# Zimmer sued over Gladiator



## Mike Greene (Jun 12, 2006)

I refuse to discuss the "over there." Here's an article on imdb today:
___________________

Gladiator composer Hans Zimmer is being sued by the Holst Foundation over claims the film's Oscar-nominated score is a copy of the late Gustav Holst's famous "Planet Suite." If the foundation win their claim for infringement of copyright they could make millions of dollars, because sales of the film's soundtrack have gone platinum. Despite Zimmer admitting on the album sleeve that he uses "the same language, the same vocabulary, if not the same syntax" as Holst, the music publishers who hold the copyright in Holst's works, J. Curwen & Sons have decided to take legal action. A Curwen spokesman says, "After a considerable period of discussion between the two parties it has become necessary to ask for the assistance of the courts." The defense lawyer says, "Mr. Zimmer's work on Gladiator is world-renowned and is not in any sense a copy of Mars. Just listening to the two works is enough to tell any listener this claim has no merit."
____________________

Scary stuff as I'm certainly no stranger to writing cues "influenced" by other composers.

I'm hoping this actually goes to trial and a definitive judgement is made. There is very little case law when it comes to copyright infringements because cases are almost always settled out of court. Copyright cases are unusually expensive for both sides and with compulsory damages that can cut both ways, very dangerous.

Because there's so little case law, lawyers are very wimpy when we ask them "how close is too close." With this case hanging out there, I think everyone's going to be even more cautious.

On an odd note, I'm doing a workup of The Planets (and a bunch of other famous pieces) for my library. I thought it was public domain! Yikes! I'd better re-check the rest of them!

- Mike Greene


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 12, 2006)

To be consistent, the Holst rights holders should also be suing Bill Conti for his score to THE RIGHT STUFF. Yeah...it is old now and out of the spotlight, but he did win an oscr for the thing and it is a blatent copy of jupiter from Holst's THE PLANETS. 

Of course...the director temped the movie with THE PLANETS and fell in love with the temp so much, Conti was asked to write a score that was similar. It took many scoring attempts to make them happy, each one getting closer and closer to just being THE PLANETS. 

So...regardless of intent or the time that has passed since that movie was in the spotlight...I think in order to be consistent, they should be going after all areas where THE PLANETS were used for "inspiration" and not just Zimmer. 

Although...I don't think they will or should win in this case...but that is a whole other line of thought...


----------



## Sean Beeson (Jun 12, 2006)

He has to write the music before he can get sued for writing it  I bet someone at MV is going to get fired. Could this perhaps change the film scoring industry a little? 

Sean Beeson


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 12, 2006)

I remember seeing a tape of...I think it was Dmitri Tiomkin's Grammy acceptance speech when I was at Berklee. He said, "I'd like to thank Wagner, Beethoven, Holst, etc. etc. etc."

(I forget who the composers were - he was being funny, of course.)

Point being - it's obvious what the point is. Anyone who doesn't copy is a hack.


----------



## Sean Beeson (Jun 12, 2006)

Someone told me once that a good composer is someone who can copy great composers. A great composer is someone who can copy great composers and not get caught .

Sean Beeson


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah, well, I'd be curious to know what Ridley asked for. I know it's always the composer's ass, but some guys aren't happy til it's 'almost' identical. I've heard so much stuff that was so dang close I was surprised they weren't sued. 

I guess that's part of the 'con' to using temp scores. (we know what the 'pros' are)


Idunno... I think it should be the director getting sued if _he's_ the guy not willing to bend from his "vision" of using preexisting copyrighted music written a new, instead of investing a little faith in the composer (especially if it's a proven Class-A guy)

I don't know the Hans sit, so I'm speaking generally.

But it's too bad all directors aren't the type that are into trying something original. I was speaking with this certain director the other day, totally open to 'new' but definitely had a sense of where he wanted to go. I'd say that is the perfect director. (hopefully I get to work with him -- I like his films, they feel fresh and original)

My point is simply that: It's too bad the directors aren't at all held even 'partially' responsible in theses cases. It's not always that the composer "wanted" to do the rip off score (as we know). But it's always the composers ass. And that's kind'a sucks IMO.


Yet.... I sure as heck wouldn't say that to a director. (this is between "us"  )


I hope Hans beats this on principle..... regardless of how close it is.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 12, 2006)

It's not even that close to Holst, no way is it a note for note rip.

He's taken an idea from old piece, appropriated it using his own samples and unmistakable style, and turned it into something completely different which is better and suitable for the film.

I love the Gladiator Waltz, and I don't give the slightest inkling of turd that Zimmer borrowed slightly from Holst to go about writing it.

Hell this is how music works! Composers go about listening to and observing what's been done before them, then set about applying their own melodic style and sense of refinement to this newfound knowledge in order to create something unique!


----------



## jc5 (Jun 12, 2006)

Don't worry chaps, its only a matter of time before Sony releases a piece of software called "The Holst Regurgitator", all properly liscensed from the estate of course, so no more worries. :razz:


----------



## ComposerDude (Jun 12, 2006)

May I suggest an alternate trademark: The UpHolst-ery


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2006)

I seriously doubt that the Holst foundation cares if Zimmer got "inspiration" from Holst or not. I think what they care about is that people like Zimmer and many others freely rip off music and pay nothing for it. He's freely admitted on the CD that he ripped it. What's really odd to me is that he didn't think for a second about sharing some of the booty.

It's a can of worms and I wouldn't be so sure that Zimmer is going to beat this one.

I guess the far reaching ramifications are that if he does loose this will studios fear using orchestral music in the future for fear of the same thing. Or, will they just let their composers hang themselves if the director decides that he really needs that Ligetti Atmosphere sound for his scare movie.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 12, 2006)

They don't have a claim. Gladiator isn't anywhere near ripping The Planets. I'm very familiar with that score and there wasn't anything in Gladiator that remotely appeared to rip off Holst. This is about money - plain and simple - hoping through intimidation Zimmer would decide to settle out of court and the Holst Foundation gets booty for a trumped up claim that has no legal weight.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jun 12, 2006)

Interestingly on http://www.gustavholst.info/biography/i ... ?chapter=7 is this synopsis of Holst, who died May 25, 1934:

"Despite his initial training at the Royal College of Music, *Holst was largely self taught as a composer*; learning by experience and pondering deeply on his art. He avoided preconceived systems and academic theory. He went his own way experimenting; constantly searching for the right notes. Sometimes he was successful; at other times he wasn't. He refused the safe, easy answer.

"Holst was impervious to whims and fashion. Although he was naturally delighted with success he was wary of it and he was not put off by failure. "If nobody likes your work, you have to go on for the sake of the work," he said. "And you're in no danger of letting the public make you repeat yourself." "

-Peter


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 12, 2006)

Daryl had said on NS that the European term was 70 years after death, taking it to 2004.

I suspect that since the copyrights all expired recently, the estate is just making a last ditch effort to find whatever money they can find. It's closing time at the Copyright Bar & Nightclub and there don't seem to be any good looking lawsuits around, so the ugly ones are suddenly looking more and more attractive. :mrgreen: 

- Mike Greene


----------



## Alex W (Jun 12, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> I suspect that since the copyrights all expired recently, the estate is just making a last ditch effort to find whatever money they can find. It's closing time at the Copyright Bar & Nightclub and there don't seem to be any good looking lawsuits around, so the ugly ones are suddenly looking more and more attractive. :mrgreen:
> 
> - Mike Greene



:lol: nice


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Mon Jun 12 said:


> They don't have a claim. Gladiator isn't anywhere near ripping The Planets. I'm very familiar with that score and there wasn't anything in Gladiator that remotely appeared to rip off Holst. This is about money - plain and simple - hoping through intimidation Zimmer would decide to settle out of court and the Holst Foundation gets booty for a trumped up claim that has no legal weight.



That's funny. I saw the movie and in the first battle scene the only thing I could think of was, "wow, that's Holst' 'Mars' in 4/4." It was so uncomfotable because I'm use to hearing it in 5/4.

He ripped I tell ya'. He ripped hard. Not as hard as John Williams ripped "Can you read my mind" theme from Struass. But, there's no doubt that that first battle scene was "Mars, the Bringer of War".

Jose


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 12, 2006)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 12 said:


> I saw the movie and in the first battle scene the only thing I could think of was, "wow, that's Holst' 'Mars' in 4/4." It was so uncomfotable because I'm use to hearing it in 5/4.



Do you think they would mind if I wrote it in 3/4 for this project I'm working on? :razz:


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Mon Jun 12 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I saw the movie and in the first battle scene the only thing I could think of was, "wow, that's Holst' 'Mars' in 4/4." It was so uncomfotable because I'm use to hearing it in 5/4.
> ...



I say write it in alternating 3/4 2/4 just to be on the safe side.


----------



## drasticmeasures (Jun 12, 2006)

While I'm not a big fan of Zimmer, it's obvious there is no claim here.

As far as I'm concerned, film music owes a large debt to Holst, along with Wagner, Stravinski, Debussy, etc. 
Even one of my favorite scores of the last few years, the rejected score for "Troy" by Yared, is blatently using Holst moves.


----------



## midphase (Jun 12, 2006)

> They don't have a claim. Gladiator isn't anywhere near ripping The Planets. I'm very familiar with that score and there wasn't anything in Gladiator that remotely appeared to rip off Holst.



Yeah, I do agree with Jose, he ripped it! 

I don't think there's anything wrong with Hans sharing some of the profits...it's essentially the same as when a rapper uses some other song's samples or riffs (like Vanilla Ice).

For some reason there is this weird belief that if you rip off some classical piece you're in the clear but I don't think that's any better than ripping off some rock tune!

Of course, this case could set some major precedent for film composers since I generally feel that most film scores nowadays sound like the composers are ripping each other off....not to say anything about trailer music which is all a common amalgam of Stromdrum and VOTA sounding stuff!


----------



## Alex W (Jun 12, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> Frederick Russ @ Mon Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't have a claim. Gladiator isn't anywhere near ripping The Planets. I'm very familiar with that score and there wasn't anything in Gladiator that remotely appeared to rip off Holst. This is about money - plain and simple - hoping through intimidation Zimmer would decide to settle out of court and the Holst Foundation gets booty for a trumped up claim that has no legal weight.
> ...



So what if he ripped? It's clear that the Waltz is by no means a "carbon copy" of Mars, there are many musical differences.

Hans simply took an idea from an old piece by a dead composer and appropriated it.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 12, 2006)

Alex W @ Mon Jun 12 said:


> josejherring @ Tue Jun 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Frederick Russ @ Mon Jun 12 said:
> ...



That's debatable.

I don't mind that he ripped. I rip. We all rip. What I'm am really afraid of is him losing. Then we're all in trouble. 'Cause even Mozart freely admitted that he ripped. Beethoven ripped. Stravinsky ripped. Bartok ripped. John Williams ripped. Copland ripped, ect.

So now if I get a score where they want that "American" sound could we be fearing a lawsuit from that?

