# Creativity and film music (split from another thread)



## JohnG (Mar 28, 2010)

[split from an earlier thread]

I wrote really to caution against making what I now regard as an error that I made when starting out -- being too cautious, especially on student projects. 

I did take some real chances on some of them, but not enough. Ironically, some things I scored very conventionally, like a United Way public service spot on deafness, could just as easily have been done with some more adventurous material. Not John Cage or Berio or something too attention-getting, because film music for that kind of thing is very functional, but maybe I could have taken a chance on some quartal harmony? Maybe some more modal or ambiguous tone centres? 

Why?

The reason is that you are meeting people for the first time and _they will remember what you did do, not what you could do_. If you have that individual voice or a wacky idea, trot it out, because if they don't like it -- so what? By contrast, if they love it, then you have shown that you personally can offer something they can't get from just any other competent guy who can afford Logic and a few libraries. 

It's not like most of the time a lot of money is at stake, and most of these little films struggle for attention anyway. A little nuttiness or audacity is just what they need, and it's what any composer needs if he or she is to rise from the bottom rung.

The vast majority of composers whose skill set is "being good at writing stuff that sounds like [Elfman / Howard / Williams / Zimmer]" get paid very little and find themselves perennially scratching for work because they don't actually bring anything unique to the table. At all. And there are thousands of fairly good imitators.

But just one you. So be yourself as much as possible so that you can have a career, not just a series of jobs.


----------



## robteehan (Mar 28, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

No need to feel rotten, John, it's good advice coming from a good place. I'll keep it in mind.


----------



## mverta (Mar 28, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



JohnG @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> The vast majority of composers whose skill set is "being good at writing stuff that sounds like [Elfman / Howard / Williams / Zimmer]" get paid very little and find themselves perennially scratching for work because they don't actually bring anything unique to the table.



John, I'm very interested in visiting whatever planet you're speaking of where there are composers who *actually* sound anything like these guys, beyond in the narcissistic fantasy worlds of their own minds.  Here on Earth, I notice, instead of "thousands" of such guys, almost zero who have the musicality and training to do anything other than an amateur-night, poor impression of said composers, because they do not actually understand what's behind the music.

Since composers like Williams and Goldsmith were so blatantly, unapologetically "trying to sound like" Barber, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, VW, Schumann, and countless others, I'm not sure your advice is entirely in his best interest. Instead, I might suggest he do everything in his power to sound _exactly_ like those he admires, and in the process of endless hours and years of analysis, study, and practice, he, too, may come to understand what's behind the musical choices and executions they made, and once understanding it, can choose to find ways for his own voice to speak, while not abandoning that which moves his soul.

It is this very quality which allows for a John Williams - despite his painfully obvious quotations and inspirations - to be recognized as the great composer he is. When he did his own "take" on Howard Hanson's Romantic Symphony as the basis for E.T., he understood precisely what makes the Hanson what it is, and thus was able to do more than copy it, rather make it his own.

Those who try and shortcut the training, and understanding, who as a result have little to say and no facility to say it with, naturally end up with disappointing careers, no matter how great a Hans Zimmer impression they think they do. This is not a subtle distinction, but a core philosophical point to understand if we are to stand upon the shoulders of the giants who have come before us; to expand upon and be inspired by their own legacies, while still moving our craft and the art forward. If I were running a film composition school, a pre-requisite would be for the students to be able to compose truly convincing "impressions," both compositionally and orchestrationally, of the greats, and their contemporaries. From such lofty heights (or darkest depths) one gets a perspective, which, when paired with craft, allows for true control and contribution though one's art.

It's one thing to _think_ you can do a John Williams. If you can *actually* do it, then you've studied your ass off, studied who he studied, and you can choose to do just about anything you want. Now that is true control. That is true craft. 
I, for one, have a long way to go. 

In the end, having a unique way of talking doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say. And ultimately, it is words of wisdom which endure.




_Mike


----------



## mverta (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Lux, I'm sorry but I don't understand your comment.

John mentioned the importance of not trying to sound like the greats, and this is the point I was addressing. It seems you're talking about the lack of need for study in general? ("...talent is something that can be tested without...learning purposes.")


