# The Zimmer effect



## dcoscina

Well, I'm going to go on record saying that Hans has really made his mark on the landscape of film scoring. I was listening to Horner's Avatar and I hear those 16th note staccato string samples that Zimmer has injected into his scores since Batman Begins and what has been in many other scores ever since. I can even hear strains of Zimmerisms in Yared's Amelia. Obviously, his approach is far reaching when composers like Horner, or Yared are asked to evoke it. I think even Williams has been affected by it even if peripherally. Look at how much more pedal points he's beein using since Zimmer rose to fame.

So, Mr. Hans Zimmer, I must tip my hat to you. You are a genius if not a trendsetter.


----------



## Guy Bacos

If I may make an analogy, in the 19th cent, there was a period when composers started showing off, doing variations with abuse of arpeggios and runs, this must of been very popular for an immediate satisfaction among the public, but composers like Mendolsohn were above that and being conscious of this decadence he decided to write "Variations Sérieuses" where he would show how real "variations" is suppose to be done, use of counterpoint, fugue, etc. not just arpeggios. When I hear Zimmer I feel I only ate half of the meal, where's the beef? More like fill in, bread. And it's not I'm comparing it too JW or anybody else, it's so much commercially based his music and reaches you on one level only, I like a composer who could touch you on many different levels. Yes, Zimmer is a master at what he does (I don't dare to call it a craft) and extremely successful at it, and I like some of what he does, but I think it's sad to see people praising this man like if he is some genius.


----------



## choc0thrax

Guy Bacos @ Sat Jan 16 said:


> If I may make an analogy, in the 19th cent, there was a period when composers started showing off, doing variations with abuse of arpeggios and runs, this must of been very popular for an immediate satisfaction among the public, but composers like Mendolsohn were above that and being conscious of this decadence he decided to write "Variations Sérieuses" where he would show how real "variations" is suppose to be done, use of counterpoint, fugue, etc. not just arpeggios. When I hear Zimmer I feel I only ate half of the meal, where's the beef? More like fill in, bread. And it's not I'm comparing it too JW or anybody else, it's so much commercially based his music and reaches you on one level only, I like a composer who could touch you on many different levels. Yes, Zimmer is a master at what he does (I don't dare to call it a craft) and extremely successful at it, and I like some of what he does, but I think it's sad to see people praising this man like if he is some genius.



Weird, I always thought of him as a McDonalds double big mac. His music tastes good in small doses but if you eat it everyday you eventually die of heart disease. 

Don't be upset by people praising him, you'll spend all your time being angry. I've learned to accept it, I also accept that there are people who have Transformers 2 as their favourite film or watch Glenn Beck on a daily basis etc.


----------



## Frederick Russ

16th note pedaling is only one of the tricks Zimmer uses. He's also partly responsible for more of a focus of rhythmic scoring in general across the orchestral sections, including nontraditional percussion. Seems there was far more emphasis in successfully integrating sound design plus hybrid scores using synthesizers and metal with live orchestral which was a departure from the traditionalist era of John Williams. 

Zimmer - love him or hate him, most would agree that he has succeeded in making a fairly large impact on film music in general and more importantly, what audiences have come to expect from film composers sonically and musically - for better or for worse.


----------



## Guy Bacos

choc0thrax @ Sat Jan 16 said:


> Weird, I always thought of him as a McDonalds double big mac.



He's not that tasty!


----------



## mjc

deh deh - deh deh - deh deh - deh deh (minor third)

lol

Don't forget John Powell was doing pretty much the same thing in the Bourne Trilogy...and they came out before Batman Begins...maybe _he's_ the one we should hold responsible!

I must say I'm a sucker for the 16th string ostinatos, they have a great drive and momentum about them


----------



## germancomponist

[quote:d27203419d="Frederick Russ @ Sat Jan 16, 2010 19:46"]16th note pedaling is only one of the tricks Zimmer uses. He's also òZ   À`Z   ÀaZ   ÀbZ   ÀcZ   ÀdZ   ÀeZ   ÀfZ   ÀgZ   ÀhZ   ÀiZ   ÀjZ   ÀkZ   ÀlZ   ÀmZ   ÀnZ   ÀoZ   ÀpZ   Àq[   Àx[   Ày[   Àz[   À{[   À|[   À}[   À~[   À[   À€[   À[   À‚[   Àƒ[   À„[   À…[   À†[   À‡[   Àˆ[   À‰[   ÀŠ[   À‹[   ÀŒ[   À[   ÀŽ[   À[   À[   À‘[   À’[   À“[   À”[   À•[   À–[   À—[   À˜[   À™[   Àš[   À›[   Àœ[   À[   Àž[   ÀŸ[   À [   À¡[   À¢[   À£[   À¤[   À¥[   À¦[   À§[   À¨[   À©[   Àª[   À«


----------



## lux

a few thoughts in no particular order

- Zimmer has a strong songwriter footprint to my ears. Most of the orchestral manouvres he includes look more like a pay to big studios habits and historical traditions. I somehow feel if he could he would release stuff mostly based on his beloved synths. I personally would love a new zimmer synth based score like Black Rain.

- You cannot blame Zimmer if 90% of "hey thats my first demo" you hear here are 16ths stuff on a padded horns. Dull followers tend to communicate a wrong impression of the original composer theyre mimicking. I think the real Zimmer scores make perfectly sense and there are many pop musical and melodic flavours in it that i like.

- What is a bit problematic is that some deduct the concept that most orchestral flowerish are a legacy of the past and can be omitted. Again, this is not Zimmer's problem, as his personal scoring approach needs that asset and works perfecty for him. It has more to do with the new generation of non artistic aknowledged cloning managers in the show business who cannot get the many diversities in the music scenario.

- I'm not sure how much todays music has been influenced by the big Zimmer flicks or by television scoring. I'm more inclined to blame TV composers for many of the actual cliches. Expecially because TV works, less dissected and exposed than the hollywood blockbusters, could put fresh and innovative ideas into the sea with a bit of less risk probably. And that doesnt happen imho.


----------



## vicontrolu

Can somebody say which ones of his tunes are the most Zimmerish? The ones that better represent this new style/trend he created? Pirates maybe?


----------



## Dynamitec

> Can somebody say which ones of his tunes are the most Zimmerish? The ones that better represent this new style/trend he created? Pirates maybe?



For me, recognizing the Zimmerish sound started with "The Rock". It has a lot of metal elements, strong and fast percussions and drums which play very hard rock like. Add his typical progressions and easy to follow leads plus a lot of FX and im my opinion you have this Zimmerish feeling. A lot of his newer soundtracks has elements you already hear in a very similar way in "The Rock".


----------



## Ian Dorsch

Probably the soundtrack to The Rock would be a good place to start.

edit: Gah! Curse my slow fingers! :D


----------



## JohnG

I vote to give the guy a break. 

I have learned a lot from his music, I admire the fact that he's brought so many composers along, I admire his work ethic, I'm impressed with his unusual thoughtfulness about his musical choices. And I admire his audacity.



lux @ 18th January 2010 said:


> - You cannot blame Zimmer if 90% of "hey thats my first demo" you hear here are 16ths stuff on a padded horns. Dull followers tend to communicate a wrong impression of the original composer theyre mimicking. I think the real Zimmer scores make perfectly sense and there are many pop musical and melodic flavours in it that i like.



+1


----------



## johncarter

Dynamitec @ Thu Jan 21 said:


> Can somebody say which ones of his tunes are the most Zimmerish? The ones that better represent this new style/trend he created? Pirates maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, recognizing the Zimmerish sound started with "The Rock". It has a lot of metal elements, strong and fast percussions and drums which play very hard rock like. Add his typical progressions and easy to follow leads plus a lot of FX and im my opinion you have this Zimmerish feeling. A lot of his newer soundtracks has elements you already hear in a very similar way in "The Rock".
Click to expand...


"the rock" is one small part of Zimmer style.

He also has a strong melodic style that you can hear in Rain man / black rain / green card beyond rangoon. Radio Flyer, Thelma and louise.. Nine month = These scores are hidden gems that a lot of people dont know. It's a big part of Zimmer style.


----------



## Dynamitec

> "the rock" is one small part of Zimmer style.
> 
> He also has a strong melodic style that you can hear in Rain man / black rain / green card beyond rangoon. Radio Flyer, Thelma and louise.. Nine month = These scores are hidden gems that a lot of people dont know. It's a big part of Zimmer style.



Yes, I know what you mean. But it only shows that Hans Zimmer has more sides than the one he is best known for. The question wasn't whether Hans Zimmer can do more than that, but it was what is typical Hans Zimmer. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you! But if you ask anyone on the street if he knows Hans Zimmer and to name one Film he scored, I'm pretty sure Pirates of the Caribbean, Gladiator, The Rock or maybe Dark Night will be the answer.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Zimmer to me is akin to a latter day Verdi. And, believe me that's not a criticism. Verdi knew incisively when, dramatically, certain 'cues' were required to be disposable and mere wallpaper (music to usher characters off the stage or music to cheer bravo to). And it's the same with Zimmer. He has a rapier sharp dramatic instinct; he knows what will work in a given context and quite rightly he exploits that to the maximum. Remember film music is by its very nature formless and a slave to the celluloid. 

One can hear all the great 19th and 20th century european composers in the music of Zimmer (melodically, harmonically, texturally, orchestrationally) but also one has to remember that his music has evolved significantly from the early days.


----------



## mf

Rousseau @ Wed Jan 27 said:


> Remember film music is by its very nature formless and a slave to the celluloid.


The score is part of the "celluloid" in the same way that lighting is part of cinematography. There's no slaves and masters but multicolored interwoven threads in the tapestry.
Film music is not formless, it has (or supposed to have) the form that the scene needs, and it sometimes even gives form to the scene. But it's true that preconceived musical forms, such as song form: intro, verse, chorus, bridge, etc., most times are inadequate in films.
The heirdo is not formless and slave to the head but part of it, by contributing to the head's perceived shape and beauty. In this sense, scoreless films are bald.


----------



## snowleopard

It is interesting how he's such a magnet for so much admiration, and scorn. 

Agree with Lux and JohnCarter that there is some great lost work of Zimmer: Black Rain, Pacific Heights, Driving Miss Daisy. Nice, mostly synth and ensemble work. Beyond Rangoon is indeed an exquisite score many have never heard. 

I'd also say both Backdraft and Crimson Tide are early scores that have more of what some may perceive as the "Zimmer Sound" that came around before The Rock. Having said that, there are plenty of scores over the last decade or so of his that have deviated from that sound for the most part. The Thin Red Line, The Ring, etc.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

Most of what I expect from Zimmer and his style is dark voicing in the strings, whether legato or staccato. He's also very well known for researching other music culture to implement into his scores.

One of the gems for me, is Prince of Egypt. 



> Weird, I always thought of him as a McDonalds double big mac. His music tastes good in small doses but if you eat it everyday you eventually die of heart disease.



Well I'd say that for any composer.


----------



## noiseboyuk

vibrato @ Thu Jan 21 said:


> I think its a lot of jealous people on the forum frankly - who would like to have his career but write different music - and nobody is stopping you.



A big +1. I see in some composers the same (imho) snobby and lazy thinking that means Zimmer=bad that I see in filmakers about James Cameron. I think once you've achieved popular success, you will be derided by people who claim to know better.

I vivdly remember the profound effect Titanic had on the public when released (imho although people love Avatar and it wows people, it doesn't resonate to the same depth that Titanic did on original release). Then over time people saw behind the curtain, and Titanic became almost a figure of fun. But cinema is one huge magic trick anyway - and Cameron is skilled enough to totally take audiences with him.