Actually to tell you the truth I knew a professor that was on one of these copyright infingment cases in the '90ies and I know how they judge. And just by the fact that the meter was changed would be enough for Hans to win this case.

What they do is they turn the two pieces of music into a black and white visual binary type code. One for the lead line and one for the harmony. Then they place them on top of eachother. If any two bars match you lose. But because they are in different meters there's no way that they'll match note for note so I think that Hans is in the clear.

Jose


----------



## Alex W (Jun 12, 2006)

I hope you're right and the whores have no case.


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 13, 2006)

Midphase -- to speak to your point. My point is simply that it's not always the composers fault. Who can do their best work when they are trying to fit into such a small little box? That's why there's so much same-y stuff... it's ultimately up to the directors/producers (and studios in the big dollar films) to be a little less constraining. (True, this is about money, and advancing one's career, through more money and advancing one's career.  )

But aside from that... sometimes "art" happens in film, and that's pretty cool when the film and the music are both "free" to explore. 

One of my favorite scores the director said "fuck it, no one is watching us, do whatever the hell you want". (paraphrasing, but yeah he swore). Pretty cool...


Anyway...

There're also those times when it's just coincidence. I feel that the Oscar Winning theme for Brokeback Mountain "could" be a rip of that Madonna song "Dear Father" (or whatever it's called). Then again, maybe it's just a coincidence.....


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 13, 2006)

PS --- Mike you always crack me up! :lol: :mrgreen: 

A sense of humor is probably a good thing to have in this business.... :mrgreen:


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 13, 2006)

This reminds me of an episode of 'The Simpsons'.

Homer says he'll write his own Christmas song and this lawyer says 'you can use any notes apart from G sharp and B flat, those notes are copyrighted by the Disney Corporation'.


----------



## midphase (Jun 13, 2006)

Why is everyone so pro-Zimmer and anti-Holst on this issue? If you listen to the specific passages in the Gladiator soundtrack that this is all about, you will see that this is not just a piece of music inspired by a previous work, but a pretty blatant plagiarism. 

If this was your music that Hans ripped off....you'd be on him like a fly on ...

I think that if a director asked me to specifically "emulate" a pre-existing piece of music, I would have to specify in my contract that I'm not responsible for lawsuits that allege copyright infringement.

While the decision to "emulate" Holst might or might not have been asked of Hans by the producers (I seriously doubt that movie producers even know who Holst is), I think it's a risk that he was obviously willing to take and it's only fair that he should deal with it now.

If I was Hans, I would have probably reached an agreement or at the very least contacted the Holst estate before committing to the cues to make sure everything was cool with them. 

Hans Zimmer by now has more money than everyone around here combined will ever make in a lifetime...a couple of mil $ for him is probably absolutely no big deal and probably more of a headache than anything else. But I bet this will be quietly settled out of court probably for much less than that amount.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 13, 2006)

Well, my personal opinion is it isn't that close a ripoff to warrant a lawsuit. If you are going to sue Zimmer for 'Gladiator', give me a day and I could think of at least a 100 cases of film music 'inspired' by classical pieces which are much more closely related to their inspirations than 'Gladiator' is to 'Mars'.

If the music is still in copyright, about 10 composers' estates could probably sue John Williams for 'Star Wars' for a start, including Holst's for the pretty blatant 'Mars' ripoff repeated chords right at the very beginning.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 13, 2006)

Rules for copyright infringement have changed over the last few years. It used to be that it the theme used the same consecutive notes (the number five used to be mentioned) then you were in breach. Things have changed so that in addition to the above (or even instead of) all that has to be shown is an intention to copy. Having admitted that he based his music on that of Holst, he could well lose. In the library music world there are people who make a very good living comparing tracks to advise on whether or not there is any breach of copyright. In fact even the lingo has changed; one is now asked to write a style-alike rather than a sound-alike.

D


----------



## Thonex (Jun 13, 2006)

It all comes down to the jury. I guess the tough thing is that Hans mentions Holst in the liner notes.... no? (I think I read this somewhere on this thread). That shows intent. Otherwise, Hans could hire a fleet of musicologists to go through all the public domain compositions and have them pull musical phrases that match his score... they're out there... it may be hard to find.... but he could probably say .. "yeah... I was inspired by Holst, but I ripped off this phrase from this 'traditional Hungarian melody' which sounds like Holst etc...etc.."

If you're going to write about influences in your liner notes... you better make sure the pieces are PD.

T


----------



## PaulR (Jun 13, 2006)

How many times had Copland been used stylistically in films? Quite a few I would say.

I can't see them winning this case - if there's a jury involved and I was on the jury - I would take the view that dear old Hans hasn't got the brains to rip Holst off.

It's been done to death. God's sake!


----------



## Ed (Jun 13, 2006)

To all the guys that say its a directy rip off, why dont you make a compaision Mp3 and we can all judge for ourselves.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 13, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> That's funny. I saw the movie and in the first battle scene the only thing I could think of was, "wow, that's Holst' 'Mars' in 4/4." It was so uncomfotable because I'm use to hearing it in 5/4.
> Jose



Jose, you disappoint me... Zimmer's piece is in 3/4 not 4/4... (starting around 1:20 after a 4/4 intro).

:wink:


----------



## Ed (Jun 13, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> The fact that so many people recognized it and that Hans admitted that he ripped is proof enough that he ripped.
> .


Direct rip and rip is different. I jsut want to see the section that they all say is a direct rip. Im not saying I wont agree with you, I just want to hear it.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 13, 2006)

Did Hans say he "ripped" or "copied"? 

Or did he just say he was inspired by Mars?

I think that makes a huge difference. 

Playing the CD right now... I still find it an excellent cue!!!

A lot more effective than any Holst temp, if that was ever used (I don't think so).


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 13, 2006)

By the way,

I believe no one else mentioned this before, but IMHO the track "Barberian Horde" is much closer to Holst's Mars (starting around 1:54) than the Walz track...

Enjoy the battle!


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 13, 2006)

I think this is just a lame "How to get much money and real quick"-thing.

Just sue somebody who is kinda rich and try to play a little bit parasite.


----------



## midphase (Jun 13, 2006)

> Well, my personal opinion is it isn't that close a ripoff to warrant a lawsuit. If you are going to sue Zimmer for 'Gladiator', give me a day and I could think of at least a 100 cases of film music 'inspired' by classical pieces which are much more closely related to their inspirations than 'Gladiator' is to 'Mars'.
> 
> If the music is still in copyright, about 10 composers' estates could probably sue John Williams for 'Star Wars' for a start, including Holst's for the pretty blatant 'Mars' ripoff repeated chords right at the very beginning.




That's not the point! When you go over the speed limit...and you get busted ò_š   <±c_š   <±d_š   <±e_š   <±f_š   <±g_š   <±h_š   <±i_š   <±j_š   <±k_š   <±l_š   <±m_š   <±n_š   <±o_š   <±p_š   <±q_š   <±r_š   <±s_š   <±t_š   <±u_š   <±v_š   <±w_š   <±x_š   <±y_š   <±z_š   <±{_š   <±|_š   <±}_š   <±~_š   <±_š   <±€_š   <±_š   <±‚_š   <±ƒ_š   <±„_š   <±…_š   <±†_š   <±‡_›   <±ˆ_›   <±‰_›   <±Š_›   <±‹_›   <±Œ_›   <±_›   <±Ž_›   <±_›   <±_›   <±‘_œ   <±’_œ   <±“_œ   <±”_œ   <±•_œ   <±–_œ   <±—_œ   <±˜_œ   <±™_œ   <±š_œ   <±›_œ   <±œ_œ   <±_œ   <±ž_œ   <±Ÿ_œ   <± _œ   <±¡_œ   <±¢_œ   <±£_œ   <±¤_œ   <±¥_œ   <±¦_œ   <±§_œ   <±¨_œ   <±©_œ   <±ª_œ   <±«_œ   <±¬_œ   <±­_œ   <±®_œ   <±¯_œ   <±°_œ   <±±_


----------



## jc5 (Jun 13, 2006)

Sony has just released more details on their new Holst plugin (the name of which still hasn't been decided upon by the bigwigs: The UpHolst-ery, or the Regurgitator? :razz: ):

Amongst many other powerfully imaginary features, the most important one is the Plagiarism knob. This knob sets just how close to the original the new piece will be, with a 100% setting being an exact copy, and progressively lower settings introducing elements of difference. The plagiarism knob only goes down to 20% rather than to 0 however, as any setting below that would constitute actual composition and is thus beyond the scope of the plugin.

Other powerful features that took years and millions of dollars to develop are the Crapifier and the Awesomizer.

With the Crapifier, complex algorythms crapify the music to a level that even a mediocre composer can successfully pass it off as their own work. 100% Crapification introduces a wide array of out of place ethnic instruments, drum loops, and possibly Enya, as well as dropping most of those pesky woodwinds and violas!

The Awesomizer is a truly powerful tool (tongue tied yokels have been quoted as stating that it is "Awesome!") which actually makes the music better than the original for those composers who are just that good and need to give Holst a shove in order to reach their level of excellence. But wait! The Awesomizer is also useful for the mediocre composer who doesn't mind the fact that when people hear the music and see their name beside it, they'll wonder just where it really came from. 100% Awesomization has been known to introduce a standard complement of Wagner Tubas ( :razz.


:twisted: :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:


----------



## sbkp (Jun 13, 2006)

jc5 @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> 100% Crapification introduces a wide array of out of place ethnic instruments, drum loops, and possibly Enya, as well as dropping most of those pesky woodwinds and violas!



Pure genius...


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 13, 2006)

If the estates of Carl Orff and Gustav Holst would amalgamate they could shut Hollywood down.

Of course Zimmer ripped off Holst, he is one of 1000 who have. But the composers shouldn't be sued, it's the directors who ought to be. All this just because they don't want to ante up and pay synch rights.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 13, 2006)

The Orff estate could corner the market on trailer composers and music libraries taking them out in one final death blow. Then the Strauss estate steps up to the plate and in one homerun swing takes out any composer who dared work on Superman.

Then the Copland estate comes in and in one stunning victory over another manages to take out all dramatic and western composers. Finally putting an end to those out of control Newman kids.

Then the Prokofiev and Herrmann and Kurt Weill estates joining forces, deliver the karate hand of immortal death to any future that Danny Elfman thought he had.

Though badly wounded from his battles with the Strauss, Holst, Stravinsky, Dunka, Katchaturian, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, and Korngold estates, John Williams manges to tap the powers of the legal darkside using his special litigation light saber on half the composers and orchestrators in Hollywood. Carefully planning a flank attack the whole time is the Goldsmith estate who manage to kill the other half of contemporary Hollywood composers.

This leaving Carter Burwell as the last remain composer in Hollywood content in the fact that his music is truly, truly one of a kind.


----------



## midphase (Jun 13, 2006)

> So, if you think Hans broke the law in this case, you are effectively saying at least 25% (complete guess but I can name a lot of scores that have passages at least as close to what inspired them as 'Gladiator' to 'Mars') of other film scores and composers should get sued also for plagiarising classical composers, and each other. Is that really what you are saying?