To clarify my position: the greats themselves were trying to sound like their favorite composers, too. And in the act, in the study, came to understand what made them great. Thus, with that understanding, they were able to utilize their favorite aspects of that music, while naturally infusing it with their own voice. 



_Mike


----------



## lux (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

oh no, i dont think i've expressed anywhere any praise for the lack of need for study, neither in general nor in the specific case.

I, on the contrary, wrote about the importance of studying and knowing the work of great composers, whichever style or musican genre we talk about.

But...I'm just also completely agreeing about John's comment regarding the risk of being too cautious and stay straight to the references. This is a realistic issue and danger for every living composer, musician, songwriter, player, dancer...We all deal with this risk every day.

I somehow agree with John that trying to put on the plate something different and more personal is a step and a chance to achieve an aspired partial "unicity" which makes most succesful composers....successful composers. And technique is necessary but not satisfactory enough. 

I'm not sure i get which part of this concept sounds odd as i think its pretty common sense. Also i never seen John as one guy which doesnt recognize the importance of the knowledge in a musician's career.


----------



## lux (Mar 29, 2010)

Btw, Rob, this is a nice sounding track. It worths a further developement as in the actual form sounds like an anthem, which makes me curious about possible directions you would like it to go


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 29, 2010)

Mike & Lux,

I see your both points, as I see Johns point.

I would say: Studying the well known (good) composers work is a "must", if you are willing to learn to understand why this and that works (arrangement and composing wise) and something else not. I have got my knowledge mostly because of doing this. 

In the same time when you do this, it develops a personal taste, a taste for this and/or that. This is the moment where you as a composer develop your own style.

I think this is what John meant in his post.


----------



## mverta (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Yes, it is entirely possible I misunderstood, which is why I asked for a clarification. And since this point is directly related to John's comment on the piece, I hope the OP finds my comments on topic, if only in spirit.


The idea of "having a unique voice" is repeated ad naseum as a sort of catch-all piece of advice to composers when the truth is this has very little precedent in history, little relevance in daily working life, and doesn't actually constitute producing music with merit. 


90% of the time, we're being asked to follow temp tracks, for goodness sake, and in some cases, asked to get as close to another composer's sound as possible without getting sued. And in those instances where you're allowed to "do what you do," you are fooling yourself if you don't recognize that with each cue or score, you're referencing in your mind works which have come before you.

So I say instead of being obsessed with the unique voice, let's return to prioritizing what you have to say, instead. The relatively barren landscape of film composing these days is chock-full of unique voices producing disposable, pedestrian music.

This is a sickness in Hollywood and in the arts in general: style over substance. The obsession has been to create ever more interesting packaging and distracting gimmicks as a substitute for skill. That's what the 3D craze is all-about. When I was coming up, movies already had three dimensions: Good Story, Good Writing, and Good Acting. But that's hard to do. So instead, let's just put a CG robot on the screen and shoot missiles at the slack-jawed, goofy-glasses-wearing audience. I am also a visual effects artist, and a few years ago was approached to come up with "a whole new look; something nobody had ever seen before" for a _Captain America_ movie in development. They weren't really worried about the story so much, or the characters or the dramatic arc. What they wanted to spend their development time and money on was the "unique voice," some look that nobody had ever seen before. Like that was going to be the key. Little wonder that project has yet to see the light of day.

Similarly, film music today is often laden with all manner of samples, effects, sound design, and plug-ins, but the music itself is banal, repetitive and completely forgettable. The oft-touted unique voice will surface no matter what, in spite of your best efforts. It hardly needs cultivating. Let's spend the energy building the true, solid musical foundation. It's harder. It's also infinitely more rewarding. 20 years from now they are still going to be playing John Williams music from 1980. That's 50 years (and I suspect it will be around much longer.) How many of the films from the last 10 years have their scores regularly programmed in concert venues... any? Do you think they'll be around in 50 years? It is an indefensible argument to suggest that the average film score today has anywhere near the musical depth and craft of the average score from 1970. Or 1960. In fact, the farther back you go, the more skill the composers had. We have not produced any more Samuel Barbers in case you hadn't noticed, and a quick perusal of one of his scores reveals music which is transcendantly masterful. It's only getting worse; it's only fading.


