particular type of film when you say that, as not all films require mountains of craft to execute mountains of emotion. That's the rub.

And...there's no extra credit for harder, but for in composer circles. The outside world [including producers and studio execs/heads] only notices that the music served the film, not that it was *harder*.

I promise you, directors are not concerned with what a composer finds hardest to score, they are concerned with "is my movie/tv the best it can be, does the music serve the film/tv show". 

Part of the director's/TV showrunner job is to keep the composer focused on what s/he should be focused on. This discussion is proof that it's not easy. Imagine a sea of people who all feel that their job is the hardest, you as the director or showrunner need to make them feel that they are the most valued person on the project. But...they can't be, not if the film is to be good.

Otherwise, I agree with you that the music 'should' strive to be more than just music. If that is the crux of your position. I see the composer as the person doing the last polish on the script. Which is a tremendous compliment and a high position on the food chain.


----------



## JohnG

kid-surf @ 10th August 2010 said:


> I see the composer as the person doing the last polish on the script. Which is a tremendous compliment and a high position on the food chain.



That is an excellent analogy. But, at the risk of pointing out something you and probably everyone else knows, it does sometimes go further than just a "polish." 

Your posts on this thread implicitly assume, if I may make an observation, an "everything goes right" scenario, or at least one in which the director / producer know just what he or she wants, is able to articulate it, and has enough time and money to get that on film.

Sometimes, of course, for whatever reason -- impediments to communication, not enough money or "sabotage" by someone who disagrees with the director, the performance, the lighting, last-minute alterations to the screenplay that render a scene less coherent, the looping -- the scene doesn't convey what it's supposed to convey. 

And sometimes these problems aren't confined to just one or two scenes either. In those cases, the music has to take over quite a bit more of the storytelling than might be planned, or than might be everyone's preference, including the composer's.

And one might ask, "so what?" and that's always a fair question! To me, the "so what" of this is that a weaker film needs a lot more intrusive work by the composer than it otherwise would. (Of course, intrusiveness also comes up when one is doing a movie in another reality -- a dream, outer space, an imagined place, magic, and so on but, naturally, that's another matter).

And further, the more the music takes over the storytelling, the more it needs what Mike Verta and re-peat are talking about; its own shape and clarity, not just scene-to-scene but shaping and directing the entire film. 

Ironically, that can mean that, as re-peat said, a weak film actually demands (and sometimes draws out) an inspired score that is stronger than the film itself.

You point out that, good or bad, the music is yoked forever to what might be a weak film, and of course that's true. But I don't think it entirely negates some of these other positions. And, at the risk of a digression, I don't think that Star Wars would have created nearly the sensation that it did with a "futuristic synth" score.

BTW, I would 10x rather work on Fight Club than Transformers.


----------



## stevenson-again

all really good points and an extremely interesting discussion. 



> But again, how many listen to Williams music away from the film? 0.1% of all who've watched the film? Slightly more slightly less?



well my experience is that quite a lot of people listen to film scores away from the films. very much more than 0.1%, and certainly getting into significant numbers that would justify trying to ensure that music away from the film is as satisfying as possible - and occasionally challenging. not that necessarily counters your point kid, but really scores have lives away from the film.



> And further, the more the music takes over the storytelling, the more it needs what Mike Verta and re-peat are talking about; its own shape and clarity, not just scene-to-scene but shaping and directing the entire film.



to add to that, there is not the disconnect between story and music that is the impression i get reading some of these posts. the story certainly determines the manner of the music, but the music's structure can really help make sense of the story most especially on an emotional level.



> And, at the risk of a digression, I don't think that Star Wars would have created nearly the sensation that it did with a "futuristic synth" score.



well, in the case of star wars, it is the first deliberate and conscious modern expression of the hero's journey as articulated by joseph campbell, which i think is largely the reason it has the penetration it has enjoyed, because it plays to the human archetype. but yeah, hard to imagine loving that film nearly as much without that amazing score.


----------



## re-peat

Kid, 

A few points (it's late here, so this post is unfortunately a bit sloppily written, I'm affraid):

You seem to assume that because people are not consciously aware of the music, that it therefore misses its effect on them. I'm affraid you're missing something here. People are moved in a million ways by music which they don’t have the slightest idea of, and yet the effect has a tremendous power. Like I said, I still think you vastly underestimate the magic and potential impact of music. And, forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have a very old-fashioned outlook on what its role should be in a film as well.

A film is NOT about one element supporting another element. In the best films, the various ingredients blend and gel, producing a result that is far richer and more powerful than the mere sum of its parts. It’s not an hierarchy of elements, it’s _a system of wisely and creatively distributed powers_. And one of those powers is the music. One of the silliest thing I've ever read (and keep reading) on these forums is that "the music has to serve the film". No, it doesn't. The music has to be an integral part of the film, like every other ingredient is. Not serving, but being. That's when thing's start cooking. Williams’s music for ‘Jaws’ isn’t serving the film (as if the music existed somewhere 'outside the film', offering assistance whenever called for), no, together with all the other elements, it *is* the film.

Music can be a leading actor. Or a spotlight. Music can be a soft focus lens. Music can tell the story when nothing else does. Music can wrong-foot. Music can look into the future. And into the past. It kan kill and resurrect. It can venture where words or images can’t. Music can do a million things that only music can do. And all of these things are part of the beating heart of a movie. Again: nothing is serving, but everything is.

I’d like to reply to all the other stuff you said as well, but like I said, it’s well after midnight here, so I’ll have to call it a night, I’m affraid. But some final quick ones: in my humble view, you go from wrong to wronger with all your assessments and certainties. And I also find the slightly condescending cynicism with which you view the audience a bit worrying, I must say. What you say may very well be a reality, but that doesn't mean it should govern the way we tackle our challenges or commit to our work.