Yes, if the work of a composer can be traced back pretty much note for note to another composer, then he could be sued. How close is too close? That's an answer that only the judge and the jury can decide, but I bet you'd be singing a different tune if this really cool passage from a movie you scored a few years ago appeared pretty much note for note on a Howard Shore score.

There is rip off....and rip off. In this particular case, I (and many others here) agree that Hans crossed the line. I recognized the Holst passages the very first time I watched Gladiator...and on my first watch I generally try not to pay too much attention to the music.

Oddly enough, that cue in particular happens to be my least favorite, and I can't imagine why Hans would have wanted to write it the way he did other than to pay a small omage to Holst. But in that case, I still say he should have covered his bases first and contact the copyright holders first.

I really truly don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to understand....I mean afterall record labels are twisting themselves into a curl to sue kids who are pirating Jessica Simpson's latest single (which I think it's way more useless)....why should we be so outraged where a lawsuit actually has merit like in this case?


----------



## Elfen (Jun 13, 2006)

josejherring @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> This leaving Carter Burwell as the last remain composer in Hollywood content in the fact that his music is truly, truly one of a kind.



Great one! :mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl (Jun 13, 2006)

Ed @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> Oh dont be silly Daryl, thats just a cop out. Ive heard plently of short clips on forums taken from film scores asking "whats this sound", or whatever.


I'm sorry that you think that I'm being silly. FWIW I've never posted any copyright music on any forum unless the copyright was mine. If you're happy to breach other people's copyright then that's up to you. Really all you have to do is listen to Mars and then listen to Zimmer's version. Make an effort, don't be so lazy :roll: 

D


----------



## Ed (Jun 13, 2006)

*Daryl*

"What does fair use allow?

Under fair use rules, it *may be possible to use quotations or excerpts*, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:

The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
That the quoted material is justified, and *no more than is necessary is included*.
That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author"


----------



## Ed (Jun 13, 2006)

Daryl @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> Make an effort, don't be so lazy :roll:


I dont have a recording of Mars on cd, or on my PC. I'd have to track down an old tape I have. It wouldnt take very long to edit a quick comparson mp3 includng just the section you think is a direct rip. Who is being more lazy?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 13, 2006)

No! You're all wrong! OJ didn't do it :evil:!!!!

Oh wait...wrong trial.

Carry on.
:oops:


----------



## Tobie (Jun 13, 2006)

I seem to remember from music college that there is also something about having to prove that you could of written the piece without hearing the other work. Especially when it comes to library music - this is one of there things. Which of course is bollocks in a way because you would never write anything!

I know that the Orff estate is very hot on copyright issues. I had to do an advert for TV and they wanted the usual Carmina Burana thing. I just wrote a choir orchestral minor key piece that actually sounded nothing like CB but they got panicky because the estate is quite picky and I had to alter it. (just went major 

Look how many books say CB is in the Omen. Theres even compilation CD's that say Carmina Burana as featured in the Omen. But Goldsmiths score actually dosent sound anything like it. But CB has become a iconic "Gothic" sounding score and any choir and orchestra piece in a minor key is held next to it.

I think in this case it has more to do with the admission that it was copied - although personally as a composer I wouldn't have been happy writing something that close. I think there is a fine line between sounded like or being influenced by a piece/style and letting tip over into actually copying. There are so many bits that are far too similar, the obvious big brass riff in "the battle" track, but also the quieter trumpet echo patterns. Now trumpet echo patterns would of been fine - could of just been classed as an orchestrational influence - but combined with the "that" motif it is so similar to mars it just pushes it (for me anyway) into copying. 

Its easy to say that the Copland estate could sue for all westerns, or Danny Elfman could be sued by the Hermann estate, but these are stylistic influences. Theres is no ground unless a motif/theme is copied or directly implied.


As far as copyright and the 70 years thing - I know that Stravinsky used to do new versions to extend the copyright dates and wondered whether Holsts daughter Imogen has had the copyright extended. My copy of the score (Boosey and Hawkes) has "New edition prepared by Imogen Holst and Colin Mathews" at the front. Not sure if that would come under the printed publication copyright or the music copyright.


----------



## PaulR (Jun 13, 2006)

I think it's a tremendous day for Hans.

Mentioning Hans Zimmer and Gustav Holst in the same breath is truly tremendous. What a tremendous day this must be for Hans! The public will actually think Hans is right up there with Holst. 

It's funny to me because the music in question is my wife's all time favourite piece of music from any film. When I told her WHY it was her favourite piece of music from any film score - she still didn't get it.

This is the price you have to pay.

:roll: :lol:


----------



## PaulR (Jun 13, 2006)

Tobie @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> Its easy to say that the Copland estate could sue for all westerns, or Danny Elfman could be sued by the Hermann estate, but these are stylistic influences.



That's because Danny Elfman can't orchestrate. More influenced by the 'thought' of how good Herrmann was rather than having that kind of ability - which is no bad thing, as I believe Elfman is one of a kind.


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 13, 2006)

Tobie said"
I know that Stravinsky used to do new versions to extend the copyright dates '

I think regardless of when a piece was written in the composer's life, the copyright will extend a set period of time beyond it, ie all of Stravinsky's music will be public domain simultaneously. Stravinsky did new versions of his stuff to copyright it in the first place as Russia isn't part of the Berne convention so none of the music he wrote there (arguably his most famous stuff) was protected. Disney never asked him for approval for the travesty of The Rite of Spring in Fantasia (although they did ofer him lot's of money)


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jun 13, 2006)

_Posting copyrighted mp3s on a public forum is tricky._ I think it would have to be a short rip of 15-20 secs (comparing one to the other) for purely educational purposes - still, based on what legal mind gets wind of it this can always be misconstrued as well, especially without permission from the copyright owners. Can anyone verify this?


----------



## Lpp (Jun 14, 2006)

Hans didn´t admit, that he ripped off Holst. In the booklet of "More music of the motion picture Gladiator" he says...

"Lots of people have commented that this piece reminds them of Holst´s "the Planets", and of course I´m using the same language, the same vocabulary if not the same syntax. I was thinking more of Mussorgsky, of William Walton, of the primal force of Stravinsky."

-----

I´ve heard the whole piece "The Battle" again and I must say, that Hans nailed it with what he said. There´s no exactly ripped off melody, no exactly ripped off chord progression, no exactly ripped off rhythm. It all comes down to some instrumental registrations, a mood here and there, a certain style. 

If writing in the style of other composers is a crime, then we should dress ourselves very warm :twisted:


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 14, 2006)

Lpp @ Wed Jun 14 said:


> I´ve heard the whole piece "The Battle" again and I must say, that Hans nailed it with what he said. There´s no exactly ripped off melody, no exactly ripped off chord progression, no exactly ripped off rhythm. It all comes down to some instrumental registrations, a mood here and there, a certain style.



I think you've hit the nail on the head right there


----------



## Ed (Jun 14, 2006)

All these people that keep saying they heard Mars as soon as the music started playing or something, well, my mother is always saying that she hears classical pieces in Williams' muisc. And you know what, shes said that a whole lot more about John Williams' music than she has ever said it about Zimmers! Sometimes I hear other composers in other composers music, at sometimes I too think its a little too close, but that doesnt mean its ripped off in the "Im gonna sue your ass!" kind of a way.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 14, 2006)

Frederick Russ @ Tue Jun 13 said:


> _Posting copyrighted mp3s on a public forum is tricky._ I think it would have to be a short rip of 15-20 secs (comparing one to the other) for purely educational purposes - still, based on what legal mind gets wind of it this can always be misconstrued as well, especially without permission from the copyright owners. Can anyone verify this?


I'm sure you could even post a minute of each song and still be well within fair use parameters. The writers of the fair use rules had exactly this sort of situation in mind. Especially since we're such a legitimate and honest group.

So the law is on our side. But even it it weren't, from a practical standpoint, VI would be a nutty target for any legal action. We're TINY in the internet world. 

There are still countless lyric sites all over the internet. Of course they're illegal and COULD be shut down. But they're not, because it would be so expensive and difficult to take them out one by one (class action suits only apply to claimants, not defendants, so it has to be one by one.) And those sites are way higher profile than we are.

Suing for copyright infringement is so expensive that the case has to be excellent if you plan to sue. Excellent means not only the legal parts are solid, but also that the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile. And remember, in copyright infringement cases, the judge is allowed (and usually does) to have the loser pay the winners legal costs. Which is why it's so rare that these cases ever make it to trial.

So in my unprofessional opinion: zero danger. 100% safe.

But it ain't my website or ass on the line, so . . . :mrgreen: 

- Mike Greene

Edit: For perspective, every picture posted here and on any other website that is not owned by the poster is subject to the exact same copyright protections and penalties for unauthorized uses. Yet no one worries about them. Why? Same reasons I posted above about music clips, though I'm more sure music clips are fair use than pictures. I've never sued or been sued over pictures (I've been in both situations with music.)


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 14, 2006)

Lpp @ Wed Jun 14 said:


> Hans didn´t admit, that he ripped off Holst. In the booklet of "More music of the motion picture Gladiator" he says...
> 
> "Lots of people have commented that this piece reminds them of Holst´s "the Planets", and of course I´m using the same language, the same vocabulary if not the same syntax. I was thinking more of Mussorgsky, of William Walton, of the primal force of Stravinsky."
> 
> ...



As I mentioned before in this topic, The Barbarian Horde track has more similarities to Holst's Mars than the Battle track. Check that track also.


----------



## synergy543 (Jun 14, 2006)

I don't get what all the fuss is about... 
Listening to the Waltz at 1:51 (and at 5:40 on Barbarian Horde) it sounds more like the Pirates of the Carribean. You can even "see" the Black Pearl....wait, I thought this was Gladiator?

I think Badelt should sue....or is Zimmer copying himself? Who wrote what? :roll: 

As I listen on...Earth reminds me an awful lot of Satie....not the same but....this whole album is like a parody. I wonder what Weird Al thinks of all this? :lol:


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 15, 2006)

synergy543 @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Listening to the Waltz at 1:51 (and at 5:40 on Barbarian Horde) it sounds more like the Pirates of the Carribean. You can even "see" the Black Pearl....wait, I thought this was Gladiator?
> 
> I think Badelt should sue....or is Zimmer copying himself? Who wrote what?



'Gladiator' came out before 'Pirates of the Caribbean', but they are very similar in places, almost note for note, but since they are both Media Ventures related scores, I would guess all parties are cool about that.

Another case would be James Horner. We all joke about how he rips himself off all the time, but presumably when he writes a film score he doesn't necessarily always own the copyright in the music any more, the production company / studio does. So in his next score when he copies some passage from one of his previous scores, he may not actually own the copyright anymore. So he could be sued for copying himself


----------



## José Herring (Jun 15, 2006)

Stephen Rees @ Wed Jun 14 said:


> synergy543 @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> > So in his next score when he copies some passage from one of his previous scores, he may not actually own the copyright anymore, so he could be sued for copying himself



Sad, sad world we would live in when you can't even do yourself. Sad. Very sad.