Same with Zimmer - composers see behind the curtain. I get the big-mac analogy, but imho its pretty disingenuous. OK, he may not have the technical nuances that Williams has (or imho quite the same gift for melody, although he is one of the very best out there). But boy can he serve picture. Again, my personal favourite is Thelma and Louise - his score had a MASSIVE effect on me at the time, it was a truly inspired marriage of music and Ridley's awesome visuals.

I certainly don't like everything he does (personally I can't make it 5 minutes through The Dark Knight). On the other hand, as I've posted elsewhere I think he was responsible for the most "famous" theme of the entire last decade among the public, in Gladiator, and its a cracker. He's a master of his craft... and imho craft is absolutely the right word.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard

> A big +1. I see in some composers the same (imho) snobby and lazy thinking that means Zimmer=bad that I see in filmakers about James Cameron. I think once you've achieved popular success, you will be derided by people who claim to know better.



Not to mention they consider those people sell outs. So yeah today, if your successful, your just a sell out.

And yeah, next to JW and Goldsmith, Zimmer write great melodies.


----------



## EwigWanderer

ajcmuso @ 1.18.2010 said:


> deh deh - deh deh - deh deh - deh deh (minor third)
> 
> lol
> 
> Don't forget John Powell was doing pretty much the same thing in the Bourne Trilogy...and they came out before Batman Begins...maybe _he's_ the one we should hold responsible!
> 
> I must say I'm a sucker for the 16th string ostinatos, they have a great drive and momentum about them



+1 That's true=)


----------



## Guy Bacos

vibrato @ Thu Jan 21 said:


> I think its a lot of jealous people on the forum frankly - who would like to have his career but write different music - and nobody is stopping you.




Why do you say that vibrato?

I can't speak for others but of course I envy his successful career with all its financial gains. But what does this have to do with my criteria of what is good music?


----------



## mf

Most composers believe their own music is good. Some of them focus on making their music sound good to OTHER people. Some succeed. One of them is Z. And _Z's music being good for other people,_ that is measured by: the number of people liking it, and the money Z is making out of it. That is a fact of life. Life is not fair, only just.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Yeah, and?? Not sure what's your point, since I don't disagree with that.


----------



## JohnG

mf @ 12th February 2010 said:


> Most composers believe their own music is good. Some of them focus on making their music sound good to OTHER people. Some succeed. One of them is Z.



I see what you mean, but I differ on the cause and effect. I think the popularity is more of a coincidence of taste, rather than HZ's or any other hugely popular creative person's objective.

The popularity part, I believe, is a lucky artifact, a direct result of a coincidence; what HZ is really into and does well happens to resonate with millions of people. I doubt that he sets out trying to please "other people" as such. Instead, it just happens that what he's into and works so hard on coincides with what a lot of people are also into.

Judging by his interviews and the intense focus on both the composing and sound of his music, it seems clear that Hans Zimmer is REALLY into what he does, and absolutely devotes every fibre of his being to making it as good as he can. But "good" is defined by himself. Not selfishly, but just -- "what do I think would be completely cool here and what would take it to the next level, beyond what I think I and others have done with this same kind of scene."

And I don't think this is confined to HZ. The combination of passionate devotion to doing the absolute best one is capable of and constantly trying to top oneself -- by one's own standards, not that of popularity -- is what defines genre-making popular art. Think of The Beatles or Hank Williams or Prince or some other popular artist who's sort of buried himself or herself in what he or she's doing -- but also been wildly popular. Intensity generates genuineness; when that intensity is coupled with talent and hard, hard work, AND it lines up with what a large number of people enjoy, you get that kind of popularity.

Anyway, it's a hypothesis. 

Unfortunately, the obverse of that coin is that if what one is totally into as an artist is not very exciting to most people, popularity will be hard to come by. Either way, one has to push oneself to please oneself, not others, or risk being dissatisfied inwardly and end up a pandering imitator.


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> The popularity part, I believe, is a lucky artifact, a direct result of a coincidence; what HZ is really into and does well happens to resonate with millions of people. I doubt that he sets out trying to please "other people" as such. Instead, it just happens that what he's into and works so hard on coincides with what a lot of people are also into.



Very true. 

I was going to talk about that, in 10 years, people could think the opposite about Z's music and perhaps some guy doing Polkas might be on top.


----------



## mf

Guy Bacos @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Yeah, and?? Not sure what's your point, since I don't disagree with that.


My point is that music is as good as other people call it. I know this is debatable, but is at the same time a common ground that might help keeping us from fighting over our different tastes.



JohnG @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> mf @ 12th February 2010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most composers believe their own music is good. Some of them focus on making their music sound good to OTHER people. Some succeed. One of them is Z.
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you mean, but I differ on the cause and effect. I think the popularity is more of a coincidence of taste, rather than HZ's or any other hugely popular creative person's objective.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply that Z's primary goal was "huge popularity," nor that that's the reason he achieved it. My suggestion was that popular success is something Z probably aimed at, and perhaps deliberately worked toward. I didn't say that's the ONLY cause of his success. You're making a good point, popularity has its own ways and it's more a matter of coincidence. But me thinks it's less likely to achieve popularity ONLY by chance, without consciously advancing towards it. I think it's both: smart effort into the right direction meets the right context.



JohnG @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Intensity generates genuineness; when that intensity is coupled with talent and hard, hard work, AND it lines up with what a large number of people enjoy, you get that kind of popularity.
> 
> Anyway, it's a hypothesis.


And a very plausible one. However, we are only to be concerned with what stays in our power, which is: making our stuff likable to some specific audience, keep those standards up - and then leave the degree of popularity to take its own course.


----------



## JohnG

mf @ 12th February 2010 said:


> I didn't imply Z's primary goal was "huge popularity."



Actually, you're right. You didn't _imply_ that he seeks approval of others; you said it flat out when you wrote, "Some of them focus on making their music sound good to OTHER people. Some succeed. One of them is Z."

It would be a lot more interesting to exchange ideas with you if you eased up on contradicting others. Just clarifying your point would have been enjoyable. By contrast, telling people they're wrong and that their comments are in some way misguided, uninformed, sloppy, or whatever you are implying, is tedious.


----------



## mf

JohnG @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> mf @ 12th February 2010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't imply Z's primary goal was "huge popularity."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're right. You didn't _imply_ that he seeks approval of others; you said it flat out when you wrote, "Some of them focus on making their music sound good to OTHER people. Some succeed. One of them is Z."
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that, "flat out" or otherwise. And I am sorry that you don't see the difference between 
"Z focused on making his music sound good to other people" and 
"Z's primary goal was huge popularity." 



JohnG @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> It would be a lot more interesting to exchange ideas with you if you eased up on contradicting others. Just clarifying your point would have been enjoyable. By contrast, telling people they're wrong and that their comments are in some way misguided, uninformed, sloppy, or whatever you are implying, is tedious.


Uncalled for.

You are continuously misinterpreting what I say and even putting words in my mouth. I am/was NOT _"telling people they're wrong and that their comments are in some way misguided, uninformed, sloppy, or whatever"_ YOU (and not I) are implying. On the contrary, I said you are right in the points you make (when you're not busy misinterpreting my words, that is). Also, I actually DID clarified my points, by making the required qualifications. I really don't get your constant negative attitude towards me. And I say "me" because imo you're making it unduly personal. I don't see anything particularly negative in my posts that should trigger such hostility. Taking into consideration your unnecessary nitpicking in the "detuned mandolin" thread, it looks to me like you have an agenda. Are you chasing me or something?


----------



## Guy Bacos

mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> My point is that music is as good as other people call it. I know this is debatable, but is at the same time a common ground that might help keeping us from fighting over our different tastes.



It CERTAINLY IS debatable!!!

Or did you mean music is as popular as other people call it?


----------



## RiffWraith

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that music is as good as other people call it. I know this is debatable, but is at the same time a common ground that might help keeping us from fighting over our different tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It CERTAINLY IS debatable!!!
Click to expand...


They did not invent the term "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" for nothing.


----------



## dcoscina

Frederick Russ @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Success longevity will probably be experienced by the likes of John Williams especially if you look at it in the scope of 10-20 years from now. Even 50-60 years out imo. Hans Zimmer is a popular composer pertinent for today. Tomorrow? That's anyone's guess really - depends on how well he adapts to the changing cultural moods - like any composer really. He's seems to be involved in many new projects and continues to keep working.
> 
> Personally, I also think we should let up on HZ. Everybody is entitled to their opinion though. If I had half his success I would be happy imo.



Well said Frederick. Hans is Hans. Williams is Williams. Whether we subscribe to their style or not, it doesn't change the effect they have had on the face of film scoring.


----------



## mf

Guy Bacos @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that music is as good as other people call it. I know this is debatable, but is at the same time a common ground that might help keeping us from fighting over our different tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It CERTAINLY IS debatable!!!
> 
> Or did you mean music is as popular as other people call it?
Click to expand...

No, what I meant is: good.

What I was basically saying is that each and every piece of music is good - at least for its composer and for the ones who are plying it and take pleasure in listening to to it. That's not very debatable, is it? When someone calls a piece of music "good," that is a subjective judgment pertaining solely to the person making it. Now, question: can we _objectively_ evaluate how good a piece of music is? I don't believe we can. I believe a piece of music is as good as I think it to be. Hence my statement: music is as good as people call it. If they say it's good for them, then it's good for them, right? Simple and straightforward as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You brought up the idea of "criteria for good music." My "criteria" for good music is: the music that I like. It is of course a subjective criteria, but the only I can trust. What is your criteria for good music?


----------



## Guy Bacos

mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> can we _objectively_ evaluate how good a piece of music is? I don't believe we can. I believe a piece of music is as good as I think it to be.



In that case you can say that Bach, Beethoven or Stravinsky are all bad composers, since you believe that. But they are NOT, why? because they have past the test of time, and also have been praised by the best musicians time after time. I don't think you can debate this, they have made GREAT music, end of story. It may not fit someone's taste but you could never deny their greatness.

Zimer and all the other 20th or 21th cent film composers will have to pass all these tests before achieving a status of greatness. He might be considered as great or completely forgotten in 15 years. 

So I think you are stretching the word subjective a bit too much to my taste.


----------



## mf

Guy Bacos @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can we _objectively_ evaluate how good a piece of music is? I don't believe we can. I believe a piece of music is as good as I think it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case you can say that Bach, Beethoven or Stravinsky are all bad composers, since you believe that.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I really don't see how what I like would make someone a bad composer. Care to explain?

It is fascinating to see, for the third time in two days, how a person takes a positive statement that I've made, turns it (by some undisclosed logic) into a negative conclusion, and in the end holds me responsible for their odd negative conclusions.


----------



## Guy Bacos

mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> I'm sorry, I really don't see how what I like would make someone a bad composer. Care to explain?



Could you please rephrase this? I don't understand.


----------



## nikolas

good = opposite of bad. If something is not good then it is bad. If a composer is not good, for a person, then by default (s)he is bad. 

Of course mf, forgot the continuation of Guy's sentence: "But they are NOT, why:..."

Anyways, I do not wish to participate in this discussion, just offering what I think mf (and Guy meant), kinda like a translation and that's all.

Take care and I'm off to bed!


----------



## mf

Guy,
Sure, but let me first remind the context:



Guy Bacos @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> can we _objectively_ evaluate how good a piece of music is? I don't believe we can. I believe a piece of music is as good as I think it to be.
> 
> 
> 
> In that case you can say that Bach, Beethoven or Stravinsky are all bad composers, since you believe that.
Click to expand...