We also seem to disagree on your choice of holy grail as well, I’m affraid. Never been so bored by a film in the past several years than I was by “Inception”, a pretentious bore of film that constantly tries to pose as a intelligent, quality movie, but completely lacks the courage to take any real risks in that direction. Undistinguished premise, awfully written (I got literally angry at one point by the many cheap solutions the writers went for), badly performed, infantile action scenes … No, I’m not with you on this one, I’m affraid. (In fact, I think that a monstrosityò­   àÚè­   àÚé­   àÚê­   àÚë­   àÚì­   àÚí­   àÚî­   àÚï­   àÚð­   àÚñ­   àÚò­   àÚó­   àÚô­   àÚõ­   àÚö­   àÚ÷­   àÚø­   àÚù­   àÚú­   àÚû­   àÚü­   àÚý­   àÚþ­   àÚÿ­   àÛ ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ	­   àÛ
­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ­   àÛ ­   àÛ!­   àÛ"­   àÛ#­   àÛ$­   àÛ%­   àÛ&­   àÛ'­   àÛ(­   àÛ)­   àÛ*­   àÛ+­   àÛ,­   àÛ-­   àÛ.­   àÛ/­   àÛ0­   àÛ1­   àÛ2­   àÛ3­   àÛ4­   àÛ5­   àÛ6­   àÛ7­   àÛ8­   àÛ9­   àÛ:­   àÛ;­   àÛ<­   àÛ=­   àÛ>®   àÛ?®   àÛ@®   àÛA®   àÛ


----------



## kid-surf

re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> Kid,
> 
> A few points (it's late here, so this post is unfortunately a bit sloppily written, I'm affraid):
> 
> You seem to assume that because people are not consciously aware of the music, that it therefore misses its effect on them. I'm affraid you're missing something here. People are moved in a million ways by music which they don’t have the slightest idea of, and yet the effect has a tremendous power. Like I said, I still think you vastly underestimate the magic and potential impact of music. And, forgive me for saying so, but you have a very old-fashioned look on what its role should be in a film as well.
> 
> A film is NOT about one element supporting another element. In the best films, the various ingredients blend and gel, producing a result that is far richer and more powerful than the mere sum of its parts. It’s not an hierarchy of elements, it’s _a system of wisely and creatively distributed powers_. And one of those powers is the music. One of the silliest thing I've ever read (and keep reading) on these forums is that "the music has to serve the film". No, it doesn't. The music has to be an integral part of the film, like every other ingredient is. Not serving, but being. That's when thing's start cooking. Williams’s music for ‘Jaws’ isn’t serving the film (as if the music existed somewhere 'outside the film', offering assistance whenever called for), no, together with all the other elements, it *is* the film.



Semantics. Because we 100% agree when you put it that way. Which is different than what you suggested previously. Which is why I asked you to expand on your ideas. 

Remember when I said it wasn't a dichotomy? That's what I meant. The music has to BECOME the film. Integral. Inseparable. That's exactly what I'm looking for in my own projects.


----------



## kid-surf

Okay, I'm able to respond, thought your post was longer than I thought and with more things I disagreed with or felt necessary to respond to. Mostly we agree. Now. 




re-peat @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> Music can be a leading actor. Or a spotlight. Music can be a soft focus lens. Music can tell the story when nothing else does. Music can wrong-foot. Music can look into the future. And into the past. It kan kill and resurrect. It can venture where words or images can’t. Music can do a million things that only music can do. And all of these things are part of the beating heart of a movie. Again: nothing is serving, but everything is.



We generally agree there too. And yet, the main point is still that the composer is not THE most integral part of this filmic equation, merely an integral part. A position you seem to be softening on, or at the very least rephrasing. 



> And I also find the slightly condescending cynicism with which you view the audience a bit worrying, I must say. What you say may very well be a reality, but that doesn't mean it should govern the way we tackle our challenges or commit to our work.



I have no cynicism for an audience only for a composer who believes he is MORE integral than even the individuals responsible for creating that 'thing' he's lending his voice to.



> We also seem to disagree on your choice of holy grail as well, I’m affraid. Never been so bored by a film in the past several years than I was by “Inception”, a pretentious bore of film that constantly tries to pose as a intelligent, quality movie, but completely lacks the courage to take any real risks in that direction. Undistinguished premise, awfully written (I got literally angry at one point by the many cheap solutions the writers went for), badly performed, infantile action scenes … No, I’m not with you on this one, I’m affraid. (In fact, I think that a monstrosity like ‘Transformers’, with all its noisy and prostituting idiocy, is a much more honest product than ‘Inception’ is. At least, ‘Transformers’ never has the pretention to be anything else than what it really is. Which can’t be said of ‘Inception’. In my view.)



You missed the point. What your personal preference is for the film is irrelevant [I do not believe it is perfect film, I have many problems with it]. The point is that nobody was asked to hold back or dumb down. The fact that you don't care for the results is not relevant to the *process*.



> Finally, I wasn't really waiting on you lecturing me about what good and bad film music is (or should be) I must say, or how all these complex considerations affect the composer and his/her committment. I may not know as much as you, the studios or the audiences seem to know, but I'm not entirely inexperienced in these matters either.



No lecturing, merely discussion.



> Oh, and Kid, something to feel really good about: _your fundamental understanding of the role of music in films is correct_, according to Jay. Don't you just love that? Congratulations!



Why seek to discredit two people with one blow? I'm fairly confident in my abilities. But I do know that what I create can never please everyone. Life would be boring if anyone was ever able to accomplish that feat.


----------



## re-peat

kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> A position you seem to be softening on, or at the very least rephrasing.


Rephrasing maybe, softening, no.

A lot of the misunderstanding here seems to come from the fact that you somehow seem to think that I believe music to be the single most important element in a movie. Of course I don’t. It would be ludicrous to think so. And I never said so either. What I did say, and what I firmly believe, is that throughout a movie, music — ‘good music’ I mean, in the sense of: good for that particular film — is often the most powerful, most audience-gripping, most expressive ingredient among all the others in the fabric of the film.
The music doesn’t exist on its own of course, I’m aware of that, everything else has to be in place as well, but it’s very often the music, more than anything else, that will cause whatever sensation/emotion/insight/expectation is hoped for at that moment.
True, the music may have been put on afterwards, true, the audience may not be aware of its presence or its effect, true, the script very much determines what sort of music it has turned out to be, … but that doesn’t change the fact that only when the music is added to the mix, the whole thing starts coming truly alive. Music often is a film’s oxygene, breathing life into it. That is more or less what I’ve been trying to say.



kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> I have no cynicism for an audience only for a composer who believes he is MORE integral than even the individuals responsible for creating that 'thing' he's lending his voice to.