Musical pieces are stories, and this idea of always having to come up with new words - your own words - doesn't make for better stories. It is my strong belief that what the art needs are people with interesting things to say. And when that's true, you can say it using virtually _any_ palette. 

If you're writing a piano sonata, you're wise to follow the lessons of the masters, and begin by studying as many great piano sonatas as you can, to understand the "thing" of piano sonatas. Similarly with studying filmscore composers and their inspirational roots. By studying, and by being able to replicate, you have internalized what _really_ matters; what's really under the hood, musically. You will naturally have your own voice surface.

Being "cautious" and straight to references is a wonderful part of the journey, if it's an indication of one's attempt to internalize those references. The unique voice thing may have short term gains; may not. But the long game requires true understanding.



_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



JohnG @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> The vast majority of composers whose skill set is "being good at writing stuff that sounds like [Elfman / Howard / Williams / Zimmer]" get paid very little and find themselves perennially scratching for work because they don't actually bring anything unique to the table. At all. And there are thousands of fairly good imitators.



Depends which area you're in. If you're doing commercials, as I did for a few years, I don't know how many times I heard, "they want it in this style" and this style will be Elfman, Zimmer, Williams, Glass etc... so that could be very handy, if you're able to get in the commercial circuit. But as you say, there are a lot of good imitators.


----------



## lux (Mar 29, 2010)

Guy raises an interesting point, which probably draws the line between opinions here.

I alweays noticed on this forum a distinction between those who thinks the musical career as a tricky and professionalist road and those which seem to focus on an more general "artistical" approach. 

Before being patronized by people here about how few experiences i have compared to most guys i say that I've heard both positions in very established musicians. So, its a matter related to the personal meaning of life and art, not to the experience or credits.


----------



## mverta (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Well certainly you're right that we are individuals with separate opinions and perspectives. It's just that I've found craft trumps all.

I spent years filling those library companies' databases with "sound-alike" commercial music, and I've spent time exploring the frontiers of so-called Pure Art and exploratory non-traditional music. I discovered there is no actual fight between commercial and artistic. That is an illusion. If you are in control of your craft, you can produce commercially accessible music, and, having won your listeners confidence, you can then teach them something new and perhaps more challenging; something more "artistic." It's not either/or. What I advocate is true control; true choice, for which there is no substitute.


_Mike

P.S. Have you felt "patronized" in this discussion? I hadn't seen that to be the case, certainly not on my end.


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

[quote:0b9f979921="mverta @ Mon Mar 29, 2010 23:55"]Well certainly you're right that we are individuals with separate opinions and perspectives. It's just that I've found craft trumps all.

I spent years filling those library companies' databases with "sound-alike" commercial music, and I've spent time exploring the frontiers of so-called Pure Art and exploratory non-traditional music. I discovered there is no actual fight between commercial and artistic. That is an illusion. If you are in control of your craft, you can produce commercially accessible music, and, having won your listeners confidence, you can then teach them something new and perhaps more challenging; somò­v   Ë¼è­v   Ë¼é­v   Ë¼ê­v   Ë¼ë­v   Ë¼ì­v   Ë¼í­v   Ë¼î­v   Ë¼ï­v   Ë¼ð­v   Ë¼ñ­v   Ë¼ò­v   Ë¼ó­v   Ë¼ô­v   Ë¼õ­v   Ë¼ö­v   Ë¼÷­v   Ë¼ø­v   Ë¼ù­v   Ë¼ú­v


----------



## mverta (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



lux @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> The sense of my reaction is that i cant see the invite to put on the plate a bit of personal footprint as something which could have a negative meaning.