Starting from me saying that a piece of music is as good as I think it to be

how did you arrive to your conclusion that

Bach, Beethoven or Stravinsky are all bad composers?



or,



How (using what kind of reasoning)

what I like (a piece of music that I call good)

would make someone (Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky)

a bad composer?


----------



## Guy Bacos

mf @ Fri Feb 12 said:


> Starting from me saying that a piece of music is as good as I think it to be



let's rewind here. What exactly are you saying here? It seems part an opinion and part
Descartes philosophy, like "I think, therefore I am".


----------



## ChrisAxia

Hey all,

This has turned into a rather silly discussion. Music IS subjective. 20 years ago, when I played a song that I felt was good but had negative responses from some people, I would wonder why. It didn't take too long to realise that if I had 100 people in a room and played them a song, maybe 20 would really like it, 30 might say it was OK and 50 might hate it. You can NEVER please everyone! 

Once I accepted this, I felt much better with my 'creations'. To have just one person tell me how my music had a profound effect on them is worth it. I would like to be able to have the same effect on some people, that my heroes of music had on me, but of course I accept that many people won't like what I do. 

Zimmer has touched Millions of people with his music, and I would be proud as anything if I had composed that beautiful Gladiator theme. Too many composers get caught up in the technical excellence and forget that a majority of people just want to hear a great melody/harmony. For all of John Williams technical genius, the main reason he is so successful is that he has composed memorable themes that have stood the test of time (so far). I'm a big fan. I know there are many here that are not Williams fans and I accept that. He is not going to be everyone's 'cup of tea'.

Likewise with Zimmer. I like much of what he does, but it is clear many here don't. If you love a certain composer, I guarantee you someone, somewhere will hate his/her music. Get over it, go and make some music of your own, and just hope that someone out there likes what YOU do!

~Chris


----------



## Guy Bacos

ChrisAxia @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Hey all,
> 
> This has turned into a rather silly discussion. Music IS subjective.



Music IS subjective, but it is not subjective whether composers such as Bach, Beethoven or Stravinsky are great composers. They ARE great composers, having past the test of time and appreciated by all great musicians time after time. That's all I'm saying. Zimer is no where near having past any of these test, he's plainly popular at this moment for reasons that John mentioned. 

I just don't see what is so hard to understand about this.


----------



## Guy Bacos

vibrato,

With all due respect, I am a musician and ok at that, am I suppose to agree that Zimer is great based on what people write about him? I have seen films with his music, you could rationalize all you want, but for me his music doesn't mean much, I find it very shallow, often commercially oriented and not very original. If some people find it an amazing discovery his 1/16th note ostinato bass, well I don't, composers have been doing that for 500 years, except with different instruments. And I have no reasons to be negative about Zimer, but to me he's an extremely wise an opportunist composer.
He sees something that works and will repeat to death. Sorry that's just my opinion, and based on what I heard.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Just remember that a lot of the greatest composers as we know them today where far from being the most popular of their time. I know it makes no sense to say this, but for argument sake, Zimer would be 100 times more popular than Bach. A popular composer of his time was Czerny, today he doesn't come at the heel of the greats.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Guy,

I respect your view of course. There is nothing wrong in that. 

This is a never-ending topic! 

At least we have the appeciation of Mozart, bach, Stravinsky and many others in common!!


You make very beautiful music and you are a very talented person - so I know you say what you say with deep understanding of music. 


However, music is for the most part subjective. It does not matter if Zimmer's music does not hold up in the years to come - if I like some of his scores - its not because millions of other people like it - its a personal thing for me as is the case for any other composer's music. 



Regards,

Tanuj.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I understand that you enjoy Zimer's music and that's how you base your arguments on. But what I'm saying at the same time, and that is a very personal point of view, it's like if Zimer knows a head of time that you will enjoy this, he uses ways that I find cheesy, and people are enjoying this because he's giving what they want, and too much is too much, and at the end of the day people will get quickly tired of this. I would be ready to say that in 10 years people will be sick of the Zimer sound. Just my prediction


----------



## Guy Bacos

Anyway, I hope to let this go and I said my opinion, I also hope people can respect this the same way I respect the people who dislike my music.


----------



## Ashermusic

What seems to be missing from your evaluations of Zimmer, Guy, is that Zimmer is writing film music, not concert hall music, so the criteria for judging it always should begin with "How well did it work with the picture?"

If it works well as music apart from the film, well, that is a nice plus, but it is not the primary goal of film music.

With most of the films I have seen that Zimmer has scored, the film has been well served by the music IMHO.


----------



## Guy Bacos

This is irrelevant, JW and some other great film composers does film music as well and I have much more esteem for their musical content.


----------



## Niah

Well I couldn't agree more with Jay Asher on this.

But the thing that I most see on the discussions about zimmer is that, music and his music his work, is not always the prime focus of the discussion. It seems to go around about these external factors that go way beyond his music.

And it used to be that the forums would be drowned with this permanet fanboyism and it seems like we have gone from one extreme to the other?

Personally I couldn't be more neutral about zimmer's work but it bothers me to some extent when a composer is not being judged by his work but external factors to it.

What Jay has said is what I find fair IMO.

Music in context..


----------



## re-peat

vibrato @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> (...) Take for example John Williams - His earlier scores are very derivative but as he has grown as a composer - his sound has changed a lot and I think his music has become increasingly original every year that goes by.(...)


I'd argue the exact opposite of what you're saying, Tanuj. In my opinion, John Williams went from (artistic) triumph to triumph until and including "Hook", but after that, he seems increasingly satisfied with simply getting the job done, in a rather formulaïc manner. The earlier Williams — I mean, the composer of "The Fury", "Jaws", "Images", "Superman", "Raiders", "Jane Eyre", etc. ... — was a FAR more adventurous, inspired and exciting writer than the man who delivered, say, "Minority Report", "The Terminal", "Crystal Skull", “War Of The Worlds”, and the "Potter"-music.
I don't know what happened after 'Hook' (his last true masterpiece, I believe), but for some reason, something died. The spark vanished and Williams turned from a composer (one of the great ones of the 20th century, I believe) into a filmcomposer. Now, some people might consider that progress, but I, who considers most filmmusic to be an inferior species of music, don't see it that way, I’m affraid. 

As for Zimmer: I think he's very much like Max Steiner, that other 'music factory' of a composer: hugely successful and influential at the time, but today, largely forgotten except for a few works and stylistic innovations. I'm convinced the exact same fate awaits Zimmer.
The main problem I have with their kind of music — and most filmmusic in general — is that it, apart from being incredibly boring, constantly points or refers to something _outside_ music, it's never interesting in or by itself. Furthermore, it lacks the ambiguity that all great music — and all great art, for that matter — has: Zimmer’s music has only one meaning, one purpose, one dimension, and it’s not even a musical one. (I’m aware that it has to be one-sided and cardboardy like that, otherwise it wouldn’t be as effective as it is, of course.)

Mind you, I really don't want to say anything negative about the man: even though I'm not in the least interested in any of his music (everytime I made the effort, I was extremely disappointed), I very much agree that he's a first-rate composer for films. Zimmer, just like Steiner, is a remarkably reliable and often creative source of utilitarian music which, on occasion, is not without superficial appeal. And he also has a great dramaturgical gift, tremendous passion and energy, and an almost infallible instinct for 'what works'. From a professional point of view, his career indeed commands nothing but respect and admiration and he certainly deserves all the success he has, as far as I’m concerned. No quibbles there.

But really, if I can listen to Waxman, Prokofiev, Bartok, Williams, Zappa, Beethoven, Fielding, Mingus, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Ravel and dozens of other truly interesting and life-enhancing composers, why on earth should I ever want to waste precious time listening to Zimmer? 

(If I were in a preachier mood than I am today, I’d advice people to try and do the same: seek out and get to know the really good music. There’s plenty of it and there’s only so much time to try and absorb as much of it as you can. Every hour spent on Z-music is an hour lost for truly great music, isn’t it?)

_


----------



## Ashermusic

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> This is irrelevant, JW and some other great film composers does film music as well and I have much more esteem for their musical content.



If you think it is irrelevant, then do not become a film scorer. It is the MOST relevant matter.

Now, of course, if a composer writes music that serves the picture AND works well alone, that is ideal, and the truly great film composers do manage to do that. And you are entitled to feel that Hans does not live up to that. But it is not the primary goal of film music and so you should at least respect that he plays picture well, because let me tell you, it is damn hard to do.

There was a composer (I will not name him although I never see his name anymore) who was getting a lot of work 20 years ago. If you closed your eyes and just listened to the music, you would have thought this was a truly great film composer. But when you listened to it with the movie, it never worked with the picture.


----------



## lux

re-peat @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> But really, if I can listen to Waxman, Prokofiev, Bartok, Williams, Zappa, Beethoven, Fielding, Mingus, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Ravel and dozens of other truly interesting and life-enhancing composers, why on earth should I ever want to waste precious time listening to Zimmer?
> 
> (If I were in a preachier mood than I am today, I’d advice people to try and do the same: seek out and get to know the really good music. There’s plenty of it and there’s only so much time to try and absorb as much of it as you can. Every hour spent on Z-music is an hour lost for truly great music, isn’t it?)
> 
> _



naw, the potter score was extremely adventurous and challenging imo.

Thats kind of an academic approach to music listening re-peat. More or less than reading the last Nature magazine being a scientist.

Emotion is life enhancing and can be provided with complex as much as simple schemes. Taking your argument to the limit makes chromatic music as the unavoidable landing of an unhearted research in my vision.


----------



## Niah

Glad to see someone who also finds hook to be a great score.

Sometimes it seems that there's only one composer out there - Zimmer. Ok maybe two, Z and W.

I find it bizare this fixation for zimmer from people who say they don't even like his work.

There's much more music out there happening that is not getting the same attention as the scores of Z, W and the usual suspects.

Why not bring them to the light?


----------



## lux

one thing i find interesting is that sometimes different treatment have been used with film composers. I mean, i think there are very emotional and nice works from Edelman and Mancina, somehow comparable with Zimmer's work, just to mention a couple, and rarely (not to say never) see those guys mentioned.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ashermusic @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant, JW and some other great film composers does film music as well and I have much more esteem for their musical content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it is irrelevant, then do not become a film scorer. It is the MOST relevant matter.
Click to expand...


Did you read the entire line?? I said JW and some other great film composers does film music as well and I have much more esteem for their musical content.

I totally agree with re-peat, and I am more incline to go with his school of thoughts on this matter with time. And I also agree that Z's music served well for films, I never said it's trash either. But to me, music could go 2 directions, and with Z it's the bad one.


----------



## bryla

Niah is right: There are more letters to the alphabet than Z and W, and even those are some of the last.


----------



## Guy Bacos

bryla @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> Niah is right: There are more letters to the alphabet than Z and W, and even those are some of the last.



It's not that! It's just that they are each the best representative of different schools of thoughts, or musical genres or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Niah

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> bryla @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Niah is right: There are more letters to the alphabet than Z and W, and even those are some of the last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that! It's just that they are each the best representative of different schools of thoughts, or musical genres or whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't see it that way Guy.

To me the incredibly restrictive nature of these type of movies doesn't allow much room for school of thoughts, taking different musical directions or even innovations. 

To me it's not zimmer or williams who is taking the direction of film music but rather Movies are taking the direction. The music just follows it, and again this draws back to what Jay has said.


----------



## bryla

And what people seem to forget: Film composers don't innovate music. Musicians do, and film composers follow


----------



## Guy Bacos

That's fine Niah, you (and Jay and whoever) have your opinion and I have mine.

I'm out.


----------



## Niah

bryla @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> And what people seem to forget: Film composers don't innovate music. Musicians do, and film composers follow



That is what I most have found yes.