Jose


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 15, 2006)

Re: fair use.



Wiki said:


> Brief song clips (under 30 seconds) may be used for identification of a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by critical or historical commentary and when attributed to the copyright holder.



Also read here: http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jun 15, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Wed Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> > synergy543 @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> ...



lol - that would be crazy indeed! :D


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 15, 2006)

Who knows, maybe if all these anti-theft laws were enforced more often, people would be forced to come up with something original rather than relying on existing music. Maybe then all this 'influenced by XXXX... at a 100% ratio' would be diminished. I'd rather that way.

Don't you think that knowledge and musical heritage is limiting to our individual potential?

For example take human memory; when you keep all your notes onto small scraps of paper eventually the brain forgets how to remember things, but if you didn't have scraps and tried to remember with your own powers you would develop that skill over time.

Same goes with music, only few people nowadays try to be original and find their own identity because it's easier to copy someone and just become a collage of influences. It's like having a library of influences with everything we might need to express one day so we just grab it from there.


----------



## Alex W (Jun 15, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Don't you think that knowledge and musical heritage is limiting to our individual potential?



no


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 15, 2006)

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Jose Herring @ Wed Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> > synergy543 @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> ...



John Fogerty was sued for exactly that. When he released the Center Field album about 25 years ago, Fantasy Records (who owned all the old Fogerty stuff) sued claiming he was ripping off his earlier songs. Fogerty won and the judge ordered Fantasy Records to pay Fogerty's legal fees (copyright law allows that.)

Horner is in a different situation. Even though MAYBE he could be sued, it would never actually happen. No studio wants to open that can of worns. Same reasoning as why I'm not gonna complain on the day my neighbor is playing HIS music too loud. :mrgreen: 

- Mike Greene


----------



## midphase (Jun 15, 2006)

> Same reasoning as why I'm not gonna complain on the day my neighbor is playing HIS music too loud.



Hehe....that's so funny!!! My neighbor is a Latin American singer and he's constantly blasting music but I don't want to complain because if he ever says something about me blasting orchestral stuff...he knows he'll get a face full of kitchen!

I'm sure we both think we're being totally considered towards one another....only our wives know the reality!


----------



## José Herring (Jun 15, 2006)

Alex W @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think that knowledge and musical heritage is limiting to our individual potential?
> ...



Awe man!! I haven't laughed so hard at post in a while.

Truth is Theo that the more "original" you are the more you'll have trouble communicating to an audience who relies on what they've heard before to understand music.

Take Mozart for example. He never considered himself an original composer. He said so himself in a letter. But, he did consider himself the best at doing what everybody else was doing. He sounded the same as all his contemporaries, he was just better. He stole tunes from popular musicians from around the world but would make them art rather than entertainment. 

I find that the better I get and the more people that say they like my music the more closely it is aligned to what came before. The only mistake that Zimmer is making is that he admitted that he was influenced. Big mistake.

Jose


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 15, 2006)

[quote="Mike Greene @ Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:10 am]Suing for copyright infringement is so expensive that the case has to be excellent if you plan to sue. Excellent means not only the legal parts are solid, but also that the defendant has deep enough pockets to make it worthwhile. And remember, in copyright infringement cases, the judge is allowed (and usually does) to have the loser pay the winners legal costs. Which is why it's so rare that these cases ever make it to trial.

[/quote]

Actually I think using someone else's music on any site doesn't fall under the fair use clauses, and quite frankly, I believe they have to grant you that use.

I don't thunk it is the law suits you have to worry about so much as the fines. The Ontario board of education was successfully fined for $50,000.00 because someone photocopied a picture. They obviously didn't make 50,000 on the use of the picture, in fact a law suit would only have yielded as much money as the infringer made (which was zero dollars) BUT the government was still able to fine the offenders 50,000.00. I can't see how posting an mp3 would be any different. Fair use usually applies to quoting something for educational purposes, or in a magazine, I doubt it would apply here. I could be wrong of course, but if the school board's experience is any indication I would be mighty leary about posting anything.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 15, 2006)

U.S. copyright law doesn't have any fines. It's civil law. You have to sue (or threaten to sue) in order to collect. Yes I'm sure.

And as I mentioned in the Fogerty post, loser pays winner's attorney fees, so people are very reluctant to sue unless they're sure they've got a great case.

I don't know the Ontario case or Canadian law, but I'll bet there's more to that story than simply an innocent photocopying of a a picture. I'll bet they photocopied from a textbook or someone else who makes money by selling schools the same pictures. That would be an obvious infringement. Totally different situation.

Posting audio clips here for purposes like this is a textbook example of fair use:

1. We're non profit (not even a requirement, by the way)
2. We're not posting for the purpose of avoiding buying products
3. There is a legitimate intellectual discussion about the clips
4. I say so!

:mrgreen: 

- Mike Greene


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 15, 2006)

[quote:ac84cb2606="Mike Greene @ Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:33 pm"]UI don't know the Ontario case or Canadian law, but I'll bet there's more to that story than simply an innocent photocopying of a a picture. 
- Mike Greeò`_   <äÙ`_   <äÚ`_   <äÛ`_   <äÜ`_   <äÝ`_   <äÞ`_   <äß`_   <äà`_   <äá`_   <äâ`_   <äã``   <ää``   <äå``   <äæ``   <äç``   <äè``   <äé`a   <äê`a   <äë`a   <äì`a   <äí`a   <äî`a   <äï`a   <äð`a   <äñ`a   <äò`a   <äó`a   <äô`a   <äõ`a   <äö`a   <ä÷`a   <äø`a   <äù`a   <äú`a   <äû`a   <äü`a   <äý`a   <äþ`a   <äÿ`a   <å `a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å	`a   <å
`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å `a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å`a   <å `a   <å!`a   <å"`a   <å#`a   <å$`a   <å%`a   <å&`a   <å'`a   <å(`a   <å)`a   <å*`a   <å+`a   <å,`a   <å-`a   <å.`a   <å/`a   <å0`a   <å1`a   <å2`a   <å3`a   <å4`a   <å5`a   <å6`a   <å7`a   <å8`a   <å9`a   <å:`a   <å;`a   <å<`a   <å=`a   <å>`a   <å?`a   <å@`a   <åA`a   <åB`a   <åC`a   <åD`a   <åE`a   <åF`a   <åG`a   <åH              ò`a   <åJ`a   <åK`a   <åL`a   <åM`a   <åN`a   <


----------



## fictionmusic (Jun 15, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Why post some mp3s? Because it would be helpful to the discussion. So far the discussion has basically been, "Sounds just like Mars!" "No it doesn't!" "Yes it does, anyone could tell!" "No it doesn't, I know these pieces and it definitely doesn't"
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice to hear two clips of each piece of the specific sections that are claimed to be the same? Now THERE we could have a discussion with specifics. Hmmm . . . sounds like . . . fair use!
> 
> ...



Well there's your answer then; why don't you post the relevant mp3s on your site?


----------



## midphase (Jun 16, 2006)

I have a bit of a funny story...one time I went to Kinkos to photocopy a Form PA copyright registration so that I could copyright some music. Well...Kinkos refused to photocopy the form because they weren't sure if that would constitute a breach of copyright!


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 16, 2006)

Alex W @ Fri Jun 16 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't you think that knowledge and musical heritage is limiting to our individual potential?
> ...



'no' is a word so full of content but only when you are talking to yourself.

Jose:

Goog points. But the argument was about individual potential and becoming yourself over time, not about success. Two very different things.

But since you mentioned it, i agree that it's hard to communicate with people and to be truly original at the same time.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jun 16, 2006)

midphase @ Fri Jun 16 said:


> I have a bit of a funny story...one time I went to Kinkos to photocopy a Form PA copyright registration so that I could copyright some music. Well...Kinkos refused to photocopy the form because they weren't sure if that would constitute a breach of copyright!



It's also online and you can print as many copies as you need (presuming this is the form you were looking for): http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formpai.pdf


----------



## Alex W (Jun 16, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Fri Jun 16 said:


> Alex W @ Fri Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> > TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> ...



...but I was talking to you


----------



## Thonex (Jun 16, 2006)

midphase @ Fri Jun 16 said:


> I have a bit of a funny story...one time I went to Kinkos to photocopy a Form PA copyright registration so that I could copyright some music. Well...Kinkos refused to photocopy the form because they weren't sure if that would constitute a breach of copyright!



LOL.... Classic!!!!

Now I remember why I never go to those types of places...

Actually, I'm surprised that they are still in business... we're becoming more and more of a paperless society... Shouldn't those place be closing down... or are they diversifying somehow?

T


----------



## José Herring (Jun 16, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Fri Jun 16 said:


> Alex W @ Fri Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> > TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> ...



I hear you.

It get's down to the basic purpose of art. What's the point of art really. Art is a communication in essense. The purpose of which is to get some message across to some listener or viewer whatever the art form is.

Back in the day when I was learning in school the idea was that art was for a chosen few that knew something about it. After a few years of suffereing as an artist I changed my mind about that.

I mean you can go overboard and offer nothing new but what's hip. That's cool to a degree and there are many top pros doing just that, but I doubt if they're very satisfied either though they certainy are pretty rich.

The point being that the whole purpose of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody. Often you have to know what's in a persons mind, good and bad, and compose music from that viewpoint. This requires that you forget about yourself for a while. (Which in my case is easy to do because I'm intensly more interested in other people than myself.)

I think a lot of musicians fear this. Getting into somebody's mind. But we shouldn't. Once you know what a mind is you'll realize that it's not all that horrible or all that unpleasurable in spite of what quacks like Freud tried to sell on us. We're mostly pretty decent and once you get to know the other persons likes and dislikes you'll be able to touch his/her heart and they will truly love you as an artist and as a friend.

_dislcaimer: Gushing metaphysics coming up._

If the sun were to look inward all he would see is termoil and confusion as it combust in order to survive. But, looking inward the sun misses the point. It's purpose is to radiate outward and to provide life and light to all that may percieve it. 

Composers are the same way. If we spend all are time looking inward trying to "develope our inner self" then you'll miss the point. The point is to shine outward and connect with people.

Music creation is a special type of intelligence that not everybody has.

With great intelligence comes great responsibility to be of benefit to mankind---_Spiderman 2 _ :lol: 




Best,

Jose


----------



## Mike Greene (Jun 16, 2006)

fictionmusic @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Well there's your answer then; why don't you post the relevant mp3s on your site?


Because I don't know the passages and I don't have the Gladiator soundtrack or the complete Planets Suite.

It's not that big a deal. My real point in this was that I don't want to see people afraid to post mp3s for fear of the boogeyman. They would be being afraid for no reason and it robs everyone else of helpful input.

- Mike Greene


----------



## gravehill (Jun 16, 2006)

Here's something to make anyone vomit in rage!

http://www.filmtracks.com/comments/titl ... gi?read=48


SOUNDTRACKS OFFER NOTHING BUT COMPROMISE AND WORLDLINESS

There is absolutely no benefit for a person from the demonic film music.

