# Are there industry "traditions" and should we / do we respond to them?



## JohnG (Jan 27, 2009)

I am willing to accept that there is no correct way, exactly, to score a film. Right or wrong, however, when I'm writing I find myself quite conscious of those who have gone before and feel oddly but powerfully deferential toward their body of work, and toward what I perceive to be a better-educated / schooled crowd that used to score most films. 

This seems crazy in a way -- the whole point perhaps is to write originally and damn tradition etc., but that's how I feel as I'm writing, as though there's some sort of obligation to aim for an objective or quasi-objective standard musically as valid and artistically as great as the best writers of the past. Not out of ambition alone, either, but out of some kind of a perhaps-misplaced awe.

In some tangential way, this feeling goes along with another thought that I believe in, which is that when I've 'written' a piece, it feels more that I have stumbled onto a combination of notes and sonorities that succeeds well, but that anyone else could have stumbled on it -- I just got there first.

Sometimes all this interferes with writing, frankly, but there it is.

I would be interested in others' thoughts on "what we are doing here?" or "what do we owe the tradition?" Maybe some think there isn't a tradition at all, or that this perception is just exaggerating the importance a pursuit that is more craft than art, or the whole question is nonsense, but I would be curious to hear from others nonetheless. 

I think that the notion of a tradition, and an implicit obligation to reach for a standard beyond "just getting the job done" bear on the sensitivity many have expressed on the forum to temp scores and their influence, the rise of sheer volume and noise in soundtracks, and the presence of some composers in film or TV who don't seem to have much musical training, more marketing and sound-juggling skills.

Baseball -- Another Arguably Trivial Endeavor

I was put in mind of this general question about a "tradition" in film music by a David Brooks editorial in the New York Times that quoted Ryne Sandberg, as he was inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame in 2005:

“'I was in awe every time I walked onto the field. That’s respect. I was taught you never, ever disrespect your opponents or your teammates or your organization or your manager and never, ever your uniform. You make a great play, act like you’ve done it before; get a big hit, look for the third base coach and get ready to run the bases.'”

"Sandberg motioned to those inducted before him, “'These guys sitting up here did not pave the way for the rest of us so that players could swing for the fences every time up and forget how to move a runner over to third. It’s disrespectful to them, to you and to the game of baseball that we all played growing up.'"

“'Respect. A lot of people say this honor validates my career, but I didn’t work hard for validation. I didn’t play the game right because I saw a reward at the end of the tunnel. I played it right because that’s what you’re supposed to do, play it right and with respect ... . If this validates anything, it’s that guys who taught me the game ... did what they were supposed to do, and I did what I was supposed to do.'”


----------



## JonFairhurst (Jan 27, 2009)

I think the keys are to know your goals, know your audience, and please them.

This weekend, I watched _The Fifth Horseman is Fear_, a film from the Czech New Wave. While watching it, I noticed a number of things that were "wrong" - that I would have done differently and more traditionally. But in the end, the quirkiness of the film was exactly what made it haunting and memorable.

But it didn't make a dime at the American box office.

FWIW, here's my review of the film. If you like truly original films, I highly recommend it. (And if you only like traditional linear narratives, do yourself a favor and skip it.)
http://dirksnowglobe.com/articles/28