It seems that it's when musical innovations or directions that have been taken by contemporary classical music or popular music are accepted by the mainstream, that is when they cross over to the film world.

Generally speaking of course, because it depends on the nature of the film itself.


----------



## mf

We have different backgrounds, experiences, and tastes. People tend to have strong feelings for the music they like, and calling it: crap - what good will that do? - that will only hurt their feelings. Follow your bliss and let them follow theirs. There is music for everyone, and then some.


----------



## mjc

I get really pissed off with comments like "if I can listen to Waxman, Prokofiev, Bartok, Williams, Zappa, Beethoven, Fielding, Mingus, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Ravel and dozens of other truly interesting and life-enhancing composers, why on earth should I ever want to waste precious time listening to Zimmer?"

I mean WTF??!!! >8o 

I'm kinda fucking sick of it. I'm a big Zimmer fan, and I find it a big put down to guys like me who are heavily influenced by his sound. Because you know what? I think at his best his music is exciting, emotive, thrilling, life enhancing and everything else one feels when they listen to music they like. I equally love all the great composers of history, but I find that Zimmer and his fans are always associated with dumb hacks that fiddle around with soft synths. It kinda feels like there's some anti-Zimmer alliance out there to make people ashamed of liking his music.


----------



## mjc

mf @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> We have different backgrounds, experiences, and tastes. People tend to have strong feelings for the music they like, and calling it: crap - what good will that do? - that will only hurt their feelings. Follow your bliss and let them follow theirs. There is music for everyone, and then some.



a very big +1


----------



## Dave Connor

Well I didn't call any particular composer or score crap I just said there is such a thing and there is. I was not referring to Hans Zimmer when I said that btw. 

However, when four of the greatest practitioners of the art of film scoring reviewed a score that was nominated for an Oscar, three of them gave blistering scathing reviews. The fourth said _no comment_. It wasn't because they freakishly all came to the same conclusion. It was because the music was so obviously bad that they stated the obvious. If they had said it was _crap_ it would have been high praise compared to what they did say. This was in the LA Times.

People have been voicing their opinion about music and the arts for millennia so when did this become hurtful or criminal? That's just silly and too much of a bridle on speech as far as I'm concerned. Good heavens the most respected publications in the world have critics galore on the payroll so I don't get this new restriction some want to impose.


----------



## mf

Dave Connor @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> I don't get this new restriction some want to impose.


Who wants to impose what restriction?

Just kiddin'. I know what you mean. And I'm sure that you know what I meant.

Best regards.

(Love your avatar, btw)


----------



## Dave Connor

mf @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> I know what you mean. And I'm sure that you know what I meant.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> (Love your avatar, btw)



Yes it's a wonderful avatar and utterly shameless that I would associate myself in any way with that titan. I just need to find one that's less ostentatious. (I do think it's a great rendering of my favorite composer in any case.)


----------



## mf

I have seen some other people here use it. I think it's a graceful way to pay him homage, and a good reminder for all of us.


----------



## Guy Bacos

mf @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> We have different backgrounds, experiences, and tastes. People tend to have strong feelings for the music they like, and calling it: crap - what good will that do? - that will only hurt their feelings. Follow your bliss and let them follow theirs. There is music for everyone, and then some.



This was not the issue mf, I don't think anybody will debate this. Let's not mix apples with oranges, please! You have to respect that people CAN give opinions without it being a personal thing for them. This is why we went to school.... and studied music all these years, benefited from wise teachers, went to university etc.. Once again, are we going to debate if Bach has done great music? I hope not! Is it a personal thing? I don't think so. Is it well established that Bach is a great composer? YES!


----------



## lux

ajcmuso @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> I get really pissed off with comments like "if I can listen to Waxman, Prokofiev, Bartok, Williams, Zappa, Beethoven, Fielding, Mingus, Stravinsky, Poulenc, Ravel and dozens of other truly interesting and life-enhancing composers, why on earth should I ever want to waste precious time listening to Zimmer?"
> 
> I mean WTF??!!! >8o
> 
> I'm kinda [email protected]#king sick of it. I'm a big Zimmer fan, and I find it a big put down to guys like me who are heavily influenced by his sound. Because you know what? I think at his best his music is exciting, emotive, thrilling, life enhancing and everything else one feels when they listen to music they like. I equally love all the great composers of history, but I find that Zimmer and his fans are always associated with dumb hacks that fiddle around with soft synths. It kinda feels like there's some anti-Zimmer alliance out there to make people ashamed of liking his music.



have you ever considered that using a certain language with people you dont know personally isnt exactly an heducated move? I dont use what the fuck neither with people i'm friend with, go figure with guys i never met in person.


----------



## re-peat

Niah @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> (...) To me the incredibly restrictive nature of these type of movies doesn't allow much room for school of thoughts, taking different musical directions or even innovations. To me it's not Zimmer or Williams who is taking the direction of film music but rather Movies are taking the direction. The music just follows it (...).


Excuse me, Niah, but that’s a load of hogwash. The art and the identity of great musical personalities — say, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams, Bernard Hermann, Franz Waxman, Jon Brion, Thomas Newman, Jerry Fielding, Nino Rota, Bruce Broughton, to name just a few — always remains intact, no matter what type or quality of movie they’re working on and no matter what the pressures might be from the industry.
I have never known Thomas Newman to degrade the quality of his music in order to ‘better serve the film’. Newman is always proudly being Newman, without inhibition, without being lazy, simply giving it his very best. Every time. And the very same thing applies to the best work of all these composers. These people have pride in what they do. _Pride._

This axiom that you’re putting forward, which says that “the movie determines the direction of every element involved” — or, phrased differently: blaming the nature of movies and the moviebusiness for mediocre contributions — is a pathetic excuse fabricated by those who lack the talent, integrity and vision to offer something which has a singular identity, and thus provide safe, bland and cliché-infested solutions instead. It’s precisely that attitude which is the reason why soooo much filmmusic is so unbearably lame these days and why the movie industry has become a fountain of forgettable flimsyness. 
Besides, if what you say were true, how come that, despite the lamentable state of the movie industry, some composers still manage to come up with truly interesting and beautiful stuff? 

Movies don’t have a restrictive nature, not even the worst ones. Goldsmith, Hermann, Broughton and all the others, they all have written music of remarkable quality for uninteresting films and for a very unappreciative industry. 
It’s always the talentless mob who will try to justify their pathetic existence and their complete lack of creativity and self-respect by coming up with the _“well, it has to serve the picture”_- or the _“we’re only following the direction of the movie”_-excuse.

_


----------



## lux

i think thats a good point.


----------



## dcoscina

We will see how John Debney does with Iron Man 2. If it kicks Djawdi's original than you know Re-peat's position is a valid one. Debney has orchestral chops so I'm looking forward to what he does. It's ironic that a thread that I started lauding Zimmer for his abilities has brought out more proponents against him than I could have hoped for if I had started a "Zimmer sucks" thread. 

I don't think he sucks. That would be simply ignorant. I think he has his specialties but in the arena of orchestral composing, he's weaker than Williams, Goldsmith, or even contemporaries like Jonny Greenwood, Jon Brion, Danny Elfman, you know, guys who also migrated over from the pop/rock world.

And I do very adamantly refute Niah's argument that the film dictates the quality of the score. Like re-peat so eloquently stated, guys he mentioned never lower their standards to placate the demographic of the film. 

I will slightly diverge from this and say that I do think technology is a wee bit of a factor here. It grants people with little to no experience with orchestras the avenue to "write" in that idiom even though their lack of understanding of orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, and even large structures very much comes through. The realtime entry saves the composer time especially on tight deadlines, but I honestly think that there's a correlation as to how involved the music is when done in this knee jerk manner. 

I have been composing a lot on Sibelius 6 these days and while the GPO4 sounds frustrate the hell outta me, I can write invariably more complex, structurally coherent music using this means. Maybe I just cannot think in realtime composing any longer. Hope Jon Loving comes out with a HS Sibelius set soon after it's released. 

D


----------



## Guy Bacos

I'm looking forward to hearing the score of Ironman 2, John is a great guy! I recently had a couple of live chats with his lovely wife, Lola on FB, they just finished recording at Abbey Road, and they are very excited about this film! I thought Ironman 1 was one of the all time best action movie, don't know if 2 will be as good but looking forward to it.


----------



## cc64

Niah @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> I am talking about your typical hollywood blockbuster cgi-infested movie we have now. Things like Avatar, Transformers, Iron man, etc....Aren't these movies based on a very simple formula? Could thomas newman still be newman in a project like? Aren't these movies restritive for composers and suffer from a great deal of pressure from studios and producers?
> 
> /quote]
> 
> Good point, even thought i'm a huge fan of Thomas Newman, i don't think he nailed it on Nemo and wall-e, the music was good but felt awkward with the pictures to me. Randy Newman seems to do better with these types of films.
> 
> Not really related to the thread but i think a very good example of T. Newman writing great music not typical of his style was in The Good German. Maybe closer to the style of his father in this one. To me it shows that Newman can be versatile and adapt to the needs of a film. Maybe not as much on the 2 Pixar films..
> 
> Best,
> 
> Claude


----------



## dcoscina

I thought Newman did a wonderful job on Finding Nemo. His string writing was wonderful on it. It elevated the film IMO.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I think where film scores have been outstanding in the last 15 years is all the Pixar/Disney scores. Amazing!


----------



## Niah

As I understood correctly it was the producers of Iron Man that requested a Rock hybrid orchestra RC like sound and ruled John Debney out who was already in the project I believe. In the end I believe the director was not too happy or something along those lines and thus the inclusion or John in the sequel. This is what I have read and heard on interviews so take with a grain of salt.

I don't know about Dwajdi orchestral chops I don't know much of his work so I will reserve my judgment on this.

But is that really important in a project like this? I mean to have orchestral chops. Because if you do not have them and you are just some "hummer" that uses synths the producers will get some ghost writers and a team of orchestrators to turn your melodies into an orchestral symphonic driven score.
Case in point - Sahara - Clint mansell (composer) with a background in pop/rock no orchestral experience, etc Nicholas Dodd (orchestrator) and voilá. The same could be said about other scores from David Arnold with dodd as orchestrator. So as long as the producers and the filmmakers want a sound like that, they will get the necessary folks to get the job done. "oh that guy writes good melodies want him but he doesn't know how to write for orchestra, ok lets get some orchestators". Done.

And mentioning greenwood and brion again is missing the point. Because these gentlemens do not work in the types of movies that I am talking about. Besides how can you compare greenwood to zimmer? Not only do they work in opposite directions but isn't greenwood a classically trained composer? 

Now want I could never grasp about your postings is that in one hand you state that in your experience of working in film, the directors or producers don't have a certain musical knowledge or taste and therefore have been an obstacule for you in making the music you believe is better. And you also add that that is the reason you don't want to have a full time job as a film composer. Same here. 

But them you tell me that you disagree with me on this. :?: 

Not that I want to take all the responsability of composers but I can't stress this enough I am not talking about There will be blood.


----------



## Niah

Guy Bacos @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> I think where film scores have been outstanding in the last 15 years is all the Pixar/Disney scores. Amazing!



Animation movies are still projects where the filmmakers urge the need for a old school type of scoring. Not to mention that it still has a very classic way of storytelling and narrative so it's no surprise.

So does that mean that you agree with me on this? 8)


----------



## Niah

cc64 @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Not really related to the thread but i think a very good example of T. Newman writing great music not typical of his style was in The Good German.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Claude



Yup.

Steven S. decided to do an homage with that film and thomas newman did the same with the music I guess.