- it is like a cloud without rain

- it is like a fig tree in bloom without any figs (Cursed by Jesus)

- It is powerless to win the lost. God has ordained preaching to win the lost. All it has the power to do is to win more converts to film music and to lead more people into backsliding, apostasy, and worldliness. Churches have never been filled by people "saved" at movies or film music concerts.

- All film music offers is acceptance of commpromise and a bridge back to the world of sin and death. Composers feel at home producing all the trash their Satanic morals demand. Why is this so? Because film music and rock, country and rap are all the same thing and it are from the same devil!

- It is an offense to God and has no placee in a person's life who loves the Lord! (... and all God's people said AMEN! .. while the tares simply laughed and mocked)

- It is a sign of apostasy and liberalism in a professing Christian church. If that church has accepted film music, then you can bet they have also accepted all kinds of other compromise and liberalism. Acceptance of film music is a sign of sickness and a turning away from God. (apostasy)

- Soundtracks are associated with rebellion,, drugs, immorality, and Satanism. Why would believers want to imitate and associate themselves with that image?

- False professing Christian tares love film music and will never change their mind. Truly saved people want no part of this satanic music. It doesn't take much discernment to see that film music is from the devil! God's people have no problem spotting this "thing" of the devil.

- One good thing is that soundtracks allow a person to see the tares that belong to Satan and the real Christians who love the Lord. It is like a separator between the wheat and the tares. The devil's crowd loves music from films while those who belong to God will turn away from all Satanic musical filth. 


I think this gives a clear picture of the contents of the link above...


----------



## choc0thrax (Jun 16, 2006)

Gravehill are you new to Filmtracks?  That sort of thing is posted constantly.


----------



## gravehill (Jun 16, 2006)

Yeah, I'm new to filmtracks. And I think my interest just stopped as well.


----------



## KevinKauai (Jun 17, 2006)

> Of course...the director temped the movie with THE PLANETS and fell in love with the temp so much, Conti was asked to write a score that was similar.


I'm reminded that John Williams hadn't even met George Lucas until "Star Wars (episode 4)" was pretty much done and he was introduced by Spielberg. 

Someday, I'm sure LucasFilm will get the necessary licenses and issue an "extra-special Director's temp music track edition" of that! I'd love to hear the original tracks which Lucas used. That would be a real cinema music-writing education!

 KevinKauai


----------



## Ed (Jun 17, 2006)

KevinKauai @ Sat Jun 17 said:


> > Of course...the director temped the movie with THE PLANETS and fell in love with the temp so much, Conti was asked to write a score that was similar.
> 
> 
> I'm reminded that John Williams hadn't even met George Lucas until "Star Wars (episode 4)" was pretty much done and he was introduced by Spielberg.
> ...



Apparently they originally had Star Wars scored with a synth score, and in the test showings people laughed at it. :lol:


----------



## KevinKauai (Jun 17, 2006)

I'm not certain of this, but my guess would be that the "synth score" was an adaptation of an earlier temp score and someone's misguided idea to go the direction of the odd (but nice) Lalo Schiffrin score for "THX-1138" but "synthier" since it was 1976. (Somewhere I recall Lucas commenting that he had used "bits and pieces" of various classical things in preliminary cutting.)

It would be fun to hear that discarded synth one, also.

 KevinKauai


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jun 17, 2006)

Does anyone remember that super cheesy disco synthy version of the 'Star Wars' theme? I think it was a hit too. Eeeeeeeeeek!


----------



## PaulR (Jun 18, 2006)

Stephen Rees @ Sat Jun 17 said:


> Does anyone remember that super cheesy disco synthy version of the 'Star Wars' theme? I think it was a hit too. Eeeeeeeeeek!



No, but Iliked the Beethoven(?) rocky thing around the time of Being There. With the electric piano. That was great. Or was it Also Sprach? Oh - I can't remember. Shit!

:lol:


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 18, 2006)

Alex W @ Sat Jun 17 said:


> ...but I was talking to you



Dang.. you got me there Alex! :razz:



> Jose: The point being that the whole purpose of writing anything is to communicate something to somebody. Often you have to know what's in a persons mind, good and bad, and compose music from that viewpoint. This requires that you forget about yourself for a while. (Which in my case is easy to do because I'm intensly more interested in other people than myself.)



I agree that we like to communicate Jose, but i don't believe that _that_ should be our primary goal when composing. As i see it, we aren't making our music to express what other people feel nor do we compose to make them happy or anything else (at least we try to be free from such thoughts when composing). We make the music to express ourselves above all, to hear back our pieces and know that we have taken out that particular feeling or thought and have stored it in a piece of music, like a diary of feelings that we reflect upon.

Now if someone feels he is also beeing expressed by our music and connects to it ( or even if we get rich by it ), that is a very welcome bonus! (but not the goal itself  )


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Sun Jun 18 said:


> Alex W @ Sat Jun 17 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I was talking to you
> ...



I hear ya, but I think it's the most important goal for sure. How is what we're saying percieved by another. For me it's not really making somebody else happy but rather having an affect on somebody.

The purpose being to get something across a space to your listener. Music sound eminates outward through space towards a target. The problem with computers and music is that our music is reflected back towards us. But really we're the wrong target I think.

It's like a game of American Football. The quarter back throws the ball outward to a target with the intension that the ball be received. It's not much different in music. You have to be able to reach your audience with something will be received.

I give the example of this: aeht htne ne w hdd wya ar1 hgt. I know exactly what I meant by that but it's doubtful that anybody else would. The idea is all mine but I didn't express it in a way that it could be understood by anybody so anybody reading that is a) going to think I'm crazy b) going to get very upset at me.

I'm not saying that you have to find ideas that are acceptable by people, though that isn't a bad idea, but you at least must make an effort to organize your ideas so that they can be understood by somebody else, or else you're just playing for yourself and may fixate inward and live in a cave somewhere making up people to talk to. :lol:


----------



## wonshu (Jun 22, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu Jun 22 said:


> aeht htne ne w hdd wya ar1 hgt.



I hear ya!

BTW: great thread, please keep us updated on the Zimmer case.

Cheers
Hans


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jun 29, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:


> Who knows, maybe if all these anti-theft laws were enforced more often, people would be forced to come up with something original rather than relying on existing music. Maybe then all this 'influenced by XXXX... at a 100% ratio' would be diminished. I'd rather that way.
> 
> Don't you think that knowledge and musical heritage is limiting to our individual potential?
> 
> ...



Yep, I'd agree with most of this Theo. The musical heritage is important in a way, not only for the enjoyment of hearing a composer's unique aural story, but also for an understanding of structure, style, etc. You're right (IMO) to say it's also advantageous to in some way negate or put to one side those influences, with the intent of composing something original. As more time goes by, so the inevitable comparisons will be made, as we are exposed to more and more style, harmony, etc. As if our library of sounds is increasing with the understanding that taking new directions is a little harder each time.
And i'm with you in the desire to hear more original work, instead of the 'plagarism percentage debate', of how close is too close. So a shake up of the copyright laws in a profile case isn't neccessarily a bad thing, and could prompt studios. producers, and directors to be more open to new styles and different marriages of sound and image. The latest spate of including known pop music in scores has me in some despair, as if the money men are fighting tooth and nail against taking an entirely different approach to film scoring. As far as i'm concerned they're formenting a 'generic style', with the intent of puuling some bucks from the mtv generations.

For what it's worth, and no doubt i'll get nailed by the Zimmer, et al, devotees for this, I think he plagarises pretty well everything he 'writes', and that gladiator represents some sort of contempt for originality in music in favour of the cash. That's no doubt altruistic on my part, but discussing if this score is close to or less close to the planets is nitpicking to the nth degree. 
And all the current batch of 'industry composers' have to a greater or lesser degree, ripped off Miklos Rosza who wrote Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, double indemnity, Spellbound, etc. 
I find Zimmer, Elfmann, Shore and Horner boring, as the styles they've developed have little to do with precise moments in film, using instead a broad, often clumsy sweep of the sonic brush. There are many films from earlier in the 20th century, where a glance, or look, or shadow on the wall was treated with the same importance as a grand opening or a sad finish. No longer. Now we get chunks, generically placed, interspersed with demographically chosen pop, or rap songs, often out of context, and unsuitable. And as i commented elsewhere, there's some great composers in other parts of the world too, including Shostakovich for his 41 film scores, just as an example. I've seen many of these films since i've been here, and they make a wonderful change to the domestic dross being turned out at the moment. Precise orchestration, and a craftman's touch when highlighting musically, the aforementioned look, or shadow on the wall.
I don't know if Zimmer will get nailed or win, and frankly i'm not that bothered. From my musical perspective, he has a clear case to answer, and if i were to sit on the jury, i'd think seriously about a decision leaning towards the Holst estate. 

So count me in with the originality, Theo, and if this case helps change the vision of those who write the cheques, and helps them cast their net wider for more original work further afield, then i'm for it.

Regards,

Alex.

p.s Hello to you all. I've been busy, and haven't had the chance to enjoy the erudite comments posted here recently. Hope this post finds you all in good health, and importantly, writing like demons, and getting paid for it!


----------



## PaulR (Jun 29, 2006)

Hermitage59 @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I find Zimmer, Elfmann, Shore and Horner boring, as the styles they've developed have little to do with precise moments in film, using instead a broad, often clumsy sweep of the sonic brush.



Good points - but in defence of Horner and Elfman. The one Horner score that I thought worked really well was for The Name of the Rose. 

Elfman's score to Sleepy Hollow worked exceptionally well I thought.

Of course, these are two very good films and scores don't mean crap to me if the film is no good in the first place - different genres naturally, but these two scores stick in my mind. One is very orchestral and the other is more synthesizer based I believe.


----------



## Ed (Jun 29, 2006)

Paul, you think Cuthroat Island is a bad score because the movie wasnt good?


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 29, 2006)

Thanks for the vote of confidence Alex Hermitage! Can you point out some movies Shostakovich scored so i can see them? I've been listening to his symphonies lately and he's really unique, genious i might say.




josejherring @ Fri Jun 23 said:


> I give the example of this: aeht htne ne w hdd wya ar1 hgt. I know exactly what I meant by that but it's doubtful that anybody else would. The idea is all mine but I didn't express it in a way that it could be understood by anybody so anybody reading that is a) going to think I'm crazy b) going to get very upset at me.



Hey!, i remember that one Jose: Alfred Schnittke said it as well a few years ago in his music. Does the fact that only few understand him take away value from his words? I personally don't think so. :???:


----------



## Ed (Jun 29, 2006)

Hermitage59 @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> For what it's worth, and no doubt i'll get nailed by the Zimmer, et al, devotees for this,



Dont worry I see youve said the same about Elfman, Shore and Horner so clearly you must be insane.



> And all the current batch of 'industry composers' have to a greater or lesser degree, ripped off Miklos Rosza who wrote Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, double indemnity, Spellbound, etc.