I don't think in 'gradations of integral'. Something/someone is either integral to a project or not. You can't be, say, 15, 60% or 85% integral. 
I have the same concern, that you have with regard to the composer, about the screenwriter who believes he's carving the stone tablets according to which a film must take shape. You like to make it appear as if you value input, a blending of minds, and coöperation, when in fact what you really want is an almost absolute tyranny of the script. Perfectly understandable and it might be the right way on some occasions, but it might just as well prove disastrous on others.



kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> You missed the point. What your personal preference is for the film is irrelevant [I do not believe it is perfect film, I have many problems with it]. The point is that nobody was asked to hold back or dumb down.


Except for the audience. (Or at least, that segment of the audience among which I feel comfortable.)



kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> The fact that you don't care for the results is not relevant to the *process*.


Well, it very much is actually. Especially in this particular discussion, since you consider it such a fine example of the process of filmmaking (even though the final result lets you down to a certain extent). I don’t consider that film a fine example of anything (except maybe for a few very technical aspects), although I will readily accept that it succeeds where everybody who was involved with the project, hoped it would.



kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> No lecturing, merely discussion.


Ok, fair enough. I guess I have to get used to your unwavering writing style. My mistake.



kid-surf @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> Why seek to discredit two people with one blow?


I wasn't seeking to descredit anyone. Least of all you. But I can see now how my intention came out all wrongly (perhaps because of the late hour ). Either way, if you felt slighted in any way, I do apologize. 
Despite our strong disagreements on some of these matters (disagreements which haven't diminished in any way, I fear), I really do respect your fortified position, you know.

_


----------



## George Caplan

kid-surf @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> I believe this thread is a great example of why some composers do not truly understanding the role of film music and as a result of looking at it from one specific vantage-point only.



i think you alluded to the opinion that film makers today dont necessarily understand their role either. if i ever get the chance to watch any movie either at home or at the theater i dont sit there thinking about the film music. i think about whether this experience has been worth my while and effort. i am not one of those people who just want to be entertained mindlessy and the film music whether its any good or not will not make up for a waste of time crap movie whereby that time could have been spent in a better way. like walking and taking exercise.



kid-surf @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> The Romans were notoriously barbaric.



but they did make very good roads.


----------



## Ashermusic

In Hollywood, composers pretty much all acknowledge that good music will not save a bad film but bad music can kill a good film. I remember a lot of years ago a film called "Players" with Dean Paul Martin. It was dreadful but Goldsmith wrote a brilliant score. 

So now it was a dreadful film with a brilliant score. :wink: 

OTOH, take a film like "The Summer of 42" which IMHO was neither a great nor a poor film, just a good film. There is little doubt in my mind that Michel LeGrand's wonderful score elevated it.

Now there is another film I can name but will not based on a Tony award winning play with a great lead actor. The script's only failing was that it was a little sentimental. So the score IMHO needed not to be, so that the effect would not be cloying and sadly the score was even more cloying than the script. I have no idea's whose choice that was, director or composer, which is why I will not name it, but for me, it nearly ruined the film.

So yes, the score can be very important (or less so) depending on the film. But because the film starts with the script, a great script means that it probably will be 
at least a good film but a great score does not mean it will at least be a good film.

The script is King but film composers are hopefully at least Dukes and not court jesters.


----------



## jlb

I loved the score to 'Alexander' by Vangelis, but the film was poor

jlb


----------



## poseur

laterally & disjointedly (ie, _"poorly-"_) aimed, but unfortunately connected:
i am currently bored with _my own damned film music_.
ugh!
just a phase, i think:
a phase with which i'm familiar.

it's temporarily some sad-sack scheisse, though,
when it's the only film-music over which i might exert any influence, at the moment.....
and, i'm not really "blocked", so.

not seeking sympathies, here!
just adding a bit of personal concrete to an already very engaging discussion.....

d


----------



## lux

kid-surf @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> The Romans were notoriously barbaric.



history..history..where are you history?

Romans where everything but barbaric. They have been arrogant, invasive and their goal was to forge the world to their own organization and habits.

Still have been probably the most important and organized population of the entire history. Many of their ingeneeristic solutions are still unsurpassed. Their militar discipline and strategies were most impressive. Their political and legal organization is still a reference for most law systems around the world.

Technical college uh?


----------



## Narval

They had an awful taste for music though, especially that Nero dude...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBIswXv28GI


----------



## Dave Connor

To agree with one of re-peat's points, music for many decades was the most gripping element in film. The Best Years of Our Lives is a perfect example where even the sound of huge aircraft engines was portrayed musically to stunning effect. Not too mention the highly emotional scenes where the music tears your heart out.

Today sound and sound effects clobber the listener with the score just able to pop through now and then. The later Start Wars films a perfect example where you miss JW's brilliant writing in favor of LOUD sound. A big shame.

Edit: Of course if there's no story gripping you the music is futile no matter how good.


----------



## kid-surf

lux @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> kid-surf @ Mon Aug 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Romans were notoriously barbaric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history..history..where are you history?
> 
> Romans where everything but barbaric. They have been arrogant, invasive and their goal was to forge the world to their own organization and habits.
> 
> Still have been probably the most important and organized population of the entire history. Many of their ingeneeristic solutions are still unsurpassed. Their militar discipline and strategies were most impressive. Their political and legal organization is still a reference for most law systems around the world.
> 
> Technical college uh?
Click to expand...


The word I meant to use was "brutal"...typo.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## chimuelo

I just watched Andy Williams performances last weekend on PBS.
Andy Williams w/ Dave Grusin and the live strings were smokin.
Too bad Movies no longer seem to capture that quality of sound and arrangement.
I am not bored with films and the music, as there are several movies that use synths and Orchestral arrangements together which I really like.
The arrangements that I hear thesedays, that move me seem to be fewer in number.
I seem to pay less and less attention to the scores, and have to agree the endless SFX popping out of various surround sound points are always too loud and bury the music and dialog too often.
Someday I will hear a decrescendo and really raise a brow.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety

Aside from the off topic nature of the Gershwin-JW debate, I'm surprised no one ever mentioned that fact that the time frame both of these composers worked under were totally different. Knowing that the film score deadlines are typically 4 to 8 weeks, and usually 60 minutes or more of score needs to be written in this time, this puts an unbelievable pressure on a composer. Definitely not the same as writing something on commission, or not, with a way more leisurely schedule.