_I'm not suggesting that having a personal footprint is negative_. I'm saying that you don't necessarily need to _prioritize_ or _focus_ on that. When you immerse yourself in the deepest understanding of the music of the greats, and thus can control it, your own voice will surface through the interpretations no matter what. We are not actually the composers who inspire us, we are our own persons. But if/when you can see the music world truly through their eyes, you can assimilate the best parts of that which you love, and then their legacy lives on in a new and profound way. 

This is a very different approach than, "Come up with your own sound," which is what we hear all day long. When I began jazz improvisation, I was simply stealing licks from other people. But after the 1000th lick, I began to understand what they had in common; what the patterns were; how they came to being in the first place. I didn't need to steal after that; I knew how to create my own. Same thing. Certainly the best book on Jazz improvisation would contain nothing but CD's of great solos.

So if your point of contention is that I don't see the unique voice as being important, then we have no argument. We agree! It is a matter of priorities upon which we differ; I believe this doesn't require focus, but emerges on its own when one focuses on craft first.


Great debate, and an important topic. I hope the OP is finding this useful.


_Mike


----------



## robteehan (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Useful indeed, and thanks to all for chiming in.

I think I agree with Mike. My background is classical as some of you may know, and "style over substance" is just as endemic there as it is in the commercial world: everyone's obsessed with being more original than everyone else, and as a result, nobody is minding the fire and a lot of music is written that has no real place in the world. The composers who I like the best tend to demonstrate an awareness of where they fit in the grand musical narrative of history, i.e. they have studied, imitated and absorbed the music that spoke to them. I like to think of music as a house that's built by all humankind, and everybody gets one brick: placing your brick in the backyard all by itself may make it stand out, but you can reach greater heights, and contribute to something much greater than yourself, by placing your brick on top of the bricks that came before you.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Well Mike, I think we do disagree. 

I think craft is indispensable, as you do. And certainly young or simply new composers have for hundreds of years been taught to learn craft by imitating others' work, whether it's a Bach invention or a Haydn string quartet, or maybe even classic rock -- whatever.

But for me, it's a profoundly different experience of problem solving when I am thinking about "making it new" and when I'm just working through a scene with a bag of tricks that I've had taught to me or figured out from others. Each of these two exercises requires, and thus strengthens, a different mental stance, different habits.

Both are necessary, but I think new / beginning composers neglect seeking novelty at their expense later. It's not a muscle anybody wants to be trying to develop from a standing start with a picture's deadline staring one in the face.

I think I see a lot of guys out there whose music sounds too cautious and safe, and I don't think that's a good way to go. I regret the times I grew cautious or conventional out of timidity, exhaustion, or being worn down by somebody's temp.



mverta @ 28th March 2010 said:


> John, I'm very interested in visiting whatever planet you're speaking of where there are composers who *actually* sound anything like these guys [famous film composers], beyond in the narcissistic fantasy worlds of their own minds.  Here on Earth, I notice, instead of "thousands" of such guys, almost zero who have the musicality and training to do anything other than an amateur-night, poor impression of said composers, because they do not actually understand what's behind the music....



Certainly, many would-be knockoffs are painfully un-musical, recorded badly, repetitious, seize on only a single aspect of the admired cue rather than understanding where it came from, and betray the composer's hastiness and lack of training. In writing that there are "thousands" of more or less competent knock-off artists, I perhaps went a bit overboard in a desire for rhetorical emphasis.

I differ slightly, however, from a categorical dismissal, perhaps in degree. Some people, quite a few actually, compose pretty good imitations of the Big Guys, "pretty good" defined here as good enough for the producers and directors consuming them, if not always for an accomplished musician. 

But plenty of times even the musician's standard is met. It's common knowledge that some famous film composers use such imitators / ghosts, routinely to cover scenes that they don't have time to write or maybe don't want to be bothered with (fight scenes, chase scenes; scenes with a train or helicopter that is going to bury the music anyway). Those ghost guys sometimes get paid ok, sometimes not much at all; sometimes cue sheet, sometimes not.