You could say the same thing about Williams.



> I find Zimmer, Elfmann, Shore and Horner boring, as the styles they've developed have little to do with precise moments in film, using instead a broad, often clumsy sweep of the sonic brush.



You think guys like Thomas Newman or James Newton Howard are also boring? If you want to be consistent they must be, they all do the same things you complain about that these guys above do.



> There are many films from earlier in the 20th century, where a glance, or look, or shadow on the wall was treated with the same importance as a grand opening or a sad finish.


And just like the acting it was over the top, and frankly I find a lot of that stuff generic. I really dislike that kind of scoring. How many times have I seen an old movie and with overacting and over the top music. 



> No longer. Now we get chunks, generically placed, interspersed with demographically chosen pop, or rap songs, often out of context, and unsuitable.


Excuse me, but trhe directors choice of songs is invariably nothing to do with the composer. Unless you are bizzarly calling Zimmers modern stuff "rap".



> So count me in with the originality, Theo, .



Zimmer, Elfman, Horner, James Newton Howard, Thomas Newman have some of the most recognisable original sounds in hollywood. They DO have an original sound. Its people that copy those guys you should be complaining about.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jun 29, 2006)

Certainly Theo.

Some i have seen and enjoyed:

Alone (1930) Dmitri also wrote this for orchestra too.
Golden Mountains (1931)
Love and Hate (1934)
Volochayev Days (1936)
The Great Citizen (1938)
The adventures of Korzenkhina (1940)
Zoya (1944)
Michurin (1948)
The fall of Berlin (1949)
The unforgettable Year 1919 (1951)
Five days-Five Nights (1960)

These are the fairly popular films, and might be available on a historical site somewhere. I've seen them on a special TV channel here called, 'Star Channel'.
It's a historical channel showing all the old films, and concerts. (Watching Svetlanov conduct once a week is a real treat. A real tyrant by all accounts, but he got the very best out of orchestras, and even with the mono quality of the sound, there's some fabulous performances.) 

I've given the English equivalents to make any search easier. (I hope)


This enough to go on with? :smile: 

Regards,

Alex.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Dont worry I see youve said the same about Elfman, Shore and Horner so clearly you must be insane.



Hmmm, ok. Because i disagree with the generic adulation, i'm not normal? 
Surely this is just a difference of opinions, not a question of sanity.



> You could say the same thing about Williams.


Erm, yep. Agreed, although he did manage an original melody or two.


> You think guys like Thomas Newman or James Newton Howard are also boring? If you want to be consistent they must be, they all do the same things you complain about that these guys above do.


Not complaining Ed, just observations and opinions, same as you.



> And just like the acting it was over the top, and frankly I find a lot of that stuff generic. I really dislike that kind of scoring. How many times have I seen an old movie and with overacting and over the top music.


Agreed. There have been some terrible movies and awful scores since this medium began. There have been some excellent films as well, not just in Hollywood, but in other countries too, with great acting, superb image work, and wonderful scores.
For all that the soviet period was wrong, some of the films are exceptional, have little to do with promoting the soviet system, and everything to do with great stories, and great music. I put up a list for Theo. If you want one to listen to, try finding Zoya, and listen to the score, and you'll understand why i find the adulation of many modern format scores and their composers something i find myself unwillng to do from a musical/image perspective. I will agree that this is subjective, and a matter of opinion. You seem to like the populist mainstream modern composers, i'm not so enthusiastic. Shall we agree to disagree?



> Excuse me, but trhe directors choice of songs is invariably nothing to do with the composer. Unless you are bizzarly calling Zimmers modern stuff "rap".



Really? Zimmer's rap? No, I don't think so. More of a general comment about the inclusion of music that serves a different purpose that doesn't relate to image, but for demographic markets. (Mind you, this isn't a new idea.)



> Zimmer, Elfman, Horner, James Newton Howard, Thomas Newman have some of the most recognisable original sounds in hollywood. They DO have an original sound. Its people that copy those guys you should be complaining about.



I disagree. There was a far wider range of musical ideas earlier last century up to about the end of the 70's. Then the ideas pot began to narrow. The composers you have mentioned are close to each other on many levels, that for me, fails to instill a sense of originality, but merely paraphrases what seems a general pool of ideas, with each never straying too far from 'safe ground.' 

Perhaps we'd better agree to disagree on this one too.

Alex.


----------



## Ed (Jun 29, 2006)

Hermitage59 @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Dont worry I see youve said the same about Elfman, Shore and Horner so clearly you must be insane.
> ...



Presicely. Thats exactly what it is, the difference is so often people pretend their opinion is somehow justified objectively rather than just personal taste and they come up with all these bizzare reasons to try and justify that. 



> > You could say the same thing about Williams
> 
> 
> Erm, yep. Agreed, although he did manage an original melody or two.


Right so according to you pretty much everyone in hollywood is boring, rips old composers off and have no orginality.



> > You think guys like Thomas Newman or James Newton Howard are also boring? If you want to be consistent they must be, they all do the same things you complain about that these guys above do.
> 
> 
> Not complaining Ed, just observations and opinions, same as you.



So is that a yes, yes?



> If you want one to listen to, try finding Zoya, and listen to the score, and you'll understand why i find the adulation of many modern format scores and their composers something i find myself unwillng to do from a musical/image perspective.



"Adulation". You keep using that word, I dont think it menas what you think it means.

I will have to make a note to check them out when I can, but still, just because the style of film music has changed doesnt mean its bad, it just may not be your taste. 



> I will agree that this is subjective, and a matter of opinion. You seem to like the populist mainstream modern composers, i'm not so enthusiastic. Shall we agree to disagree?


Sure, if you agree your reasons for disliking them are unreasonable.



> > Excuse me, but trhe directors choice of songs is invariably nothing to do with the composer. Unless you are bizzarly calling Zimmers modern stuff "rap".
> 
> 
> Really? Zimmer's rap? No, I don't think so.


Good.



> More of a general comment about the inclusion of music that serves a different purpose that doesn't relate to image, but for demographic markets. (Mind you, this isn't a new idea.)



The fact is, the inclusion of songs generally has nothing to do with the composer. You made out as if they were directly involved.

Why is it some people feel that songs are somehow bad? Whatever works in the film is good. Same with the score, sometimes big classic orchestral scores like that which you're talking about really arent going to work for the film. Similarly, why is it some people seem to think all music has to be orchestral. Oh my god, they cry, MI2 was awfull, listen to all the rock music in Zimmers score. What a tragady to film scoring. Except it was never meant to be an orchestral score! I really dont think some people are open to different kinds of music. Fight Club wouldnt have been the same with an orchestral score and Pulp Fiction certianly wouldnt have been. 



> > Zimmer, Elfman, Horner, James Newton Howard, Thomas Newman have some of the most recognisable original sounds in hollywood. They DO have an original sound. Its people that copy those guys you should be complaining about.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. There was a far wider range of musical ideas earlier last century up to about the end of the 70's. Then the ideas pot began to narrow. The composers you have mentioned are close to each other on many levels, that for me, fails to instill a sense of originality, but merely paraphrases what seems a general pool of ideas, with each never straying too far from 'safe ground.'


I can recognise Zimmer, Williams, Elfman, Newman and Newton Howard. That in itself is originality. I hope one day to have reached a point where I have my own style, that could be considered orginal. Some composers never get that, so to those that do I take my hat off to them. You seem to want the impossible, honestly.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Hermitage59 @ Thu Jun 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:
> ...



But what's bizzare about it Ed? I hear something, you hear something else. Our views are different. I don't think you're bizzare in your views, because you prefer the current batch of composers who are populist, meaning they get hired by the studios. Just because they're on the credits, doesn't mean as a musician i must assume they are good, have their own style and are original. For me to assume that, and ignore what i hear musically WOULD be bizzare.



> > > You could say the same thing about Williams
> >
> >
> > Erm, yep. Agreed, although he did manage an original melody or two.
> ...


 Not at all, and the names we've mentioned aren't the only composers in Hollywood, any more than Hollywood is the only film industry on the planet.
I've heard some great demos from people here and elsewhere that are more than a match for the current composers, and more original. See the bit above about credits in a film. That's a matter of knowing the right people, and business, not neccessarily any more competence in musical terms.



> > > You think guys like Thomas Newman or James Newton Howard are also boring? If you want to be consistent they must be, they all do the same things you complain about that these guys above do.
> >
> >
> > Not complaining Ed, just observations and opinions, same as you.
> ...


No. That's a no, no.



> > If you want one to listen to, try finding Zoya, and listen to the score, and you'll understand why i find the adulation of many modern format scores and their composers something i find myself unwillng to do from a musical/image perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. It's a matter of taste. I get a lot more musically from other composers (including the aforementioned demos from talented people here and elsewhere) in general than the current generic batch of populist composers. It doesn't mean they're bad, simply the fact they don't rock my boat, and i hear less originality. 



> > I will agree that this is subjective, and a matter of opinion. You seem to like the populist mainstream modern composers, i'm not so enthusiastic. Shall we agree to disagree?
> 
> 
> Sure, if you agree your reasons for disliking them are unreasonable.


So i have to agree my views are unreasonable as a condition of your acceptance?
Not going to happen. My views are my own, if you think they're unreasonable, that's your choice.



> > > Excuse me, but trhe directors choice of songs is invariably nothing to do with the composer. Unless you are bizzarly calling Zimmers modern stuff "rap".
> >
> >
> > Really? Zimmer's rap? No, I don't think so.
> ...



Hehe....



> > More of a general comment about the inclusion of music that serves a different purpose that doesn't relate to image, but for demographic markets. (Mind you, this isn't a new idea.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think songs are bad at all. But the current trend reflects bad taste in choice (IMO), and are often out of context. You wouldn't put a rap song in the Sound of Music to satisfy the MTV generation would you? Why are other films different?



> > > Zimmer, Elfman, Horner, James Newton Howard, Thomas Newman have some of the most recognisable original sounds in hollywood. They DO have an original sound. Its people that copy those guys you should be complaining about.
> >
> >
> >
> ...



I don't want the impossible at all. I think in general much of today's film music is boring, and generic. That's not impossible, just my subjective opinion. Mediocrity seems to be gaining an ever greater hold. Think of the brilliiant orchestrations of the past in film, not only orchestral. There were clever musical elements that delighted me when i heard them. Much of today's orchestration is simplistic, and doesn't always reflect the action on the screen. 
Anyway, i disagree with you, and you disagree with me. That's makes neither of us insane or bizzare, just different.


----------



## midphase (Jun 29, 2006)

I agree!


----------



## José Herring (Jun 29, 2006)

I think a lot of it is just the nature of this business and the greed of a lot of people that work in it.

A lot of composers only really care about a) how often they work and b) how much they get paid.