So, what if JW had a more comfortable amount of time to compose his music? What if George had to crank 'em out fast?

Just something to think about.

Mr. A.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Mr. Anxiety @ Fri Aug 13 said:


> So, what if JW had a more comfortable amount of time to compose his music? What if George had to crank 'em out fast?
> 
> Just something to think about.
> 
> Mr. A.



There's nothing to think about, I don't see how this is relevant. We can never know the answer to that. 

One thing I can say though is that Gershwin died at 38 and had a pretty impressive output by that time, and not forgetting internationally known as the leading, or one of the leading composers of his time. JW started to be famous in his 40s only.

But even then it proves absolutely nothing one way or another.

And didn't you say this debate was off topic? Seems you're just as off topic with this comment to think about....


----------



## mikebarry

I dont want to get in the whole who is right or wrong of this debate but something interesting.

I once prepared for a concerto competition with the intention of playing the Piano Concerto in F - but my teacher said that no one likes people who play "pop" concertos in these contests (aka Warsaw Concerto, Rhapsody in Blue.) - ended up with 'boring' old Beethoven 3rd. So lots of classical people I have met consider Gershwin as not a serious concert composer. I think this is supported by competitions like the Van Cliburn - you never see a winner on Gershwin - its always Beethoven 3/5, Brahms 1/2, Rachmaninoff 2/3 or the Tchaikovsky - over and over. Many European conservatory students told me they consider Copland a joke - and that Ellington is more respected then Aaron. 

I mean Gershwin didn't have a lot of concert music output - most of his work is collaborative working with a lyricist (All the Songs he is famous for, P & B), or with an orchestrator (Rhapsody Blue) - which was considerably orchestrated. I make his only repertory concert works the 3 preludes, Ameri in Paris, the Piano Concerto, the I Got Variations, and the 1st and 2nd Rhapsody + Porgy and Bess Suite + Opera + a handful of the piano arrangements which Oscar Peterson could improvise something better. Most of his music has been forgotten (most of the songs no one knows). 

But not to say Gershwin sucks, he is one of my favorites, - when I hear his contemporaries try to copy his sound (especially the talented Ravel its pretty sad). It is said he died in the hands of a bad surgeon. 

I would honestly take Williams in this match up - just give me the Olympic Suites, NBC and a handful of scores and I think he has Gershwin trumped in poor musicality. They are both amazing figures though.


----------



## Guy Bacos

It just depends how you appreciate certain qualities each of these 2 composers, re-peat say they are both great melodist, I personally don't think JW comes to the heel of Gershwin in that regard. But we've debated that enough, and we could continue making comparisons as we have done time after time on this thread with no agreement.

I don't know where Mike got his information, but aside the concerto competition point, there are many erroneous things. Sorry, just not true. The point about the comparisons between Oscar's improvisation and Gershwin's original material is really ridiculous! And did I correctly read: "Most of his music has been forgotten (most of the songs no one knows)." Oh really? Certainly not with my experience.
Also, he may in 5 to 10% of the times be questioned as a serious composers, but 90% of the time he is extremely well appreciated by the classical public.

And let's forget about the orchestration of Rhapsody in Blue for a sec, can we? This fact is getting old. He is one of the greatest orchestrators. Cuban Overture, Porgy and Bess (a huge work which has a ton a fantastic songs and beautifully orchestrated). An American in Paris alone is a testimony to his orchestral skills. I learned a lot from that piece alone, and on so many other levels.

Gerswhin's playing and improvisation skills are unbelievable, listen to his left hand, he is spectacular. If you dig enough archive material, some on YouTube, you'll see what I mean. I have a complete CD of him live, very impressive! 

We owe this man a lot, he is the first composer to *successfully* merge classical music with blues, opening many new doors, including film composers.

Even if it's not so much the quantity of his output, it is the quality that dominates, and in that sense seems he has more than he actually does. I vibrate to every single aspect and note of Gershwin's writing and never get tired of listening or playing his music, over and over. It is perfectly crafted, I learned so much from him, and I don't care what anybody says on this pro film score forum, no argument will make me think otherwise, because his music talks straight to the heart and that is the best argument I could think of.


----------



## jlb

I haven't got any time for these snob university lecturers, not regarding him as a serious composer. American in Paris is one of my favourites. Wonderful piece.

Jlb


----------



## Mr. Anxiety

Guy,

It's very common knowledge that Ferde Grofe orchestrated Rhapsody In Blue from George's two piano version written for a commission from Paul Whiteman in 1924. 
Grofe orchestrated it for piano and jazz band in 1924 & 1926, then did the big orchestral version later in 1942.

Speaking of inaccurate facts..........

Mr. A.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Whoa, 13 days late to the party - what a thread!

Highlights so far...

Douglas Gibson's gobsmacking John Williams story on p3

and

Rohan on p6 - straight in the pool room! (one of the greatest movies ever, imho).

Here's my overriding thought on pretty much everything from p3-p10 though:

ABSOLUTE DISCUSSION OF ART IS FUTILE

Of course there is endless amounts to discuss on technique, but in the final analysis art is art. I'm of the view that all music reviews are virtually worthless. Beauty, and art, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm in the JW camp and naturally side with those posters who have defended him, but if someone doesn't rate him they are not wrong. Discussing opinion is great and fascinating, but come on - trying to establish who is "best" out of Williams and Gershwin is imho a fool's errand, appeals to other people's opinions are futile and responding with "my dad is bigger than your dad" seems kinda appropriate. People like music or not. It moves them or not. It helps tell the story or not - but it's all subjective imho.