Especially, less discerning directors and producers may be comforted to a surprising extent by the music's sounding in some way familiar, however clumsily so, because of some aspect reminiscent of "big" scores they remember, even if vaguely.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 29, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



mverta @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> The idea of "having a unique voice" is repeated ad naseum as a sort of catch-all piece of advice to composers...
> 
> The relatively barren landscape of film composing these days is chock-full of unique voices producing disposable, pedestrian music.
> _Mike


I rarely hear any unique voices in film scores. Seems to me there are a few different molds mostly used. Why would originality be considered "pedestrian" music?


----------



## mverta (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



Hans Adamson @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> Why would originality be considered "pedestrian" music?



It wouldn't. One doesn't beget the other simply because they often co-exist. Is that truly what you took from 10 paragraphs of my posts? If so, perhaps I need to stick to communication through music.


_Mike


----------



## George Caplan (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



JohnG @ Mon Mar 29 said:


> Especially, less discerning directors and producers may be comforted to a surprising extent by the music's sounding in some way familiar, however clumsily so, because of some aspect reminiscent of "big" scores they remember, even if vaguely.



as you know John, im an amateur and have no interest or the skill required even if i wanted to to write any music for films or media. but i like to watch films whenever i can and listen to the film music as a sort of hobby a times. 
and its true what you say about some vaguely familiar sounding scores. you notice that more often.

also i dont see why original music has to be any good. why does it need to be good just because its original. how much original music over the years is no good at all. and moreover who writes anything original for films in these times. we went to see a live concert of non film music the other day and it was a new and original work. it was a cacophony most of the time and i coundlnt stand to hear it again. BUT it was original.


----------



## lux (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Guys what about splitting the thread and moving it to composing forum while leaving Rob's piece for comments?

I think a mod can do that.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

What I find awkward in this discussion is, you don't TRY and come up with your own unique style, it just happens if you have something to say through your music. To me music is meaningless if it's not expressing your heart and soul. This is a habit that was instilled in me very young and has always been my guide to writing, when I'm doing free compositions, I don't look whether it's unique, contemporary or like JW or not, and this doesn't stop me from constantly exploring new avenues to integrate them in my style. I think if I could put John's point in a nutshell, it's "be yourself", which is the hardest thing to do, but thing happen from that. Of course, one can go nowhere without a strong musical background which is more of Mike's point, and that is obvious. There are 2 elements as I see it, knowledge and what comes from you which some would call the X factor, in modern language terms. This X factor is unique to each one of us, and it is how well one can balance this with our musical knowledge, and a personal style usually develops from that. In other words, one should not at all be conscious as he is writing of whether this is original or not. When I'm saying all of this, I'm talking about free composition, not working in the industry for a very specific style imposed, such as commercials or whatever, that is a different ball game.

My 2 cents.


----------



## mverta (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

My point is not simply that one needs a strong musical background. Film score writing is idiomatic and largely derivative, even at its most unique. So my point is that the specific act of immersion in the source material, and a comprehensive understanding of it, is what paves the way for substance. The style part will take care of itself. You might consider this act of immersion obvious, but it is not - unquestionably, indefensibly, the skill level of most professional composers today pales in comparison to their predecessors. Period.

Of all the things I feel we, the art, and the business need to focus on, true craft is it. This goes for me, too, of course. If every other score we were hearing was as strong as those routinely found in the "Glory Days" (YMMV), and the problem was simply that they weren't unique in sound enough, this would be a wonderful problem to have. But that's not the problem. We have many distinct sounds out there, but we do not have the musicality found in the most enduring, impactful work. I suppose I'm assuming here that the total de-evolution of our art is universally understood. If one can't tell the difference between great and what we mostly have today, then all bets are off.


_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



mverta @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> The style part will take care of itself.
> 
> _Mike



Even though I hear you, I disagree with that. I see it as a training.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*

Unique creative style is easy to establish; skill is not.

My son developed a "unique" style on the keyboard when he was only two years old while I'm still slaving away trying to develops new skills.

You could also argue than many composer's "style" is the result of repetitive patterns that they rely on. While many composers may be well-versed and studied in various styles, I'm sure there are also many successful composers that would have a hard time effectively emulating the style of others. You don't have to be good at all styles to be successful in a specific area. 