Also Steven S. seems to be a director that has reached a point in his career where he has the final say on things rather tha producers and studios. Man he can even make a two part movie about Che in America. uuuhhh


----------



## cc64

Niah @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> But is that really important in a project like this? I mean to have orchestral chops. Because if you do not have them and you are just some "hummer" that uses synths the producers will get some ghost writers and a team of orchestrators to turn your melodies into an orchestral symphonic driven score.
> Case in point - Sahara - Clint mansell (composer) with a background in pop/rock no orchestral experience, etc Nicholas Dodd (orchestrator) and voilá. The same could be said about other scores from David Arnold with dodd as orchestrator. So as long as the producers and the filmmakers want a sound like that, they will get the necessary folks to get the job done. "oh that guy writes good melodies want him but he doesn't know how to write for orchestra, ok lets get some orchestators". Done.



Everybody uses orchestrators. Even JW. But we all know he can orchestrate...

Danny Elfman could not orchestrate to save is own life but he's a fantastic composer nevertheless...

I don't think that being a master at orchestration makes you a good composer, i think there are actually quite a few great orchestrators that aren't quite that good at composing.

Best,

Claude


----------



## Niah

cc64 @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Niah @ Sun Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But is that really important in a project like this? I mean to have orchestral chops. Because if you do not have them and you are just some "hummer" that uses synths the producers will get some ghost writers and a team of orchestrators to turn your melodies into an orchestral symphonic driven score.
> Case in point - Sahara - Clint mansell (composer) with a background in pop/rock no orchestral experience, etc Nicholas Dodd (orchestrator) and voilá. The same could be said about other scores from David Arnold with dodd as orchestrator. So as long as the producers and the filmmakers want a sound like that, they will get the necessary folks to get the job done. "oh that guy writes good melodies want him but he doesn't know how to write for orchestra, ok lets get some orchestators". Done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody uses orchestrators. Even JW. But we all know he can orchestrate...
> 
> Danny Elfman could not orchestrate to save is own life but he's a fantastic composer nevertheless...
> 
> I don't think that being a master at orchestration makes you a good composer, i think there are actually quite a few great orchestrators that aren't quite that good at composing.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Claude
Click to expand...


No doubt.

But this was mainly directed to dcoscina's comments about the direction of film music shifting because people who can't orchestrate or that came from a pop/rock world started migrating to film scoring.

Dave also argues about the proliferation of technology has the cause of the drastic changes in film music. But isn't sibelius also technology? Don't we all use technology? Regardles of your way of working either it be composing a symphoby using some notation software or improvising with synths and sample libs I think technology has benefitied all types of composers IMO.


----------



## dcoscina

Exactly- goldenthal's Demolition Man was a great score to a b action film but he didn't do a crap job just because it was a Joel Silver shlockfest. In fact he applied techniques to the genre that were influential in many action scores years after.


----------



## johncarter

Just saw Rain Man again on T.V and the score is truely amazing. A few chords with a string pad, a pan flute, some steel drums and you have a perfect score.

But I forgot... it's not the jerry goldsmith - john williams standard orchestral score.
Moreover it's poorly written, no counterpoints, no complex harmony. What a bad score...


----------



## mf

JohnG @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Developing an opinion about what's hackwork, what's ok, what's impressive;
> ...
> Developing that point of view includes articulating, at least privately, what we like and don't like.
> ...
> If we don't have points of view, artistically complex points of view,


Found some artistically complex points of view here:



> One prominent criticism of Shostakovich has been that his symphonic work in particular is, in the words of Shostakovich scholar Gerard McBurney, "derivative, trashy, empty and second-hand". The view has been expressed both by western figures such as Pierre Boulez ("I think of Shostakovich as the second, or even third pressing of Mahler") and by Soviet figures such as Filip Gershkovich, who called Shostakovich, "a hack in a trance". A related complaint is that he is vulgar and strident: Stravinsky wrote of Lady Macbeth being, "brutally hammering... and monotonous", while the famous Pravda editorial Muddle Instead of Music said of the same work, "All is coarse, primitive and vulgar. The music quacks, grunts and growls".


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/dmitri_shostakovich/biography.php (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity ... graphy.php)


----------



## Dave Connor

Niah @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> I mean the westerns we have now are set in space with blue gremlins and in 3D. ~o) (o) (This one is for dave connor)


I agree.


----------



## dcoscina

johncarter @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Just saw Rain Man again on T.V and the score is truely amazing. A few chords with a string pad, a pan flute, some steel drums and you have a perfect score.
> 
> But I forgot... it's not the jerry goldsmith - john williams standard orchestral score.
> Moreover it's poorly written, no counterpoints, no complex harmony. What a bad score...



:roll:


----------



## dcoscina

johncarter @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Just saw Rain Man again on T.V and the score is truely amazing. A few chords with a string pad, a pan flute, some steel drums and you have a perfect score.
> 
> But I forgot... it's not the jerry goldsmith - john williams standard orchestral score.
> Moreover it's poorly written, no counterpoints, no complex harmony. What a bad score...



that is not what re-peat nor myself indicated. When it comes to writing for orchestra, as Zimmer has done over the past 10 years, it's clear he's not at the same calibre of understanding that medium as well as guys like Goldsmith or Williams. It's a plain damn fact. Refute it all you want, stamp your feet up and down, it doesn't change that fact.


----------



## mf

dcoscina @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> johncarter @ Sun Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just saw Rain Man again on T.V and the score is truely amazing. A few chords with a string pad, a pan flute, some steel drums and you have a perfect score.
> 
> But I forgot... it's not the jerry goldsmith - john williams standard orchestral score.
> Moreover it's poorly written, no counterpoints, no complex harmony. What a bad score...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is not what re-peat nor myself indicated.
Click to expand...

johncarter didn't address that. His point is pretty clear: a film score doesn't need to employ rocket science in order to be effective. And you have addressed his point with this non-sequitur:



dcoscina @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> When it comes to writing for orchestra, as Zimmer has done over the past 10 years, it's clear he's not at the same calibre of understanding that medium as well as guys like Goldsmith or Williams. It's a plain damn fact. Refute it all you want, stamp your feet up and down, it doesn't change that fact.


This sounds like you can barely hide your pleasure in stating that plain damn fact. But then again -



dcoscina @ Sat Jan 16 said:


> Well, I'm going to go on record saying that Hans has really made his mark on the landscape of film scoring. I was listening to Horner's Avatar and I hear those 16th note staccato string samples that Zimmer has injected into his scores since Batman Begins and what has been in many other scores ever since. I can even hear strains of Zimmerisms in Yared's Amelia. Obviously, his approach is far reaching when composers like Horner, or Yared are asked to evoke it. I think even Williams has been affected by it even if peripherally. Look at how much more pedal points he's beein using since Zimmer rose to fame.
> 
> So, Mr. Hans Zimmer, I must tip my hat to you. You are a genius if not a trendsetter.



And the cherry on the cake - 



dcoscina @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> Edit- any possible confusion as to where I stand in terms of music quality will not be dispelled with the inclusion of the picture on my avatar. I've been listening to his Concerto for Orchestra and the level of writing on it still fucking knocks me on my ass.
> 
> Yeah, I had to employ expletives.


Yes, expletives-employing, name-dropping (or, avatar-dropping), and non-sequiturs, these are good argument-strengtheners. In the lack of better ones, that is.


----------



## dcoscina

Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:


> mf @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have different backgrounds, experiences, and tastes. People tend to have strong feelings for the music they like, and calling it: crap - what good will that do? - that will only hurt their feelings. Follow your bliss and let them follow theirs. There is music for everyone, and then some.
Click to expand...

ò“¦   Äýf“¦   Äýg“¦   Äýh“¦   Äýi“¦   Äýj“¦   Äýk“¦   Äýl“¦   Äým“¦   Äýn“¦   Äýo“¦   Äýp“¦   Äýq“¦   Äýr“¦   Äýs“¦   Äýt“¦   Äýu“¦   Äýv“¦   Äýw“¦   Äýx“¦   Äýy“¦   Äýz“¦   Äý{“¦   Äý|“¦   Äý}“¦   Äý~“¦   Äý“¦   Äý€“¦   Äý“¦   Äý‚“¦   Äýƒ“¦   Äý„“¦   Äý…“¦   Äý†“¦   Äý‡“¦   Äýˆ“¦   Äý‰“¦   ÄýŠ“¦   Äý‹“¦   ÄýŒ“¦   Äý“¦   ÄýŽ“¦   Äý“¦   Äý“¦   Äý‘“¦   Äý’“¦   Äý““¦   Äý”“¦   Äý•“¦   Äý–“¦   Äý—“¦   Äý˜“¦   Äý™“¦   Äýš“¦   Äý›“¦   Äýœ“¦   Äý“¦   Äýž“¦   ÄýŸ“§   Äý “§   Äý¡“§   Äý¢“§   Äý£“§   Äý¤“§   Äý¥“§   Äý¦“§   Äý§“§   Äý¨“§   Äý©“§   Äýª“§   Äý«“§   Äý¬“§   Äý­“§   Äý®“§   Äý¯“§   Äý°“§   Äý±“§   Äý²“§   Äý³“§   Äý´“§   Äýµ“§   Äý¶“§   Äý·“§   Äý¸“§   Äý¹“§   Äýº“§   Äý»“§   Äý¼“§   Äý½“§   Äý¾“§   Äý¿“§   ÄýÀ“§   ÄýÁ“§   ÄýÂ“§   ÄýÃ“§   ÄýÄ“§   ÄýÅ“§   ÄýÆ“§   ÄýÇ“§   ÄýÈ“§   ÄýÉ“§   ÄýÊ“§   ÄýË“§   ÄýÌ“§   ÄýÍ“§   ÄýÎ“§   ÄýÏ“§   ÄýÐ“§   ÄýÑ“§   ÄýÒ“§   ÄýÓ“§   ÄýÔ“§   ÄýÕ              ò“§   Äý×“§   ÄýØ“§   ÄýÙ“§   ÄýÚ“§   ÄýÛ“§   ÄýÜ“§   ÄýÝ“§   ÄýÞ“§   Äýß“§   Äýà“§   Äýá“§   Äýâ“§   Äýã“§   Äýä“§   Äýå“§   Äýæ“§   Äýç“§   Äýè“§   Äýé“§   Äýê“§   Äýë


----------



## mjc

dcoscina @ Mon Feb 15 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mf @ Sat Feb 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have different backgrounds, experiences, and tastes. People tend to have strong feelings for the music they like, and calling it: crap - what good will that do? - that will only hurt their feelings. Follow your bliss and let them follow theirs. There is music for everyone, and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was not the issue mf, I don't think anybody will debate this. Let's not mix apples with oranges, please! You have to respect that people CAN give opinions without it being a personal thing for them. This is why we went to school.... and studied music all these years, benefited from wise teachers, went to university etc.. Once again, are we going to debate if Bach has done great music? I hope not! Is it a personal thing? I don't think so. Is it well established that Bach is a great composer? YES!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, no offense but if you want to discuss objectivism in orchestral music, I suggest you go the VSL forum. Here you get a whole lotta Zimmer sycophants who throw tantrums whenever their music god comes under anything smelling like criticism.
> 
> Here's subjectivism- I think Jonny Greenwood's score to There Will be Blood was far more innovative than anything Zimmer has written for film/
> 
> Here's objectivism- Jonny Greenwood knows who to write for orchestra and orchestrates everything himself. Zimmer plunks away at a keyboard and computer, prints it off, then gets orchestrators to flesh out the ideas and send them to copyists. He then gets a conductor to lead the orchestra.
Click to expand...