But quite Frankly if you're doing 6 to 10 films/year averaging 60 minutes of music per film, how original are you going to be. Not very. I sometimes don't really think that a lot of the top composers really want to be working that much. Look how many jobs Hans pawns off on other composers. But, who's going to say no. Danny Elfman's last reported salary was $2,000,000. Woo Wee. I'd rip myself off over and over and over again. Bring on Spidy XXVI with the same themes again and again and again. At 2mil a pop who's going to say no.

On the other hand I think JW has done a good job of limiting the amount of work he does and choosing to pick the project over the money. Many people have offered the world to this guy and he's said no plenty of times to say yes to some project that doesn't pay as much but that he really wants to do. He hasn't wasted much time doing megabuck Disney / Pixar films though I'm sure he's been asked repeatedly to do them. He could have made a fortune off of films like Toy Story or similar films and has chosen not to go in that direction. Having done plenty of that stuff in his younger days perhaps he's just not into it. But, there are a lot of composers who would just take the money, puke out some standard crap, and make the money ten times over again and again.

I think that Harry Gregson-Williams had the best term for what we do, "music made to order". Kind of reminds me of McDonalds. Not so bad as long as you don't resist it and realize that 90% of your audience doesn't really want anything original or new. They just want to forget about their problems for 2 hours and enjoy a movie. Nothing wrong with that really. Life has a lot of upsets. Helping somebody to forget about them for 2 hours is not a bad function to fufill in life. 

It's a tricky business. I've resisted a lot of commercial stuff in favor of more art indie stuff. But, it hasn't really gotten me to where I want to be so now a days I'm changing my tune. 

I think that if you are successfull enough you can then be rewarded with the luxury of choosing the right projects artistically. But, I think that if you start out that way then it's tough.

So my brothers, I'm going to feed the machine for a while, then hopefully if I'm successfull enough doing that I'll move on to some film that might really mean something. But, even if not. I love seeing the look on my son's face when he was watching "Cars". I almost fell asleep, but he loved it.

I ramble. Good day.

Jose


----------



## PaulR (Jun 30, 2006)

Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Paul, you think Cuthroat Island is a bad score because the movie wasnt good?



Ed - embarrassingly, I have to admit I've neither heard it or seen it. Who wrote it and who's in it?


----------



## PaulR (Jun 30, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Can you point out some movies Shostakovich scored so i can see them?



You might want to check out Battleship Potemkin - the re-issue has the scoring of Shostakovitch I believe. This is a very famous film made around 1924 or 25 directed by Eisenstein. Marvellous piece of film making in my view. 
The Untouchables - made very recently and an excellent film in a lot of ways, cleverly utilises a scene from Battleship Potemkin regarding the woman at the station trying to get a pram up the stairs. Also, one of the best scores ever written for a film by Ennio Moriconne - quite superb scoring, especially the opening titles and the scene that introduces Robert de Niro's character. That's just sheer class and huge envy from me. :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 30, 2006)

Thanks for the movie list Alex buddy, now i hope that i can find those movies somwhere here, where all the blockbusters are overcrowding the last true voices and pushing them off the boat of human history.

Welcome to the age of Hollywood and McDonalds! Please enjoy our burgers, they have 2.5% meat - That's a whole 1% more than last year you morons!

Goodbye Shostakovich, Beethoven and Co. We don't need the products you grew naturally and with love in your rich garden anymore. We have Mac-shit to eat and Holy-Shit music to hear.

Mental health? Food for the soul? Who needs that stuff when you have money to buy everything.

I will spend my soul to get rich and then i'll buy a new soul with that money, plus, i'll have money too!!! Sounds good to me.

.rantover


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 30, 2006)

Hey PaulR, thanks!! Just saw your reply. It should be very easy to find the Untouchables. Morricone is wonderful.

Battleship Potemkin? Looks a bit harder to find... but where there's will there's a way 

Cheers,


----------



## PaulR (Jun 30, 2006)

Ed @ Thu Jun 29 said:


> Zimmer, Elfman, Horner, James Newton Howard, Thomas Newman have some of the most recognisable original sounds in hollywood. They DO have an original sound. Its people that copy those guys you should be complaining about.



Ed - that is true in some ways. Especially Thomas Newman who has been copied over and over again. Personally, I admire Thomas Newman's work a great deal - and then when I hear him do the same score again for another film - I admire him all over again. Just for the scoring to The Shawshank Redemption and the completely correct mood he creates, he is a worthy contender. Naturally, he didn't win the oscar for that score, because the Academy doesn't recognize class when it hears it - they would rather give every award going that year to Forest Gump - which is total bollocks as any thinking person knows. But that's the Academy Awards - fucking bollocks.

James Newton Howard scored a rather nice feel good film called Dave - that was good scoring to me. Basically, he is an out and out workhorse. Amazing staying power and I was impressed at his hard work for a totally misplaced remake of King Kong.

For all of the above you quote - the orchestrators have a lot to be thanked for. And Ralph Vaughn Williams too.
You can't complain about people copying these writers too much in my view. That's almost crazy if you think about it.


----------



## PaulR (Jun 30, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> Hey PaulR, thanks!! Just saw your reply. It should be very easy to find the Untouchables. Morricone is wonderful.
> Battleship Potemkin? Looks a bit harder to find... but where there's will there's a way
> Cheers,



Oh Christ YES! Moriconne is one of the top three that ever lived - he's an absolute original for film work. A star writer. Sure, like all the others, he repeats himself sometimes - but so what? Rarely writes a crap score. All the great score writers have one thing in common - they completely understand film and what the film is trying to convey. Moriconne used very unusual instrumentation which makes it all stand out from the rest. Herrmann was the same - but not so much the unusual use of instrumentation, more the actual amount of it. :lol: 

Another very good score writer steeped in film from a very early age, because his father owned about 12 cinemas is John Barry - he really understood film and how to achieve excitement and glamour in scoring. Very well trained musician.

You might want to look out for Metropolis - with the score done solely on a huge modular Moog. This was re-done about 30 years ago and I wish I had that one.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jun 30, 2006)

Paul man i'm all with you.. first time i heard "the good the bad and the ugly" theme i was astounded! So simple and clever writing and strong too. It was like every single note had a reason of beeing there. 

And that's when i fell in love with Ennio's stuff and wanted to hear more 

Metropolis you mean the old Germal film? I think i saw it but didn't pay attention to the music at the time.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> Thanks for the movie list Alex buddy, now i hope that i can find those movies somwhere here, where all the blockbusters are overcrowding the last true voices and pushing them off the boat of human history.
> 
> Welcome to the age of Hollywood and McDonalds! Please enjoy our burgers, they have 2.5% meat - That's a whole 1% more than last year you morons!
> 
> ...



You're confusing apples and oranges and you're having 20/20 hindsite which is all to common.

When I was in school we did a series of concerts with The Metropolitan Opera, NY Philharmonic, and the rest of the ensembles at Lincoln Center where between us all we performed every piece of music that Mozart wrote. Trust me. The man has like 20 or so "original" pieces and about 300 pieces of gig "McMusic".

So he gets know for the 20 or so original pieces. But sadly enough he didn't really make a lot of money on the original pieces. He made most of his money on the crap that he banged out over night for this or that party or event. He had good comp chops and could rearrange himself over and over and over and over and over and over again.

So it's okay to look back and say "oooo, they where sooooo good back then and everybody today sucks". Bollocks! I tell you BOLLOCKS!!. 

For the one original "Good, Bad and the Ugly score" there where 20 crappy ass spaghetti westerns that are much worse than what anybody does today.

Of course some of Shostakovich's music is good but there's hours of endless poorly orchestrated, poorly conceived melodies that drone on and on and on with no end. 

You could point to the few composers that are good enough to actually write original music. But if you go through the body of their work you'll find that it's really only a few pieces that are original that they're remember for. Take a look at Beethoven Sonatas. Not every one of them is a stellar piece of art but everyone of them did help pay the bills.

So you're left with a choice. Work in insurance and try to bang out "original" music on your own time. Hoping that someday you're good enough to actually do it, and then maybe waking up one day and realizing that you're not good enough. Or, just write music and try to be as good as you can be and if you're not good enough to write the best most original music in the world, well, at least you got paid.

I actually find that the rant about "how good they all were back then..." to be really stupid and erroneous. 20/20 hindsight really. Really go back and take a look at all the little pieces of crap that Hermann wrote. He was good enough to write the best film music, but he didn't do it all the time. So for every Taxi Driver level score he wrote, he also wrote 10 Night Rider type scores that he did, just to pay the bills.

I think that a lot of composers don't realize that for the most part you're an unknown. People that pay money hate unknowns. Would you buy a car that's unknown? No. So in the gigs that I've actually gotten paid for they've been all gigs that the payer is asking for a known. Mozart, John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Hans Zimmer, are some of the music I'm suppose to give them. So sometimes you just have to be an artisan, but if you're also an artist your voice will come through and people will sooner or later recognize it and start to dig on that too.

So for me it's always been 50/50. 50% artisan and 50% artist. I'm fine with that. I don't have to be original. I can be. But, I don't have to be.


----------



## PaulR (Jun 30, 2006)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> So it's okay to look back and say "oooo, they where sooooo good back then and everybody today sucks". Bollocks! I tell you BOLLOCKS!!.
> For the one original "Good, Bad and the Ugly score" there where 20 crappy ass spaghetti westerns that are much worse than what anybody does today.
> Really go back and take a look at all the little pieces of crap that Hermann wrote. He was good enough to write the best film music, but he didn't do it all the time. So for every Taxi Driver level score he wrote, he also wrote 10 Night Rider type scores that he did, just to pay the bills.



That's a very interesting rant you've got going there Jose. I think you need to lighten up on that one before the hot water arrives.

Based on the first part of your theory, this immediately says that Elfman, Williams and say Newman and Horner will all be considered crap in say - 35 years time. Is that correct?

It is NOT just about the scores. It's about the film as a a whole and the understanding that some of these guys had about FILM - not just how to write film music.

There are probably 500 crappy ass spag westerns - but Moriconne didn't SCORE them.
Of course Herrmann didn't write great stuff all the time - who writes great stuff all the time? Not even Mozart did that.

It's the great stuff they DID and DO write that is interesting.

What is your point here? Do you want to talk about interesting films and their scores - or would you prefer to talk about MONEY! Because I can talk about money until the cows come home - I've FORGOTTEN more about money than you probably KNOW! 
I find talking about MONEY f**king VULGAR.

Does that answer your question my dear fellow?

:lol:


----------



## José Herring (Jun 30, 2006)

I'm talking about making money doing music which is something that the neo ultra idealist composers seem to forget about.

In truth. I don't like money. Never have. I think it degrades art. It's crap. Pieces of big crap that other people find very valuable. It's become so valuable that in this country anyways you can't survive without it. So I'm forced to think that money is important. But deep down I could care or less.

So back to my point. If you read my post and then read yours you'll see that we're saying almost the same things.

Best,

Jose


----------



## rJames (Jun 30, 2006)

PaulR @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> Because I can talk about money until the cows come home - I've FORGOTTEN more about money than you probably KNOW!
> I find talking about MONEY f**king VULGAR.
> 
> Does that answer your question my dear fellow?
> ...