Although, business success and composing craftsmanship skills are not the same.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



synergy543 @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> Unique creative style is easy to establish; skill is not.



You don't look for uniqueness, it is the result of you, your personality mixed with your musical baggage. If you look for it you'll never find it, and it's not something you can compare with skill.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



Guy Bacos @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> You don't look for uniqueness, it is the result of you, your personality mixed with your musical baggage. If you look for it you'll never find it, and it's not something you can compare with skill.


I think in the latter part of the last century, many composers (particularly in the academic world) were doing exactly this. It led to compositions such as 4m33s. As composers strove to become more and more "unique", the listenability and public interest in serious music rapidly declined. 

In the film world though, instead of uniqueness, I hear conformity.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 30, 2010)

Hi Mike,

I agree with your last post; the good old days are not today.

That said, there are a lot of ideas swirling around, so maybe labeling some of them is valuable?

Topics / positions

1. Film music is largely derivative, so it's best to learn deeply what has come before. Originality can come later;

2. Originality is less a self-conscious choice than an outgrowth of combining two things: (a) mastery of technique/familiarity with the opus, and (b) one's own natural, almost unconscious self that manifests itself as time goes on in one's work;

3. Originality is essential in writing film music in order to establish one's career as a distinct artist whose work is in demand;

4. Originality does not emerge naturally (at least in full flower), but depends at least a partly self-conscious effort to seek some original approach. Moreover, originality is like a "muscle" that requires exercise or it will not develop well or fully (or at all);

5. What is called or peddled as "original" is often a lot of crap; and

6. Most younger / beginning film composers are less well schooled than the olden days, and they would do better to learn some chops before styling themselves as original musical thinkers or even pursuing originality with a lot of vigour.

Anything else?


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



mverta @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Mon Mar 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would originality be considered "pedestrian" music?
> ...


My understanding of the point you were making in 10 paragraphs was that a "unique voice" is over-rated because "film composing these days is chock-full of unique voices", and that acquiring skills from studying iconic contemporary film composers that are already imitated ad nauseum is more important. Sorry I didn't "take more" from your 10 paragraphs. My point, which you cut out from your quote was that I don't hear those armies of "unique voices" in today's film music. Do you really?


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



synergy543 @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> It led to compositions such as 4m33s.



My favorite piece!


----------



## JohnG (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



George Caplan @ 30th March 2010 said:


> ...who writes anything original for films in these times



I think David Torn and Thomas Newman are two.


----------



## Ed (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



mverta @ Sun Mar 28 said:


> Those who try and shortcut the training, and understanding, who as a result have little to say and no facility to say it with, naturally end up with disappointing careers, no matter how great a Hans Zimmer impression they think they do.



But Zimmer didn't study, doesn't that mess up your theory?


----------



## choc0thrax (Mar 30, 2010)

Clint Mansell doesn't seem to have studied anything.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 30, 2010)

Actually, I think Zimmer has studied oceans more than most people who write for film. He just didn't do it at a university.


----------



## lux (Mar 30, 2010)

*Re: short cue - "The Addict"*



JohnG @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> George Caplan @ 30th March 2010 said:
> 
> 
> > ...who writes anything original for films in these times
> ...



+1

From an orchestral point of view i would add Goldenthal. I like a lot John Murphy's work too.


----------



## nikolas (Mar 30, 2010)

No refering to film music but in more general: A unique voice is quite different from your own voice. Noone says that you have to avoid sounding like someone else (impossible), but to actually have something from yourself inside your music (very much possible, and largely negligable by young composers).