MELODY IS MISSING

Several people have made this point, and imho it's the biggest of all. For some reason, this seems particularly important in blockbusters. A great theme twinned with a great movie creates something really magical. I agree that something special was going on with How To Train Your Dragon... but I do find I have to go back to Williams and Silvestri to get themes that really smash through into popular consciousness. Both those were extraordinarily good with technique as well.


----------



## Ashermusic

Mr. Anxiety @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> Guy,
> 
> It's very common knowledge that Ferde Grofe orchestrated Rhapsody In Blue from George's two piano version written for a commission from Paul Whiteman in 1924.
> Grofe orchestrated it for piano and jazz band in 1924 & 1926, then did the big orchestral version later in 1942.
> 
> Speaking of inaccurate facts..........
> 
> Mr. A.



Yes that is correct. http://www.classicalcdreview.com/grofe.htm

However, there is orchestrating and there is orchestrating. 

In JW's case for instance, one of his 8 line sketches could really go straight to the copyist because it is so complete. I have not seen any of Gershwin's.

Have you perhaps, Guy?


----------



## Guy Bacos

Mr. Anxiety @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> Guy,
> 
> It's very common knowledge that Ferde Grofe orchestrated Rhapsody In Blue from George's two piano version written for a commission from Paul Whiteman in 1924.
> Grofe orchestrated it for piano and jazz band in 1924 & 1926, then did the big orchestral version later in 1942.
> 
> Speaking of inaccurate facts..........
> 
> Mr. A.



Daw! I guess you didn't read my post correctly. In other words, what I said is, let's get over this fact, I know it's a fact, everybody knows this, now can we look at the masterpieces he orchestrated and stop talking about Rhapsody in Blues orchestration?
This is what I implied in my post, I thought it was pretty clear though. If Haydn had some symphonies completed by other fellow composers, are we just going to focus on that or his masterful orchestration skills in general?


----------



## JohnG

to return to Noiseboy's point, I agree with his raising the issue about art. He says "it's all subjective."

I can't really agree with that if you mean it to encompass all of art; I think that there are very clear gradations of "high" art and lower forms. However, if you're talking about just the JW / Gershwin discussion, I do!

High art may be difficult to define, but if we look, say, at the facade of Notre Dame or Rheims cathedrals and compare those to a mud hut, there are unmistakable differences that I argue are superior about the first compared with the second.

I realise it's a bit exaggerated, but wanted to know whether anyone disagrees with that?



(Separately, if I may, in the gentlest possible way, suggest that we move further discussion of George Gershwin to another thread? It's totally cool with the forum to express one's opinion and I've weighed in myself but upon reflection it's drifted pretty far away from film music or being bored, the original topic.)


----------



## Ashermusic

JohnG @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> to return to Noiseboy's point, I agree with his raising the issue about art. He says "it's all subjective."
> 
> I can't really agree with that if you mean it to encompass all of art; I think that there are very clear gradations of "high" art and lower forms. However, if you're talking about just the JW / Gershwin discussion, I do!
> 
> High art may be difficult to define, but if we look, say, at the facade of Notre Dame or Rheims cathedrals and compare those to a mud hut, there are unmistakable differences that I argue are superior about the first compared with the second.
> 
> I realise it's a bit exaggerated, but wanted to know whether anyone disagrees with that?
> 
> 
> 
> (Separately, if I may, in the gentlest possible way, suggest that we move further discussion of George Gershwin to another thread? It's totally cool with the forum to express one's opinion and I've weighed in myself but upon reflection it's drifted pretty far away from film music or being bored, the original topic.)



"Art" is indeed subjective, which is why I much prefer discussions about craft, which is less so 

Nonetheless, eventually history makes it judgements and while I love and revere both Gershwin and John Williams, I doubt history is going to put either of them on a par with Bartok.


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> (Separately, if I may, in the gentlest possible way, suggest that we move further discussion of George Gershwin to another thread? It's totally cool with the forum to express one's opinion and I've weighed in myself but upon reflection it's drifted pretty far away from film music or being bored, the original topic.)



I agree, I didn't resurface this and wish no one had. It's been covered and concluded that Gershwin is the greatest. :wink: Let's not bring it up anymore.


----------



## Narval

Gershwin is great, Williams is great. No such thing as the greatest, only "I like it best." Bored with film music? Then go watch An American in Paris and Hook. Or maybe try How To Train Your Dragon. If that one is "static, predictable, and boring," then stay with what you like and let others enjoy whatever they might enjoy. It's all a matter of taste really. Sweeping judgments on music, when negative, are always wrong. If you can't enjoy or appreciate something, then it's not for you, so move on to what you like. Simple as that.


----------



## germancomponist

Well, let us go to the topic. o/~ 



dcoscina @ Mon Aug 02 said:


> It just seems like everything these days in the world of film music is static, predictable and boring. ...
> 
> What is it about current scores that I don't like? Well, first, the absence of interesting harmonies. Everything seems so tightly constrained to diatonic or modal frameworks. Big minor chords play tutti by the orchestra does not engage me. It puts me to sleep. If I hear another i-IV-i progression I think I will wretch.
> 
> Also, lack of development of themes. It used to be that a film composer would introduce several key themes or ideas, then develop them in subsequent cues while introducing new melodic or motivic material to serve as a contrast or binding material.
> 
> .... Nowadays, every cue seems totally distinct but without any character of its own- it's like aural wallpaper. It's a bunch of boring percussion loops and hits, accented with the occasional brass cluster or string effect- or nonsensical musical figures that go nowhere. ....



I could talk about the demos for a new library what I heared yesterday, but I better do not. :mrgreen: :roll:


----------



## Guy Bacos

Narval @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> Gershwin is great, Williams is great. No such thing as the greatest, just "I like it best." Bored with film music? Then go watch An American in Paris and Hook. Or maybe try How To Train Your Dragon. If that one is "static, predictable, and boring," then stay with what you like and let others enjoy whatever they might enjoy. It's all a matter of taste really. Sweeping judgments on music, when negative, are always wrong. If you can't enjoy or appreciate something, then it's not for you, so move on. Simple as that.



It's becoming amusing to watch you preach post after post Narval rather than giving an opinion with some substance.


----------



## Narval

I'm sorry that the substance escapes you, Guy Bacos. Let me simplify it for you: You don't really need to put down what you don't like in order to enjoy what you like. Or do you?