Paul, you always seemed a bit elitist in your posts, but this takes the cake.


----------



## kid-surf (Jul 1, 2006)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> But deep down I could care or less.



Then why don't you? :lol: At least you've got room for growth.... :razz: 


Copying --- I'm not sure composers have much room when there's a temp score the director LOVES and 3 1/2 days to compose 159 minutes of music.

At that point I'd guess those top guys go into some sorta altered state of consciousness. They probably don't even remember what they wrote when it's done. That's like, "first past writing". 


Thomas Newman is the best composer, period! (ok now rant at me) 

He's at the very top in my book. Yet I haven't ripped him off (much)  I too am attempting to have my own signature. I think that if you have a "point of view" then it's inevitable [a signature sound]. The guys that can't (and never have had) an original idea that turned out great/good, those guys should maybe worry about the long run. Eventually you must hit the ceiling if you don't have that "it" factor.

I feel like I can hear whether or not people are emotionally connected to the music they write... sometimes I "feel" it, and sometimes I get the feeling that the particular (new comer) composer will never have a signature sound. I think for guys like us it should already be showing.....

My opinions........


----------



## PaulR (Jul 1, 2006)

rJames @ Fri Jun 30 said:


> Paul, you always seemed a bit elitist in your posts, but this takes the cake.



Of course I'm elitist! I'm not a BIT elitist - I'm TOTALLY elitist. That way I've found that I don't have to clutter my brain with crap. Live with it.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 1, 2006)

Hi Jose,



> So it's okay to look back and say "oooo, they where sooooo good back then and everybody today sucks". Bollocks! I tell you BOLLOCKS!!.



Why, is it a lie? Does the fact that Mozart wrote commercial music back mean that the music itself was crap? Well my friend, today it does mean that. The term commercial and gig music has changed a lot since then because those were times where people appreciated art in a very different way than we do today. There was no tv, no radio and no ways of mass brainwashing (except religion perhaps), also there was no constant hurry of providing "content" for the TV sheep like today. 

Literature, poetry, theater and building design to name a few were rich and elaborately crafted back then. Art gives the impression it was designed with one thing in mind: to please the human senses and the soul with beauty, to reach the godlike!

Today no one cares about beauty anymore! People are too much in a hurry in their luxurious cars to even see it when it comes by. OUr minds have been so infused with violence, killing, sex, midless action and stupidity that we are losing our sensitivity and any gentle feelings we might have. Don't you see that it's inhuman? Can't you see where this world will be in 50 years? Perhaps that's the way they want us to be because it's sensible people and with feelings that start the revolutions and stand up for their ideas. Heck, people don't even know how to cry listening to music anymore today.

As for the Hindsight remark, I don't think that truth has ever blinded anyone, it's the people who find it too bright that need to cover their eyes.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 1, 2006)

Theo I don't really disagree with you. I personally think that guys like Zimmer hitting us over the head with too big music 90% of the duration of a film is completely horrible for any thinking feeling person who is actually awake enough to be aware of their own existence.

What I'm saying is that back in the day when there was no media there was also not much of an audience for music. And composers and musicians generally starved and died too young becòf   >H€f   >Hf   >H‚f   >Hƒf   >H„f   >H…f   >H†f   >H‡f   >Hˆf   >H‰f   >HŠf   >H‹f   >HŒf   >Hf   >HŽf   >Hf   >Hf   >H‘f   >H’f   >H“f   >H”f   >H•f   >H–f   >H—f   >H˜f   >H™f   >Hšf   >H›f   >Hœf   >Hf   >Hžf   >HŸf€   >H f€   >H¡f€   >H¢f€   >H£f€   >H¤f€   >H¥f€   >H¦f€   >H§f€   >H¨f€   >H©f€   >Hªf€   >H«f€   >H¬f€   >H­f€   >H®f€   >H¯f€   >H°f€   >H±f€   >H²f€   >H³f€   >H´f€   >Hµf€   >H¶f€   >H·f€   >H¸f€   >H¹f€   >Hºf€   >H»f€   >H¼f€   >H½f€   >H¾f€   >H¿f€   >HÀf€   >HÁf€   >HÂf€   >HÃf€   >HÄf€   >HÅf€   >HÆf€   >HÇf€   >HÈf€   >HÉf€   >HÊf€   >HËf€   >HÌf€   >HÍf€   >HÎf€   >HÏf€   >HÐf€   >HÑf€   >HÒf€   >HÓ


----------



## rJames (Jul 1, 2006)

I think I'm with Jose on this, generally.

Most artists, through time, have worked for someone. They had a sponsor. they couldn't do work that criticised the status quo without hiding it in analogy and symbolism.
My guess is that 99% of great artists fulfilled the desires of their sponsors and in doing so, created great art.

I don't want to be argumentative, just stating my opinion. I think Theo's attitude is a bit pessimistic, "the glass is half full."

From a different perspective (I suppose I'll get flack for using a simple pop song lyric as philosophy), "these ARE the good old days."

In a few decades composers like us will have sifted through the shit that this generation has produced and the few greats will be all that anyone remembers.

They will be writing the same thing on some forum at that time.

The same will be true of literature, poetry, architecture, etc.

I believe that the majority of mankind has always had his mind filled with, "violence, killing, sex, mindless action and stupidity." I don't believe there ever was much sensitivity and gentle feeling.

We are artists; some good, some great, some bad; but we are artists. We are a different kind. Unluckily, a minority.

Great art is alive. It is hidden in full view, among the crap that obscures it, for future generations to discover.


----------



## PaulR (Jul 2, 2006)

rJames @ Sat Jul 01 said:


> From a different perspective (I suppose I'll get flack for using a simple pop song lyric as philosophy), "these ARE the good old days."



Well you might get flak  

To me, there is no such thing as good or bad old days when it comes any kind of form of art - in this case the artform of film as a whole. Time doesn't matter - time is irrelevant. Time is an invention for people to stamp and file things so they stay happy with their clerk-like nerdy ways. Yes, it's useful to know when something came out and then get into a whole new debate about what was happening sociologically at that moment - that's a whole massive debate in itself. And the reason for the creation of anything artistic in the first place is another big issue.

I don't care that Carravagio painted something yesterday or 400 years ago - it's makes no odds to me whether they were good days then or not. I don't wish to compare what I perceive to be good or bad anything based on time.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 2, 2006)

> Jose: Personally I can't stand the composer who doesn't take his audience into consideration.



Please point me to a few Jose! :smile: 



> Jose: And furthermore, you're blasting religion as brainwashing which I'm not really inclined to disagree. But then you talk about how good art was back then as if you don't know that most of the great art in Bach and Mozart's time was done for the churches and that religous music served as one of the only ways a composer could get paid for his craft.



Yes Jose, you are right on this.

Even though writing religious music for money is not my cup of tea, i appreciate the fact that writing for God can have a good outcome. At least composers can have something beautiful to write for: they can imagine writing for an angels choir, purity, kindness, divinity or whatever big like that and their music has to reflect that.

I didn't blast religion as i'm not against it, i'm just against it beeing enforced.



> Ron: My guess is that 99% of great artists fulfilled the desires of their sponsors and in doing so, created great art.



Dear Ron,

I totally disagree on your sponsor statements. How can you consider people who just fulfill their sponsors desires as artists in the first place? 

If it's the sponsors vision that makes great music, it should be the sponsors that are remembered through history and not the composer. Who the hell is Beethoven? If he didn't have his sponsor he would be nothing i guess.

On a sidenote, sometimes i have the impression that people in these forums forget that there is music outside of the Movie world. That there are people and bands who spend 2 or 3 years to write 9 tracks of music and then try to sell a CD and make a living. Not all musicians have to serve someone and sell their music minute by minute. Not all music in this world is reaslistic cue after cue to catch the attention of a director. Some people still like to make music for the sake of music in the same way that some artists prefer to make paintings rather than study logo design. It's all about personal vision.



> Ron: I think Theo's attitude is a bit pessimistic, "the glass is half full."



On the contrary my friend, i am so optimistic as to believe that it's not late enough for people to see where this world is going and fight against the flow taking us to oblivion. Don't let the smiley-less posts fool you  



> Ron: Great art is alive. It is hidden in full view, among the crap that obscures it, for future generations to discover.



Totally agreed Ron. And lets hope some of those artists will live to see their art beeing appreciated!


----------



## rJames (Jul 2, 2006)

I see where you're coming from Theo. There is some great art produced by pop culture musicians and writers that will have longevity. 
But, I think that there are very few pieces of music that we consider great today that were written by the local band trying to make a living and get recognized from midieval times. There may be a few tunes like this from throughout history.

The bulk of what we see as "great" are the symphonic pieces that were composed for sponsors. (actually this is more of an educated guess since I am not interested in music history)

You must know that I am not saying that a rich sponsor told daVinci to put a little more blue over there and could you please make that smile a little more enigmatic. Nor would they say, "shouldn't we go to a Bb there?"

But without money and orchestras, we would not know these works. 

So, converse of what you say about the modern era of, "no one cares about beauty anymore! People are too much in a hurry in their luxurious cars..." this era has enabled artists who never before in time had a chance to be heard, to have a voice and add to the artistic beauty that we can choose to see or hear.

Musicians who create 9 tracks in a year and try to sell a CD are serving a patron as well. IN the exact same way. They are being true to themselves while trying to capture the favor of the sponsor. Some will, some won't.

Same as with Beethoven and other "great composers." It's no different; recognition leads to money, survival and the chance to write more. 

No money, no survival, no chance to create great art.

I don't think that Jose (and certainly not me) believe that it is either black or white.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 2, 2006)

TheoKrueger @ Sun Jul 02 said:


> > Jose: Personally I can't stand the composer who doesn't take his audience into consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Milton Babbit, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Micheal Finnissy, Eliot Carter.

Some of these guys are my personal opinion. some others are avowed audience haters.


----------



## TheoKrueger (Jul 3, 2006)

> Ron: So, converse of what you say about the modern era of, "no one cares about beauty anymore! People are too much in a hurry in their luxurious cars..." this era has enabled artists who never before in time had a chance to be heard, to have a voice and add to the artistic beauty that we can choose to see or hear.



Yes i agree Ron, it's so easy to network and have your work heard today. That is something great for all of us, musicians and listeners alike. I just believe that life is too fast paced nowadays (Especially in the cities), so fast that people forget to enjoy the very small things and lack the peace to create those simple things that matter.



> Jose: Milton Babbit, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Micheal Finnissy, Eliot Carter.
> 
> Some of these guys are my personal opinion. some others are avowed audience haters.



Jose thanks for the suggestions! Audience haters? Ooh, that sounds a bit misanthropic eh? I didn't mean it so far! 

I think there are three types of people: Comformists, anti-conformists and people who are Free of both the formentioned. What i am trying to say generally is that artists should be free. Neither crowd haters or lovers, just be themselves. 

But, anyway. No need to regurgitate the conversation again. :wink: 

Cheers


----------