When starting out aò®   ËãO®   ËãP®   ËãQ®   ËãR®   ËãS®   ËãT®   ËãU®   ËãV®   ËãW®   ËãX®   ËãY®   ËãZ®   Ëã[®   Ëã\®   Ëã]®   Ëã^®   Ëã_®   Ëã`®   Ëãa®   Ëãb®   Ëãc®   Ëãd®   Ëãe®   Ëãf®   Ëãg®   Ëãh®   Ëãi®   Ëãj®   Ëãk®   Ëãl®   Ëãm®   Ëãn®   Ëão®   Ëãp®   Ëãq®   Ëãr®   Ëãs®   Ëãt®   Ëãu®   Ëãv®   Ëãw®   Ëãx®   Ëãy®   Ëãz®   Ëã{®   Ëã|®   Ëã}®   Ëã~®   Ëã®   Ëã€®   Ëã®   Ëã‚®   Ëãƒ®   Ëã„


----------



## JohnG (Mar 30, 2010)

How about defining the opposite of "original?"

Something is NOT original if it is:

1. Transparently a copy of temp score or an orchestral piece,

2. Indistinguishable from the work of others,

3. Deploys predominantly the same old devices in the same old way at the same old times.

So if that's what's not original, maybe some tips to being original would include:

1. Try to avoid active imitation of other music;

2. Think about what particular element of the scene or movie you can latch onto as a springboard for doing something particular to that scene or that film, so that you don't sound like everybody else;

3. Even though the same old thing will work very well for the scene, at least pause to ask yourself whether something else could do better; and

4. At least aim to use devices that aren't used to death, or in a way or in a scene where one doesn't always hear them.

And I'm going to paste in a quotation from another member, poseur, because it's very specific and, I think, relevant to this discussion, if somewhat indirectly.

Poseur wrote:

"reading, writing and their ability to speed attendant analysis skills are important, are certainly key & helpful..... but, I think that developing one's ears via focused listening, playing & occasionally brutal self-criticism remains important, too. 

maybe we can gain much by remembering this: maybe it can bring us closer to stronger internalisations of core musical concepts: harmony, melody, rhythm, arranging & orchestration: over and above intellectualized analyses, which certainly can lead to the lionisation of the analytical approaches at the cost of something dear to the root-impulse to create works of un-prefabricated feeling. 

that said, 
I read & write, & still have some cause to sight-read..... under pressure, with the red-light on. 

it might be seen as important that our paths are founded on the bases of the creation of original works, sincere works that offer our own personal viewpoints and perspectives; I think it can be dangerous to suggest that good composition absolutely requires reading & writing, first & foremost: 
I don't believe that the basic, childlike impulse to compose should be overlooked as an absolutely primary factor worthy of work & development. 

I also think that any instrument that one plays well --- the more, the merrier --- can, indeed, be folded into the approach through which we compose, and can thereby enrich both our understanding of our own writing, as well as its reach & potential: I suggest continuing to use those instruments in one's compositional flow, and pursuing them. 

unlike many, I don't believe there's a fundamental problem with composing-by-ear..... 
if, 
a) you're increasing the capacity of your ear, and 
b) you simultaneously develop various methods of 
intra-musical communication..... 
..... including (but, not limited-to) reading & writing. 

..... seems like what's primary to music of value is that 
1) we actually have something to say, and 
2) we can say it. 

so, yeah: 
do learn to read & write, so that you can study & analyse scores, & comprehend harmony & rhythm..... 
but, listen more & with greater concentration, sing more melodies (alone, without any instrument to hand), and continue to play all your instruments with musical vigor: 
internalise the feelings of isolated pieces of music. everything you learn 
--- no matter how, or in what chronological order --- it's all important. 

sorry for the potentially useless babble; I’m tired..... 

-- post on v.i. control by poseur"


----------



## dinerdog (Mar 30, 2010)

Wow, the semantics and technicalities always seem to kill these discussions. I just wanted to agree with JohnG at the beginning of this discussion, but like lawyers and politicians, people can't even agree on the general meaning of the word 'original' in a creative context.

I was about to say (imho) that 'originality' is the most important commodity you can have today. Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't help to understand/study/acknowledge what came before, but with the 'cult of the amateur' and getty/pump/flickr/istock swelling the volume of content out there, you better have something 'original' to say. Of course there's a need for masters of orchestral genres etc, but in general you won't catch anyone's ear with just great stuff.