----------



## Guy Bacos

Indeed, your substance is so subtle it escapes me. But thank you for simplifying it for me Dr Narval.


----------



## Narval

You are very welcome, Master Bacos.


----------



## muk

> "Art" is indeed subjective, which is why I much prefer discussions about craft, which is less so


I don't agree with that. Defining art is not a subjective task. While it is notoriously difficult to do so, it's nonetheless not subjective. There is since a long time much debate in aesthetics which criteria can and cannot be used for defining what ought to be high art. To omit subjective nothions as taste or beauty in defining is in fact what's the discussion is all about.
It's certainly easier to recognize craft, but that's only one prerequisite of high art


----------



## JohnG

muk @ 14th August 2010 said:


> Defining art is not a subjective task. While it is notoriously difficult to do so, it's nonetheless not subjective. There is since a long time much debate in aesthetics which criteria can and cannot be used for defining what ought to be high art.



well....

To claim that defining great art is not subjective reflects an 18th or 19th century perspective, to a significant extent. Not that this point of view died out then; I was set an essay at age 17 to define what great art is, after a brief class discussion. As an elitist, I happen to agree -- up to a point -- that great art can be defined, though not necessarily identified by the generation from which it emerges. 

Bach, for example. I believe someone here touched on the fact that he was considered a bit of a fossil in his day, but since 1825 when Mendelssohn conducted his Mass in B minor, he's been embraced as one of the greatest of all time.

So, perhaps to kick it off, great art, or "high art," to use another antique expression should, by my admittedly debatable definition, be:

1. Difficult to execute (I know -- highly debatable); 

2. Reflects mastery of, or at least deep knowledge of, technique (again -- debatable);

3. Tackles large scale -- 

a. _scale of resources_ (like a symphony or opera or cathedral or public building, by contrast with a solo or an individual home); 
b. _addresses large-scale issues_ (Paradise Lost -- by contrast, say, with a comedy of manners); 
c. _large in scale itself_ -- not a 30 second etude or a sonnet

4. Not necessarily requiring tremendous education, preparation, or explanation in order to be appreciated -- people from other cultures can sense that the work is important as it doesn't depend solely on passing issues, such as social mores or taste of the era;

5. Through some means, impacts the way in which people see the art form, whether by being added to "the repertoire," being included in a permanent collection, being widely imitated or influential on other practitioners of the same art;

6. Moves, touches, amuses, intrigues or otherwise pleases a large enough audience, over time, that its influence could be considered significant. Not just "this season's shocker."

The last bits may be the most controversial, as one can imagine a work of art left in a closet that is never appreciated but is, nevertheless, great or high art. Similarly, there could have been a great deal of art lost over the centuries through accident or because the culture might have been destroyed by a more aggressive one.

I left out "originality," both because I think it's overrated, and because I think it's often a decisive component of more than one of the other elements already listed.


----------



## David Story

Wow, an epic discussion. A round for everybody






John Williams is in standard repertoire for orchestras around the world. He gets dozens of performances a year, beyond his own concerts, where he plays other film composers. He's going to be a force for years to come. 

I don't find him boring. 

Classical musicians and academics can be snobby, yet they will play and teach music that connects with the public. Eg Offenbach, Albinoni. When a composer regularly makes it into concert halls, they have done god work. More than aural wallpaper.

Stravinsky himself wrote a score for a TV film called "The Flood". I like it. Music, as re-peat says, *is* the film. As much as acting or cinematography. Stravinsky is also right in noting that a lot of film music is playing a small role. Yet scripts, editing, acting can all have large or small roles as well. They are still vital to most films. We notice if they are done well or poorly. 

Film music is art. That's why we hear it in concert halls, and study it in universities, and listen to it for inspiration. I don't care if we have 10,000 or 10 million fans, it's still art.

Technology makes it easier than ever to do things badly. There have always been dull film scores, but technology makes it easy to "phone in" a score. And easy for producers and directors to confuse technology with art. 
http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/award ... 008/video/

Entertainment is star driven, that is never going to change. If the star actor or director likes a story, it will get made. Same in opera, pop music, any collaborative medium. The story is one element, sometimes an ok story can be transcended by telling it well. Anyone enjoy Avatar or Hancock? I did.

We often can't know what the story, script, acting, score, etc were like before they went through the filmmaking process. 

I like Michael Giachino and Bear Mcreary, they write good themes and develop them. Their work get's better on repeat listening. That's a hallmark of good music for me, I hear more good things ahttp://www.vi-control.net/forum/images ... _wink.gifs I listen more.

Humans are not perfect, not even in teams. Though Pixar is close




Bear notes that sometimes he writes an inane melody to fit a scene. But he will do something interesting a minute later.

I'm optimistic that melody will come back within 10 years. It's already starting.
Keep listening, a lot of good music mentioned here.


----------



## Dave Connor

JohnG @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> Bach, for example. I believe someone here touched on the fact that he was considered a bit of a fossil in his day, but since 1825 when Mendelssohn conducted his Mass in B minor, he's been embraced as one of the greatest of all time.



While it's true that there was a resurgence in Bach after the Mendelsohn concert he was never off the radar and never considered anything but a Titan in composition. He in fact profoundly influenced Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and anyone else you can imagine. Mozart suffered a creative crisis when introduced to Bach's music and re-evaluated his abilities in the light of the great master. The abundance of contrapuntal and polyphonic devices in both his and Beethoven's later works is no accident: they both went to the same well.

Style's had changed but this was led in large part by Bach's sons who were men of their times but who still built upon their famous father and teacher.


----------



## Ashermusic

@ David Story:

_John Williams is in standard repertoire for orchestras around the world. He gets dozens of performances a year, beyond his own concerts, where he plays other film composers. He's going to be a force for years to come. 

I don't find him boring. _

I don't find JW boring, in fact, I love him to death but usually when he is played by symphony orchestras it is part of a "pops" style program and frankly is done because it makes money.

_Classical musicians and academics can be snobby, yet they will play and teach music that connects with the public. Eg Offenbach, Albinoni. When a composer regularly makes it into concert halls, they have done god work. More than aural wallpa_per.