Zimmer is by no means 'music god'...yes Williams, Goldsmith and the like are much more learned in terms of technical knowledge and orchestration...but I tend not to put any film composer on a pedestal because of this. I respond the same way Zimmer as I do to Williams, Herrmann, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Powell, Elfman, Tchaikovsky, Newton-Howard, T. Newman etc...all great music. I can easily listen to 'Hook' (what a killer score!), then chuck on 'The Da Vinci Code', and feel no step down in quality, just a different style.

Like I said...I get the impression that some of us 'sycophants' (which I'm am most certainly not, HZ is not a the be all and end all, just another source of inspiration), are made to feel that we shouldn't like him because of what he 'lacks'.

Slightly OT, but I think James Newton Howard is very under-mentioned in this forum when it comes to discussions on orchestration, man that guy can write!


----------



## Guy Bacos

dcoscina @ Mon Feb 15 said:


> Guy, no offense but if you want to discuss objectivism in orchestral music, I suggest you go the VSL forum. Here you get a whole lotta Zimmer sycophants who throw tantrums whenever their music god comes under anything smelling like criticism.



Yeeeah, but every now and then you get interesting points of views, at least for me, as what I read with re-peat, and then John who's arguments enlightened me and made me think, what are we arguing about? I don't mind it being a bit spicy once in a while.


----------



## ChrisAxia

JohnG @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> I'm surprised to read any serious composers advocating "cumbaya, live and let live -- everyone's music is all equally wonderful and beautiful" on a composers' forum. Nothing could be more important to us as composers than to develop our own preferences, hone them, and bring them to the table. If we don't have points of view, artistically complex points of view, then what do we bring to a film or concert piece except a willingness to cobble together whatever the director or producer puts into the temp? Where is our developed musical opinion? Where is that stamp of individuality that transcends what's been done before?



Hi John,

I have never seen you write anything I have disagreed with, and this is no exception! In my earlier post where I effectively said 'live & let live', I was implying, but obviously not clearly, that there is a certain 'acceptable' level in quality of composition to be reached before I would say this. There are certain classical 'masters' who are revered, and whilst I can understand and accept the technical 'mastery' in their creations, it does not necessarily mean I will choose to listen to their music for pleasure. Of course, there are several composers who manage to do both, and that is something I can only aspire to achieve.

However, this does not mean that music which has a strong emotional impact on me, yet is not technically 'intricate', is any less 'valuable', at least from my perspective. For all of John Williams' intricate mastery, why is it that some of my favourite pieces by him are the simple piano theme from Jurassic Park, or the extremely moving Schindler's List theme? They have a much stronger 'effect' on me than many revered classical 'masterpieces'. Does this mean I am not musically 'advanced' enough, or is it that I can accept the beauty in simpler compositions more than some folks here?

I am not saying that we should not all be striving to achieve new and better things with our music. Of course we should, but sometimes...just sometimes, simple can be astounding.

~Chris


----------



## Ashermusic

JohnG @ Sun Feb 14 said:


> We all know that Jay's position is that it's all about the film and of course that's -- mostly -- true. But I think it's fair to say that a few composers transcend "film music" -- Elliott Goldenthal being an excellent example -- and go to a place that's a little deeper, artistically, than others.



Of course, I agree. And I am not saying that Zimmer's overall work is of the stature of a John Williams or a Goldsmith. What I am saying is that he plays picture pretty well, which is job number one. And also, that listening to a CD is no way to evaluate a film scorer, you have to see how the music works with the picture because if it sounds amazing on the CD but does not play the picture, it may be good composition but it is not good film composing.


----------



## JohnG

Ashermusic @ 15th February 2010 said:


> ....listening to a CD is no way to evaluate a film scorer, you have to see how the music works with the picture because if it sounds amazing on the CD but does not play the picture, it may be good composition but it is not good film composing.



I certainly agree that the film composer's _first_ duty is to the film and it is important that, when one's ambitions as a composer tread on that duty, the ambitions ought to be set aside. Which is painful at times.

But I can't fully agree with you, Jay, when you say that "listening to a CD is no way to evaluate a film scorer," because I always hope for a score that does it all -- musically rich and also serves the film. So, I think listening to the CD is one way, though not the only way or even the best way, to evaluate a film composer. 

Two examples jump out at me in thinking this over, Morricone's score to "The Untouchables," and scores by directors, such as Clint Eastwood. Within the film, this score of Morricone's is absolutely fantastic, in my view. Listened to by itself, particularly when set against the ravishing "The Mission," it's thinner soup. It's still ok, but really not that satisfying. To me it sounds like maybe 2/3 of a puzzle. Which maybe is Jay's point.

Again in this vein of considering what a film score should be, directors like Clint Eastwood who also write music are not interested, presumably, in making a name as a composer, they presumably seek exclusively to enhance the film -- one might suppose that it's a director's sole objective. In the bits I've heard of Mr. Eastwood's music, the musical language is sparse, with few or no complex compositional devices.


While accepting the paramount duty to serve one's film, like Chris Axia, I adore the confluence of both, and seek when I can to creep in that direction. For the right film, a score that is musically valid can bring the movie to an entirely new level, gives it some authority and heft, and elevates it beyond the disposable. John Williams has come in as something of a reference in this thread for a "clever" composer -- with a sometimes-pejorative slant of "maybe a little too clever" for some. But his chameleon-like ability to write now complex material, now jazz, and sometimes almost austerely reserved music continues to be one of his great achievements. He doesn't automatically "do himself." Seven Years in Tibet and Memoirs of a Geisha are two examples, but one could look at Catch Me If You Can as well -- a long, long way from Star Wars.

Then again, "Barton Fink" is one of my favourite movies and Carter Burwell spends a lot of time in it doing -- not much. But what he does do (maybe what he doesn't do) enhances the film immensely.

At the Amazon website, Guy DuBlanc wrote:

_"The Untouchables soundtrack is so good, I come close to calling it a masterpiece. Every track sounds great on its own, and also works incredibly well in the film itself. It always captures the mood and emotions of the scenes where it is played. I love it. If you have any doubts, rent the film (which is excellent in its own right) and notice the music. I think that alone will convince even the most skeptical viewer."_


----------



## dcoscina

John, Williams actually began doing jazz arrangements in the '60s prior to film scoring. Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal are actually him re-visiting the genre. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I thought I should clarify this point. 

I'm still of the opinion that composers can write effective underscore and still retain musical integrity- and it's been done this way for a long time. Some composers are still doing it, so we know it's not a dead archaic ideal.


----------



## JohnG

dcoscina @ 15th February 2010 said:


> John, Williams actually began doing jazz arrangements in the '60s prior to film scoring. Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal are actually him re-visiting the genre. Sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I thought I should clarify this point.



Well, actually I did hear about Williams' jazz background at a concert where he was conducting, though a good idea to amplify that. Plus, many probably know of his history as a musician in the US military, during Korea, I believe, which gave him a lot of time to write, conduct, and arrange for winds. Raiders March and even the Olympic themes presumably draw on that experience. 

I was citing Catch Me If You Can really for two reasons; first, that he doesn't always do Star Wars, and second, though I didn't say this (having already written rather a lot), that it's unbelievably deep jazz. CMIYC is no "blues improv."

It seems that Williams never skims; whether it's jazz, Star Wars, or whatever, he's a deep student of whatever he's working on, rather than just dabbling as many are content to do. Schindler's List -- one of Chris A's favourites -- feels to me unusually authentic for a Hollywood composer, as does Memoirs of a Geisha. In both cases, Williams goes far beyond just slapping in a few licks and "ethnic" instruments and calling it a day, as many might do. And yet his music feels alive and fresh most of the time to me. 

While it would be going to far to say that I love everything the guy's ever written, it is impressive how thoroughly he incorporates entire styles that are, and are not, part of his own personal history, and even more impressive to me that he continues to take the trouble to extend what he already knows.


----------



## germancomponist

Oh what a thread... .

Perhaps we should have to redefine the word "film music"? 

When it comes to trailers, oh yeah, noone would call it music. And I see exactly this the same trend also in many "modern film scores". It seems that the directors like this and very often it sounds cool. 

But I agree with many others here, because I also am missing mostly the melodies in the scores. And with this all new libraries, built for the "modern composers" (You know, action, action, action, taiko, taiko, taiko...), can we hope for better music in the future?

BTW, I like many things Hans Zimmer did, and he wrote some cool melodies! o/~


----------



## JohnG

great one, Piet.

I differ slightly, in that I believe I do notice the simplicity or complexity in a way that I guess I think is musical, or at least part of an aesthetic experience; sometimes the simplicity or complexity is part of the experience. An analogy in sculpture would be Brancusi's "fish" 

http://www.twine.com/item/11xl2c4bq-7j/the-fish-brancusi (http://www.twine.com/item/11xl2c4bq-7j/ ... h-brancusi)

compared with Laocoon (lately attributed to Michelangelo) being an example of a much more complex work (ok, one could debate how complex this sculpture is, I suppose, but for argument's sake I'm claiming that it is so):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/arts/ ... 8laoc.html

One of the attributes of complex compared with simple art is that, as a listener or viewer, simpler art can be experienced "all at once." For me, this creates an immediacy that more complicated works often do not quite possess. That doesn't make them better or worse, but very different. More complicated art invites more experiences. 

This can be true of books as well. I recently read "Wolf Hall," which I think is a work of genius, but it is so rich that I read it again, back-to-back, so that I could get it properly, or at least semi-properly. By contrast, I don't know that I'd re-read "For Whom the Bell Tolls." It's great that one time but...

Anyway, perhaps it's a matter of degree; when simplicity becomes so stark, perhaps the simplicity itself becomes part of the experience, with extreme complexity being the obverse.


----------



## Dave Connor

Excellent post by re-peat. Very well said and very true.


----------



## steb74

re-peat @ Mon Feb 15 said:


> but the concept of simplicity and intricacy in music (at times conflicting, at times complementary) is a somewhat complicated issue (and a very fascinating one, I find). But just to erase any misunderstandings that might have arisen after what I wrote earlier: it’s not that I don’t like simple music. Absolutely not. I rate good simple music just as high as good intricate music. In fact, the words ‘simple’ or ‘intricate’ never even enter my mind whenever listening to good music.



Nice thoughts, I feel very much the same indeed.
I've no interest in any given piece of music because of how complex/intricate or simple it may be ...or perhaps I should say less complex.
I am interested in a composers command of their craft but this never reflects what I feel about their music, I'm only ever concerned with how it resonates within.
I think it can also be wrong to call something simple because almost anything can appear that way when the work has already been done for you.

John Williams himself has said that it takes him longer to find the 'right' notes and musical grammar for what may appear to be a simple theme for it to sound natural and inevitable, Indiana Jones is one example he's mentioned regarding that.
I also remember a couple of years ago a post I read on a JW forum from a guy who got the chance to meet him before a concert and spoke of how Williams was sat with a score to The Planets, marking off sections he wanted to revisit and study, I only mention that as I find it very inspiring that even he still believes there is more to be learnt.

About the original post though.
While I don't necessarily disagree, I do think some of the things that are credited to Zimmer can be found earlier in things like Silvestri's Delta Force and I'm sure there are a decent handful of even earlier examples.
Williams though has been using pedal points consistently throughout his career so I don't believe for one second Zimmer has had any influence in that department.


----------



## ChrisAxia

Indeed. Excellent posts by Re-peat and John G. I think we have finally reached 'common ground' in this lengthy discussion. Re-peat articulated what I would have liked to say, had I been more erudite! It just seemed that some people here were too caught up in the 'technical excellence' of some music while being dismissive of a simpler yet more melodic approach, and I was just trying to get across that both were valid and valuable. 