And I don't think anyone means being original only for the sake of being different, unless that's what's really inside you, then it's from the heart. You can be good and versatile, but there's soooo many people out there that it's becoming virtually impossible to distinguish yourself by doing that. Didn't Mark Isò®6   Ëçß®6   Ëçà®6   Ëçá®6   Ëçâ®6   Ëçã®6   Ëçä®6   Ëçå®6   Ëçæ®6   Ëçç®6   Ëçè®6   Ëçé®6   Ëçê®6   Ëçë®6   Ëçì®6   Ëçí®6   Ëçî®6   Ëçï®6   Ëçð®6   Ëçñ®6   Ëçò®6   Ëçó®6   Ëçô®6   Ëçõ®6   Ëçö®6   Ëç÷


----------



## lux (Mar 30, 2010)

good post dinerdog


----------



## dinerdog (Mar 30, 2010)

Mike, that is all certainly true, but I think what we're seeing is that today's world can't be navigated by craft alone and that is what's difficult for most of us here. We all start out wanting to be the best we can (for the most part).

The problem is how to interface with a trendy/dismissive/fast food mentality? Those are the uncharted waters we're in. I agree you need that craft if you get a shot, or you'll be gone in a minute.

Your are also correct in that it takes olympic discipline in your personal life and creative regimen to achieve any of it. The hard part is that it's totally different for everyone, but the personal discipline we need is paramount for sure.


----------



## synergy543 (Mar 30, 2010)

mverta @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> What I notice is that despite issues of semantics concerning words like "original," nobody is contesting the vast gulf of skill which lies between those of us today, and those who came before us.
> 
> This is wise, as that is a fact...


What would those before us do with today's technology and distractions were they alive today? Would they only compose for films? Would Beethoven be doing mockups too? Would he spend time going to watch Avatar? Would he use a Mac or a PC?...VSL or LASS? hmmm.....

What is most puzzling to me though, is how composers today compare with other artists. We acknowledge a decline in the composition craft. Yet, peformers seem to be more skilled than at any point in history. And what about actors? Were the Elizabethan actors far more skilled than today's actors? I doubt it.

So why the decline only for composers?


----------



## Daniel James (Mar 30, 2010)

Finding your own sound is the point where you stop imitating others and start repeating yourself :D

I joke I joke

Dan


----------



## Hannes_F (Mar 30, 2010)

synergy543 @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> What would those before us do with today's technology and distractions were they alive today? Would they only compose for films? Would Beethoven be doing mockups too? Would he spend time going to watch Avatar? Would he use a Mac or a PC?...VSL or LASS? hmmm.....
> 
> What is most puzzling to me though, is how composers today compare with other artists. We acknowledge a decline in the composition craft. Yet, peformers seem to be more skilled than at any point in history. And what about actors? Were the Elizabethan actors far more skilled than today's actors? I doubt it.
> 
> So why the decline only for composers?



Good post, food for thought.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Mar 30, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> Good post.



Good post.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Mar 30, 2010)

Edit.... Will repost


----------



## dcoscina (Mar 30, 2010)

mverta @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> What I notice is that despite issues of semantics concerning words like "original," nobody is contesting the vast gulf of skill which lies between those of us today, and those who came before us.
> 
> This is wise, as that is a fact.
> 
> ...



This is a great post Mike. I totally agree.


----------



## Ed (Mar 31, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue Mar 30 said:


> Actually, I think Zimmer has studied oceans more than most people who write for film. He just didn't do it at a university.



Yes but Mike is not talking about that kind of studying from what I can tell, also some people only consider formal classical theory as studying.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 31, 2010)

mverta @ 30th March 2010 said:


> All the clever orchestration in the world; all the plug-ins; all the tricks do not make up for this [having something to say].



I think part of the frustration one feels at times is that, unfortunately, superficial cleverness, in fact, DOES make a decisive difference in getting work.

I am working hard at being more superficial, but I'm too shallow to understand how.



mverta @ 30th March 2010 said:


> It makes absolutely no difference what words you use if you don't have something interesting to say, *and that is what you need craft for*.



Mike, I don't understand this bit of your post and would be grateful if you could expand on it just a little. I am very much enjoying your posts, btw.


----------