There is a difference between "good work", which film composers certainly do, and great concert hall music, like a Bartok.

_Film music is art. That's why we hear it in concert halls, and study it in universities, and listen to it for inspiration. I don't care if we have 10,000 or 10 million fans, it's still art._

If you say so  When ou study it in universities however, it is usually segregated under the heading Film Music, not alongside classical music, unless things have greatly changed in a way that I am ignorant of. Totally possible. And I doubt there is much teaching of it going on at Conservatories.

_Technology makes it easier than ever to do things badly. There have always been dull film scores, but technology makes it easy to "phone in" a score. And easy for producers and directors to confuse technology with art._ 

Here we agree.


----------



## Zei

@Asher: Yes, they still segregate the majors in college by "Film Scoring Major" and "Composition Major". At least at Berklee.

While I agree with most of what's been said about composers today, I also have to disagree. Because of my girlfriend, I've been listening to more Film Scores than ever (her favorite composers are Zimmer and Giacchino). I really liked Zimmer's take on "Pirates of the Caribbean". He took that melody, that everyone now knows, and expanded upon it miraculously. She also showed me the Transformers soundtrack, and, while it's not as melodic as I'd like it to be (it's very vertical), it's still good. It does it's job well.

On the topic of melody being lost in film music these days, Giacchino's score for "Up" is doused in melody, as is his "Star Trek" (the new one) score. Which also uses theme and variation to wonderful effect.

Coming from a Video Game Score mindset (this is what I mainly listen to/aspire to become) theme and variation and melody have moved there. I could list you more memorable melodies in a video game than I could movies. Harry Gregson-Williams did an absolutely wonderful job with his "Metal Gear Solid 3" and Metal Gear Solid 4" soundtracks.


----------



## Ashermusic

Zei @ Sun Aug 15 said:


> @Asher: Yes, they still segregate the majors in college by "Film Scoring Major" and "Composition Major". At least at Berklee.
> 
> While I agree with most of what's been said about composers today, I also have to disagree. Because of my girlfriend, I've been listening to more Film Scores than ever (her favorite composers are Zimmer and Giacchino). I really liked Zimmer's take on "Pirates of the Caribbean". He took that melody, that everyone now knows, and expanded upon it miraculously. She also showed me the Transformers soundtrack, and, while it's not as melodic as I'd like it to be (it's very vertical), it's still good. It does it's job well.
> 
> On the topic of melody being lost in film music these days, Giacchino's score for "Up" is doused in melody, as is his "Star Trek" (the new one) score. Which also uses theme and variation to wonderful effect.
> 
> Coming from a Video Game Score mindset (this is what I mainly listen to/aspire to become) theme and variation and melody have moved there. I could list you more memorable melodies in a video game than I could movies. Harry Gregson-Williams did an absolutely wonderful job with his "Metal Gear Solid 3" and Metal Gear Solid 4" soundtracks.



Indeed, I would kill someone's mother for the chance to score a video game.


----------



## Zei

Ashermusic @ Sun Aug 15 said:


> Indeed, I would kill someone's mother for the chance to score a video game.


You gotta do what you gotta do :wink: 

The whole reason I want to go to Berklee is because of the higher chance I'll meet the right people that will get me into that line of business. That and they have a Video Game Ensemble and are working on a "Video Game Scoring" Major! And of course the education... but that's a given.

I think the reason that a lot of people are doing Video Games has a lot to do with more artistic freedom. The only thing that has to fit the game itself is the main theme (and even that doesn't have to in some cases). It has to fit specific scenes. There's also a lot of downtime in games (like in the Legend of Zelda when you're running from town to town) where melody can really shine.


----------



## poseur

David Story @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> *Technology* makes it easier than ever to do things badly. There have always been dull film scores, but *technology* makes it easy to "phone in" a score.



hmmm.

well --- isn't *craft*, itself, simply another (ok, largish) tool in the composer's toolbelt?

it's a tool meant to help, errrmm, _*craft*_ "inspiration",
not to supplant nor replace it.

inspiration:
remember that?
something for which filmmaking seems to have little-to-no time, patience, forbearance & money.....
..... since such a thing might presumably require a bit of internal misery-of-effort to achieve,
especially within the au courant profundity of committee-oriented contexts,
which are ever-so-present even within so-called "indie"-movies, these days.
{by "committee"-oriented settings", i mean to say:
"quasi-corporate boardrooms lightly infused w/faint & varied hints of artistic pretensions that overpower individuals' actual desires to individuate,
where fear, deep-seated _needs-to-belong_ (ie, _not_ 'stand out')
& musical efficiency (ie, greed & cheapness) might be seen to be the order-of-the-day:
same-as-it-ever-was, just _a bit_ more studiously concretised than previously, ime.....}

anyways,
i loved "UP" --- loved the film.
i _really_ enjoyed the score during the play of the film,
but for the fact that it was nearly numbingly spotted, imo.
even so --- i can't remember any of the score:
not a note, no special-musical feelings to attach to the film, here.....
just:
i liked it; that was nice, i think, and truly excellently done.

i wonder what that might mean?
my musical memory is pretty good, i think;
maybe i should just acquire the score-recording, and listen again.

but, back on topic
--- sorta ----
i'll repeat what i tried to say to jay, earlier,
which i understand might find little resonant footing:
whatever happens?
it might be useful to strive towards being more certain that
we don't bore ourselves w/our own film-music,
that we take pains to know know why we do this,
what it might require to creatively progress, etc:
since it's the only thing we can truly _do_ about any of it.


d


----------



## David Story

Another recent melodic score that is vital to the film: "Eat, Pray, Love" by my friend Dario Marianelli. Melody is coming back.

As far as schools go, segregating artists is probably not a good idea. 
We learn from each other. I love Bartok and learn from him, also from Mitsuda and Will. I. Am, and Walter Murch. They won't hurt your technique.
Pops players perform in other concert series. Here in LA, the Philharmonic players also do film sessions.

I like open minded composers; listen to what others do, and accept their aesthetic as valid. You don't have to follow them. 