Well done chaps. Now, lets get back to making music!

~Chris


----------



## lux

not to appear as a pest, but, while i appreciate the in-deep approach, i tend to have a different vision of many of the above sentences by re-peat and others.

I tend to consider structural analysis applied to music as a very dangerous activity when it comes to deduce "judgement" or "rating" out of it. I simply consider it cant be done and most of times i find it is widely used as a shield or support for intimate and unconfessable reasons why one loves or dislikes a certain piece of music. To state it simple, i dont believe that people who make judgement out of formal and structural analysis are really in good faith. Most of times they arent even aware they arent in good faith.



re-peat @ Mon Feb 15 said:


> very simple and yet, immensely powerful.



I think this quote expresses exactly what i mean. After several rows of a rational explaination it comes out. A personal feeling, perhaps shared with other people, but in se still a personal feeling. There are loud things that i dont consider powerful at all and mid-loud stuff that blows me out of my socks. I personally find annoying and a bummer any booming traileresque manouvres and find extremely powerful and uplifting crescendos that never hit such loud peeks.

A personal perception messes up everything.

So, i say, this approach can be used to offer a prospective of a piece of music related to a certain number of qualities, lets say variety, complexity, color but it cant express any real judgment out of it.

In my opinion the fact most of people here, a group of musicians, agree about John Williams qualities is strictly related to technical reasons more than to emotional or aestethical matters. Most of people out there like or dislike JW just because of his memorable themes. Nothing fancy.

Admitting where we come from in a judgement is to me a very good starting point when it comes to art.


----------



## Ashermusic

I think Piet and John largely have it right here.

Can we agree on the following:

1. A film composer's first task is to play the picture.

2. A really good film composer will do more than that, however, and create music that is interesting and stands alone on its own merits.

3. How simple or complex the music is will be determined by the demands of the picture and a really good film composer will have the ability to write simply when required, with more complexity when required, and know the difference.

Where Zimmer falls in the pantheon by these is of course a subjective thing.

The missing factor is of course what the producer/director will actually let the composer do because in the end, film composers must dance with the guy who brought them. Whenever we see a film or hear its score, it is wise to remind ourselves that this may or may not be the score the composer really wished to write.

John William's music editor once told me about a time that Spielberg had Williams practically in tears ripping apart some music he had done and wanted changed.


----------



## dcoscina

I can believe that. Listen to many Spielberg films and the music is hacked and edited. It's like Stevie doesn't have the heart to ask Johnny to redo a section of music so he just edits it. HOOK also has some sloppy examples of hackwork- compared to the listening experience on the CD where everything flows.


----------



## re-peat

Luca, 

It’s probably my fault, but you seem to have misunderstood certain things of what I’ve been trying to say, I believe. It’s not that I like Williams’ music, or any music, for mere technical reasons. Definitely not. My first reaction to great music is a difficult to describe (but probably very recognizeable) gut feeling of awe, excitement and amazement. And that is something which I certainly do not want to rationalize (even if that were possible), let alone reduce to a series of intellectual or academical considerations. 
Apart from the fact that I’m not learned enough to attempt such theoretical scrutiny anyway, I’m also convinced that even the most expert and insightful analysis can never really explain to us the wonder that is great music. There is no analytical method that will ever be able to tell us why, say, the “Finding Neverland” music from ‘Hook’ is such irresistibly beautiful music. Analysis can tell us a lot — some of it quite interesting, I find — but it can never fully disclose the secrets of musical beauty. 
So, in short: I really am much less analytically inclined that you seem to think I am.

But as much as you are suspicious of the analytical approach, I get extremely cautious when it comes to emotions & music. Emotions, it seems to me, tend to cloud the issue of appreciating what makes music ‘great’, much more than anything else. Why? Because emotions, no matter what sort of emotions they are, inevitably drag you _away from the music_, into the realm of feelings, associations, ideas, sensations, memories, fantasies ... and none of this has to do with music. Whenever music starts to represent or evoke something outside music, or whenever we’re expected/pushed/asked to feel ‘something’ (other than that sensation of awe, which I mentioned at the beginning, and which is a sensation solely based on strict musical pleasures), I believe it diminishes our chances of truly exploring and/or appreciating the music itself, and the elements that make it what it is. (As an aside: music which plays the emotional card too deliberately or too heavily, is often far less appealing to me than music which simply is ... music, _in all its ‘unemotional’ abstraction_.)
An emotional response to music — no matter how profoundly it may be experienced — is, to me anyway, always a much more superficial affair (from a musical perspective, that is) than simply, but thoroughly, absorbing the various elements which together combine into a ‘great piece of music’.

How come so many people love orchestral filmmusic, but find classical music boring/tedious/pretentious, even though both these idioms quite often have plenty in common, musically speaking? Because their favourite filmmusic invariably offers them _the easy ‘emotional’ way out_: rather than having to really listen (something which requires some intellect, maintained concentration and effort), they can get lost in whatever sensation the music awakens in them: heroïsm, sadness, passion, tension, joy, melancholy, mourning, resolve, ... And this is precisely where things get mixed up, I feel: these people mistake emotional response for musical appreciation. They believe they’re enjoying the music, when in fact they’re overwhelmed by something completely different: some emotion or other.
People who succumb to a feeling of undefinable sadness when listening to, say, Barber’s Adagio For Strings, are, in my opinion, not really listening to the music. It may well be a very profound moment for them, but it’s not a musical one. They are in an altogether different place. Mind you, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that and I certainly don’t look down upon it. But even so, I do believe that the doorway which leads furthest into (great) music, is NOT an emotional one. 

Now, just like most everybody else, I’m quite capable of responding very emotionally to music — I can get just as carried away by music as the next man — but no matter how intense these moments can be (and often are), I do maintain that the more emotion is involved, the more detached you get from the music itself. (Most people would argue the exact opposite, I imagine.) 
What it comes down to, is this: the only thing I look for in music, is music itself. Absolute music. The art of music. Nothing else. And I also believe that great music doesn’t need anything else besides itself to be all that it is. No story, no context, no biography, no emotions, no images ... nothing. Just music.

A filmcomposer however has to know as much as possible about music and emotion (both analytically and emotionally!). After all, the phenomenon exists, its mechanisms are well known (another very interesting topic this, by the way: the musical mechanisms to trigger specific emotions with), and it is a significant part of his/her job to conjure up, or enhance, various emotional responses by way of music.

So, whatever I may think about the subject and in whichever way I may prefer to digest music personally, I certainly won’t deny that there’s indeed an incredibly strong link between the musical and the emotional segments of our brain.

(A rather lengthy reply this, for which I do apologize, but even so, I’m left with the rather uneasy feeling of barely having started to say what there is to say about this endlessly fascinating subject: music & emotions.)

_


----------



## Ashermusic

Which also raises the phenomenon where we like music that we know is not exceptionally good and dislike music that we can recognize is very good.

For instance, intellectually I realize that Poulenc is probably not as great a composer as Shostakovich but emotionally I respond to the Gloria more than any piece by Shosty. For that matter, "Wild Thing" by the Troggs moves me more than Shosty, so go figure


----------



## lux

Piet,

i see your point. And yes, is such a complex matter that it would take ages to scratch the surface.

I agree about planes cohesisting in whats considering commonly a musical experience. And i share the same suspect to mere "emotional" approach. I'm myself always torn in two between the rational and emotional, and it shows from the excessive range of styles i love and play, some technical, other so easily spontaneous. But thats it, i cant change much i'm afraid. 

The fact i quoted your sentence is that i think the emotional part claim for its own space, even in the most rational thought. It sounds obvious, but sometimes i hear dull judgements out of those threads based on what i consider superficial approaches masked under a technical fashion. This is not your case. Of course. But still happens.

Here's my take on classical music versus movie music. There is obviously a matter of emotional strenght associated to visuals and multisensorial experience. But its not all there imo. 

Classical music pays the due to a dull approach of people involved in promoting and spreading the word about it. The first 5-6 rows of every concert halls are solidly taken by people which formally serious and most of times hiddenly unexpert approach works as a pesticid to people interested (or potentially interested) to approach orchestral music. Expecially young people. 

Film music, for its storically "pop" attitude reach to break the "dull" wall and arrive directly to people. Which will just in part able to get and appreciate all the nuances, but still probably deserve in any case to experience different sounds from whats heard on radio and tv.


----------



## madbulk

What piet and jg said.
The pastrami at Katz Deli in NY is spectacular.
The 'Oysters and Pearls' at The French Laundry is a masterpiece.
They're both delicious. They're both "best available."
The latter though is superior, it's the more thoughtful and meticulously orchestrated experience and it appeals to a more developed taste. Some won't even get it.
And yet sometimes you'd just rather have a sandwich, because it fits the film better.


----------



## JohnG

good one!


----------



## dcoscina

lux @ Tue Feb 16 said:


> Piet,
> 
> Classical music pays the due to a dull approach of people involved in promoting and spreading the word about it. The first 5-6 rows of every concert halls are solidly taken by people which formally serious and most of times hiddenly unexpert approach works as a pesticid to people interested (or potentially interested) to approach orchestral music. Expecially young people.



Blame lackluster programming for the association of concert hall music and "dull". I was listening to Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin today and I have gotta tell you it's some of the most violent, narratively involved music I have ever heard. I can see direct associations to Goldsmith's ALIEN and some sections here in how purely visceral the impact of the music is. It's like hearing a horror score but in the concert hall. Classical music is evolving though. In fact, the newer generation of concert composers (of which I would say I belong to at least in age) have been very much influenced by classic film scores and composers. Kelly Marie Murphy, Thomas Ades, Kevin Lau, etc. all have a very cinematic approach in their music. Try as I might to deviate from a film score sound, I have gotten many comments saying my concert works sound like music to a film (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing but some people mention Goldsmith in the same sentence so it can't be all bad).

What seems to be a sticking point here is that some view the adherence to forms, structure, formal orchestration etc. that is endemic to concert hall music with a sterile, cerebral quality eschewing all beauty and emotion. 

The other school of thought that pervades is that somehow appreciating music by being able to recognize certain technical devices ruins the aesthetic impact of the music. That's hogwash. I respond to music emotionally first. Then, because I like to analyze things, I ask myself what is it about the music that keeps me interested. But that doesn't really ruin my enjoyment of the piece. 

Getting back to Bartok, I found his music exceedingly difficult to enjoy for many years because he was very much a thinking composer. He liked using atypical intervals, eschewing triadic based diatonicism. His music, as mentioned above, can be prone to violent fits and a tendency towards the macabre in his subjects (Bluebeard's Castle, The Miraculous Mandarin). But I kept returning to his music because, while I had a hard time with it, I recognized its inherent quality. This is where I feel I can divorce my own biased listening preferences from an objectivism in realising the level of writing in a piece of music. 

I STILL cannot get into Stravinsky even though most composer friends cite his Rite of Spring as one of the greatest masterpieces of the 20th Century. I cannot argue because I have listened to it enough to know it's colossal as a piece of music. But I don't like it. So does my dislike of the piece mean it's bad? Hell no. It's my problem or perhaps perogative only. 

At this point, I'm not even sure I'm addressing what Lux said but I hoped to offer my perspective on some of the view points put forth in this thread.


----------



## Dave Connor

Jerry Goldsmith certainly was influenced by Bartok as in films like First Blood and Total Recall. He really sort of riffs on the guy.