I know the elite will shoot this down, being one myself. I've learned to defend the underrated or misunderstood, it's my thing. You can be uplifted by Jack Body, Ferde Grofe, Kelly Sweet. John Adams can be as profound as Mahler. To me. I am second to none in my praise and appreciation of Stravinsky, yet Bartok writes strings parts that are just as profound. 

It's a bit like who's greater, spiderman or wolverine, Beethoven or Mozart. We all learn from genius, no matter the label or critique.

My fondness for Ligeti and Glass are acquired tastes, I'm careful to remember that when I extend their ideas. Even Mozart takes getting used to. You never know how people will respond to what you do. I sing from the soul first. If you require procedural micropolypony, I'm ready to listen. 

Personally, I believe inspiration is everywhere, just takes awareness. Which can be tricky on deadline.

Technology is part of craft, craft is part of composing, composing is part of music, music is part of technology. Composers need to be clear they are coming from inspiration, not a hitek rush, formula, or model. Unless that's your intention. 
If I'm feeling bored, it means I've lost inspiration, and am working from craft or technology.

Artist's have to earn a living too, and Ravel really did feel that he should learn from Gershwin. Connecting with the public is part of the artists duty, imo. Three cheers for composers that bring in the public. Nothing wrong with living nice either(and eco-aware). Shakespeare wrote for money.

Art may be latent in a closet, but it's not music until there's a performance and and audience. That's my view. The audience decides if it's art. 
Great music is timeless, speaks to future generations.

Yes, I believe film scoring is an art, in fact all storytelling music, from video games to oratorios to tone poems to children's song. It used to trouble me that film artists were segregated, or put down. But there are millions of film music fans, so we're in no current danger of being forgot. Just underrated. 

In fact, every composer mentioned here has had their work in a film. When Beethoven is in a soundtrack, does his art become less artful? I feel it's just a different context, that you still perceive the greatness. But I get that to some, Ludwig is above such commercial or extramusical placements. I mean no offense.

If you believe you have a system for grading art work, low to high, consider academics. That's their provence. It's the future public that sets the value of art, not your colleagues, critics or academics. That's professional politics. And there's art there too. But I believe in art that reaches both the public and the pros.

I would not normally discuss art definitions, but I see a trend to judge what is real art. By people I respect and care about. I'm crazy enough to try and help folks to step back.

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.
-Pablo Picasso

forgive the long post


----------



## George Caplan

someone said film music can be dull. coming from nowhere near the film industry i can say that films can be dull and the film music and anything else in a movie like the acting is probably purely incidental.

to me film music is an art. not art. film music like some of john williams seems to me to be written first and the film added later. maybe thats why it goes down well in a concert.

rather than worrying about what good film music is it would be better to work out what constitutes a good film. its certainly got nothing to do with the film music for most people.


----------



## snowleopard

I actually grew tired of pure orchestral scores some 20 years ago, after I left school. But that was one of taste more than anything. 

I like much of JW's work, but it's the army of imitators that I can do without and do indeed bore me. 

I always found it fascinating the effort some put into making an orchestra (or mock-up) sound flawless, and the hair splitting criticism by peers regarding it - at the dismissal of emotional interest. 

I agree on melody coming back. Themes aren't always necessary, no, but good themes have been out of favor in too many scores. Give JW credit here. But even the late Jerry Goldsmith who would use often strange instruments and arrangements, would still create memorable themes. 

Now that I'm done saying I'm tired of symphonic scores, big props to Michael Giacchino	for his Oscar winning score to Up. Thematic, and beautifully fitting of the film.


----------



## skyy38

re-peat said:


> Not surprised that you can't (or refuse to) tell the difference, Jay, but Fielding in 'Straw Dogs' is literally grabbing bits from "L'Histoire", _unchanged_. Plagiarism in the purest, most embarrassing meaning of the word.
> The ONLY compositional link between Williams' "Superman" theme and Richard Strauss' "Also sprach Zarathustra" on the other hand, is the interval of the upper fifth. Furthermore and this is important, unlike Fielding's approach (which has no extra-musical significance as far as I know), Williams' link is meaningful as well because, through Strauss, he's referring to Nietzsche where the 'superman'-idea originated. Quite clever, actually. So: BIG difference between these two examples, and in more ways than one.
> 
> But I'll agree with you that, with or without Stravinsky's input, "Straw Dogs" is a great score, just like every other Fielding score. A master composer, no doubt. ("The Mechanic" and "Lawman" are my favourites at the moment.)
> 
> Let's maybe ask Nick Batzdorf what he thinks. He's a great "L'Histoire du Soldat"-fan I seem to recall.
> 
> _



For the sake of clarity, do you mean the Superman March or "Planet Krypton" as the comparison to ....Zarathustra?


----------



## dcoscina

skyy38 said:


> For the sake of clarity, do you mean the Superman March or "Planet Krypton" as the comparison to ....Zarathustra?


The Love theme shares its opening five note ascending phrase with Strauss


----------



## dcoscina

By the way- I got tired of film scores too a while ago and sought refuge in works of Shostakovich. His symphonies to me play like film scores. I even had a chance to see the 10th performanced live recently and it was riveting.


----------



## jononotbono

I'm quite the opposite. I have become horrendously bored with Rock and Pop Music and love Film Music more than I ever have done before. So exciting.


----------



## jononotbono

mverta said:


> I will say one thing about getting older - there is a level of musical sophistication and understanding that one simply can't get to without the maturation of years. You can't shortcut experience, now matter how talented you are. Some things simply take years or decades to get to, and I firmly believe that's one of the reasons that so many of the greats weren't writing their best work until 40+, with several finding their best strides in their 50's and 60's. It's one of the reasons I love composing - and especially orchestrating - so much: no matter how long I may pursue it, there will always be more mastery to attain; more secrets to discover; more gems to unearth.
> 
> _Mike



Yes, this excites me. So much to learn!


----------



## pkm

skyy38 said:


> For the sake of clarity, do you mean the Superman March or "Planet Krypton" as the comparison to ....Zarathustra?


You're really digging deep with this thread!


----------



## RiffWraith

pkm said:


> You're really digging deep with this thread!



Yeah really - 5 1/2 years. I am used to seeing this on GS - not here!


----------