----------



## mf

re-peat @ Tue Feb 16 said:


> My first reaction to great music is ... awe, excitement ... And that is something which I certainly do not want to rationalize (even if that were possible)
> ...
> Emotions ... tend to cloud the issue of appreciating what makes music ‘great’, much more than anything else. Why? Because emotions ... inevitably drag you _away from the music_, into the realm of feelings, associations, ideas, sensations, memories, fantasies ... and none of this has to do with music. Whenever music starts to represent or evoke something outside music ... it diminishes our chances of truly exploring and/or appreciating the music itself, ... music, _in all its ‘unemotional’ abstraction_.
> ...
> people mistake emotional response for musical appreciation. They believe they’re enjoying the music, when in fact they’re overwhelmed by something completely different: some emotion or other.
> People who succumb to a feeling of undefinable sadness when listening to, say, Barber’s Adagio For Strings, are, in my opinion, not really listening to the music. It may well be a very profound moment for them, but it’s not a musical one. They are in an altogether different place.
> ...
> I do believe that the doorway which leads furthest into (great) music, is NOT an emotional one.
> ...
> the more emotion is involved, the more detached you get from the music itself.
> ...
> What it comes down to, is this: the only thing I look for in music, is music itself. Absolute music. The art of music. Nothing else. And I also believe that great music doesn’t need anything else besides itself to be all that it is. No story, no context, no biography, no emotions, no images ... nothing. Just music.


The concept of 'music in itself' is extremely difficult to address, but re-peat is a champion at raising the bar - this time into a rarefied stratosphere. These are subtle matters that we barely have a notion or even words for.

'Music in itself' I think can be experienced at three levels:

At the highest level, a piece of music tends to organize the listener's mind in what could be called a "musical mode" - a focused, hyperactive, balanced, elevated state of mind (sort of a "structured calm rapture"). By organizing the listener's mind, music sets the stage, creates the environment, the air, the atmosphere within which it (music) can fly and dance, like a _firebird._ And so the listener becomes the witness of a resplendent show made of events having no equivalent elsewhere and therefore impossible to describe, or even to exactly remember.

One level downwards: even when the piece of music doesn't take the listener to the 9th heaven, it still doesn't address the listener's emotions. At the second level of musical awareness, a piece of music delivers a message, asserts a truth, tells a story - but a message, truth, and story, about itself. And it tells them in a meaningful manner, so that we can get it. (which we sometimes do; only that, not having the concepts and the words, it all remains a personal, incommunicable experience.)

Third level: even when the meaning of a piece of music is not apparent to us, the music still doesn't sound as if its _intention_ is to address things as raw and rudimentary as instinctive affects, emotions, and feelings. Rather, the music _wants_ to address our _mind's eye_. But not by the means of pointing towards something outside itself (like geometrical proportions, or a program, or anything extra-musical). Music, even when we're in our lowest intellectual mode and at our lowest level of musical awareness, it doesn't give up on us; instead, it whispers in our ears: "Listen. I'm right here, in front of you; forget everything, open your _eyes_, and try to _see_ me."

Now, going underground: When lazy and unwilling to rise at least at the lowest level of musical awareness, we leave our brains asleep and prefer to believe that "music triggers emotions" - when what actually happens is this: the emotions take the initiative, take hold on us and get us drunk, so that we sense the music through distorting lens. In other words, emotions are like a subway carrying us away from a musical state of mind. Or, as re-peat puts it, (and let me _re-peat_ that quote)



> emotions ... inevitably drag you _away from the music_, into the realm of feelings, associations, ideas, sensations, memories, fantasies ... and none of this has to do with music. Whenever music starts to represent or evoke something outside music ... it diminishes our chances of truly exploring and/or appreciating the music itself, ... music, _in all its ‘unemotional’ abstraction_.


----------



## JohnG

Well, I don't know about all that.

I like programmatic music a lot. I like opera, liturgical music, the prayers I hear at bar mitzvahs and the singing I've heard in mosques. I enjoy the emotions they excite and revel in them. And I like film scores.

I realise that notes, in and of themselves, naturally have no story or content -- they are just notes and thus abstract. But I like stories and think they are one of the ways we figure things out as humans. Dance, tribal drumming, ceremonial chanting -- all that primal stuff is innate in humans. It's inside us. And so is, for example, Bach's St. Matthew's Passion.

But even the latter, while obviously brainier than whacking a drum in 4/4 time, is not written in some kind of vacuum. Bach (I'm told) dedicated all his pieces to the greater glory of God, or words to that effect. Plus, the Passion tells the story of Jesus' death, something that means a lot to a lot of people. The story is not stapled onto the music, in some some childish trick intended to gull fools into sitting through great music. The story is the reason the music is written, to a great extent, and I believe cannot be wholly abstracted from the text -- and emotions -- associated with that story that gave rise to that music in the first place.

So I can't agree that Higher Music is some intellectual experience and enjoy someone rubbishing the experience of music on a "merely" emotional level. Perhaps I am misinterpreting some of what's being retailed here?

I am highly suspicious when people start talking about "intellectual" music. In some cases, they are about to dump on most of the music that I like, promoting instead a "superior" type of musical thinking that not only is not entertaining, but that I find actually insulting and offensive, as it wastes good players on childish, boring, self-congratulatory constructs that I don't want to hear. Such ideas have been used to inflict dreadful, tedious hogwash on audiences for decades. Composers for a long time felt that they'd failed if their music failed to enrage the audience.

Some of it is ok; not enough.


----------



## mf

I was not talking about some special type of music ('intellectual music') but about looking at music and experiencing it as 'music in itself' - which is not an intellectual but a musical experience.

I really don't know what 'intellectual music' might be; to me, music doesn't need modifiers, and its nature is musical, and not intellectual or emotional (or anything else). True, music has been and is been utilized by many to sugar-coat their _hogwash_ into people's minds and thus to manipulate masses and individuals through emotions. So it seems to me that this is not about two different types of music ('intellectual music' vs. 'emotional music') but rather about two different ways to look at the same thing (the music) and two different ways to treat it: as an experience in itself vs. as an enhancer/bamboozler.

It is good to admire the abused orphan girl doing all the dirty work for her step-mother; it's also good to admire the dancing princess with crystal shoes. Imo, the only issue here is whether or not we are willing to acknowledge that we are talking about the same person.


----------



## JohnG

I was responding to Piet.


----------



## re-peat

JohnG @ Wed Feb 17 said:


> I was responding to Piet.


To me?? Mmm, strangely and surprisingly defensive response, John. (And I am as puzzled by it as mf seemed to be.) All the more so because your response seemed to be made in reply to a post that was never written in the first place. Certainly not by me. You know, it almost looks like you’re trying to shake off an old trauma here, especially in that last paragraph, which reads like an old but still pretty painful wound, if I may say so.

_Intellectual music? Higher music? Superior type of thinking? Self-congratulary constructs?_ If that is what you believe I was going on about, than yes, it sure looks like you have misinterpreted not just some, but nearly everything of what I wrote, I’m affraid.

(By the way, just to be clear on this, I also want to add that I’m certainly not assuming to be offering universal truths here. Far from it. I merely share an opinion, entirely based on how I experience and prefer to experience music.)

Anyway. It seems to me that I have included more than enough pointers in my previous post to indicate that I don’t think an emotional response to music is, per definition, any less profound, less meaningful or less whatever, than a response which primarily focusses on the abstract musical beauty of a piece (which is how my own mind seems to be oriented most of the time). Besides, I would never call the latter an intellectual response anyway, because such a response — the intellectual one — doesn’t allow room for the enigmatic, incomprehensible and very un-intellectual wonder that is, as I strongly believe, such a big part of all great music.

A strictly intellectual response to music — just like a strictly emotional response, as it happens (be it that both are on opposite sides of the same ‘response scale’) — is, I think, for people who have no musical talent or understanding whatsoever. Which is largely an imaginary lot, I hope.
If you do have talent, you can’t be but aware that there are many things going on in music which simply can’t be intellectualized. But also, if you do have talent, you must know that a purely emotional response to music does immediately put a significant amount of wool in your ears, preventing you from really listening.
Of course, the vast majority of people are not situated at either of these extreme points, but are more likely to be found somewhere along the scale, at various points closer to the middle, and probably always slightly moving towards either of those extremes, depending on their nature, the circumstances and/or the music.

_


----------



## Waywyn

It's funny how many composer always going for the math ... but what do you do when somebody asks you to write down the formula for love, passion etc. ... the sheet stays empty ...


----------



## Waywyn

germancomponist @ Mon Feb 15 said:


> When it comes to trailers, oh yeah, noone would call it music.



I am almost 100% sure you just made yourself lots of friends with that statement. Especially on this forum!!


----------



## dcoscina

Jay, you are totally right. Williams, as lauded as he is in film fan and film musician circles still gets noses snubbed up at him in classical circles. I'm very torn about where my loyalties lie because Williams' seminal scores of the '70s is what got me into composing music (well, along with Akira Ifukube who was like the John Williams of Japanese cinema so it sorta makes sense). I really cannot stand the snobiness towards Williams' music from concert composers (well, little known ones at least). I cannot help but make some uncomfortable comparisons to my high-minded criticism of Zimmer's work. I vehemently defend Williams' place in the music world to these high brow pseudo intellectuals but then go on to ravage Zimmer. Somehow, I'm seeing this is a bit hypocritical. 

I guess the way I see it, Williams operates in a lexicon that is more in line with my personal listening preferences- partly because I was weened on his music and music of Liszt, Prokofiev, Mahler, Holst, big band, modern jazz. So his approach makes sense to me. Zimmer's music I unabashedly adoreded when he was working strictly in the electronic field (I thought he was going to surpass Vangelis and Tangerine Dream as THE electronic musician of his time, and he sort of did). RAIN MAN and THELMA AND LOUISE is as good as a film score can get in terms of how it operates in the film AND it is rather fun listening on its own. 

I guess the argument we sort of got off on is whether there should be some level of musical integrity that goes beyond simply satiating your client's and customer's needs- whether it's almost our artistic mandate to give them as much as we can, even when it means trying to hard sell it because it will ultimately support the product (and client) better. With people like Williams, like Jay says, he's got so many skill sets and tricks in his proverbial compositional bag that it makes for compelling listening beyond the film- but then again, we get back to whether these compelling things are actually his or a spin on some classical piece. Partly why I love Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra is that I can hear snippets of Empire Strikes Back in there and now know where Williams' inspiration came from. Does this make Empire Strikes Back any less of a colossal piece? I think not. Does this make Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra any less interesting had I not drawn associations with a score that dazzled me in my childhood? Well, possibly. This is where it's really impossible to divorce one's self for total objectivism. Which is why it's often better to defer to the "mathematics" as Alex mentioned. It's straight forward. If the voice leading is right- it's right. If it isn't, it sounds like poo. Plain and simple. This doesn't mean it's not got merit if people like it but it's like comparing it to McDonalds. Just because a Big Mac tastes good, it doesn't mean it's good food. 

Wow, I totally got off the path on this one. Birds ate my trail of breadcrumbs....


----------



## skyy38

Guy Bacos said:


> He's not that tasty!



I prefer the "chicken pellets" myself.


----------



## d.healey

skyy38 said:


> I prefer the "chicken pellets" myself.


That was worth digging up a 6 year old thread for


----------



## Dave Connor

It is interesting to read this six years on. Lot's of references to John Williams and Hans Zimmer and if they belong in the same "Pantheon" as composers. I don't think there's any doubt about that now because they are two of the most successful composers in film history (perhaps THEE two.) Not a bad categorie to be in. As to artistic merit and stature as outright composers, Ennio Morricone lumped them together as above reproach when criticizing current trends in film music. This from a very chopsy writer some consider to be the best ever in film. So the jury is in on JW and HZ as both possessing extraordinary musical gifts that account for their enormous success. Not fads or bad music called good by the uninitiated.


----------