----------



## Markus S (Jan 28, 2009)

Interesting topic. I think on a larger scale there are not only industry traditions, how to write a score to picture, but also simply music traditions, how to write music (or a general image of wòÆn   “‘õÆn   “‘öÆn   “‘÷Æn   “‘øÆn   “‘ùÆn   “‘úÆn   “‘ûÆn   “‘üÆn   “‘ýÆn   “‘þÆn   “‘ÿÆn   “’ Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’	Æn   “’
Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’ Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’Æn   “’ Æn   “’!Æn   “’"Æo   “’#Æo   “’$Æo   “’%Æo   “’&Æo   “’'Æo   “’(Æo   “’)Æo   “’*Æo   “’+Æo   “’,Æo   “’-Æo   “’.Æo   “’/Æo   “’0Æo   “’1Æo   “’2Æo   “’3Æo   “’4Æo   “’5Æo   “’6Æo   “’7Æo   “’8Æo   “’9Æo   “’:Æo   “’;Æo   “’<Æo   “’=Æo   “’>Æo   “’?Æo   “’@Æo   “’AÆo   “’BÆo   “’CÆo   “’DÆo   “’EÆo   “’FÆo   “’GÆo   “’HÆo   “’oÆo   “’pÆp   “’IÆp   “’JÆp   “’KÆp   “’LÆp   “’MÆp   “’NÆp   “’OÆp   “’PÆp   “’QÆp   “’RÆp   “’SÆp   “’TÆp   “’UÆp   “’VÆp   “’WÆp   “’XÆp   “’YÆp   “’ZÆp   “’[Æp   “’\Æp   “’]Æp   “’^Æp   “’_Æp   “’`Æp   “’aÆp   “’b              òÆp   “’dÆp   “’eÆp   “’fÆp   “’gÆp   “’hÆp   “’iÆp   “’jÆp   “’kÆp   “’lÆp   “’mÆp   “’nÆq   “’qÆq   “’rÆq   “’sÆq   “’tÆq   “’uÆq   “’vÆq   “’wÆq   “’xÆr   “’yÆr   “’zÆr   “’{Ær   “’|Ær   “’}Ær   “’~Ær   “’Ær   “’€Ær   “’Ær   “’‚Ær   “’ƒÆr   “’„Ær   “’…Ær   “’†Ær   “’‡Ær   “’ˆÆr   “’‰Ær   “’ŠÆr   “’‹Ær   “’ŒÆr   “’Ær   “’ŽÆr   “’Ær   “’Ær   “’‘Ær   “’’Ær   “’“Ær   “’”Ær   “’•Ær   “’–Ær   “’—Ær   “’˜Ær   “’™Ær   “’šÆr   “’›Ær   “’œÆr   “’Ær   “’žÆr   “’ŸÆr   “’ Ær   “’¡Ær   “’¢Ær   “’£Ær   “’¤Ær   “’¥Ær   “’¦Ær   “’§Ær   “’¨Ær   “’©Ær   “’ªÆr   “’«Ær   “’¬Ær   “’­Ær   “’®Ær   “’¯Ær   “’°Ær   “’±Ær   “’²Ær   “’³Ær   “’´Ær   “’µÆr   “’¶Ær   “’·Ær   “’¸Ær   “’¹Ær   “’ºÆr   “’»Ær   “’¼Ær   “’½Ær   “’¾Ær   “’¿Ær   “’ÀÆr   “’ÁÆr   “’ÂÆr   “’ÃÆr   “’ÄÆr   “’ÅÆr   “’ÆÆs   “’ÇÆs   “’ÈÆs   “’ÉÆs   “’ÊÆs   “’ËÆs   “’ÌÆs   “’ÍÆs   “’ÎÆs   “’ÏÆs   “’ÐÆs   “’ÑÆs   “’ÒÆs   “’ÓÆs   “’ÔÆs   “’Õ              òÆs   “’×Æs   “’ØÆs   “’ÙÆs   “’ÚÆs   “’ÛÆs   “’ÜÆs   “’ÝÆs   “’ÞÆt   “’ßÆt   “’àÆt   “’áÆt   “’âÆt   “’ãÆt   “’äÆt


----------



## nikolas (Jan 28, 2009)

I do think that this is the fate of music which 'serves' other media. Without putting down anything and I hope you know that I work in computer games, apart from the academia. 

But there does appear to be a tradition, starting from the audience and what one expects to listen. What works well (to what Marcus says), is what you need to use. I've tried to try 'different' in a few projects and in some cases it worked and in other cases it didn't! But there was the time to experiment with such things, not anymore.

I would argue that there is a connection between the pair of composition-orchestration and music-media. You can't really work on serial music (for example), and orchestrate it like it was Beethoven. It will sound 'wrong'. Exactly like taking a lovely Italian melody, aria-like and orchestrating it with snyths and percussion only. 

Simmilarly the aesthetics of the media must match, one way or another, the music (actually the opposite). And since... what matches is closely connected to our experiences and what has been done: there you have it: tradition. 

_____________________

Greatest pleasure I've had so far, while working, is being allowed to do whatever the hell I wanted in a computer game, and finding ways to 'bend' the tradition a little bit, towards what I felt was necessary. This game, I think, worked pretty well (reviews were extremely good on the music, while the game did not do extremely well itself), and in the end I was happy. Of course the collaboration with the designers was perfect and I did put a lot of effort and a lot of time (which was ample to do such a thing).

Very nice topic, John!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 28, 2009)

Call me cynical this morning, but right now, I feel that it makes so little difference how we feel about our place in scoring tradition. This is because I believe that most viewers don't give a crap. 

Whether the audience knows it or not, they just want the music to get out of the way of their understanding of the plot, of their appreciation of Brangelina's pecs. Concert music, otoh, has a more knowledgeable audience, one that might appreciate a quote from Mozart or Stockhausen. The same actually holds true for all music genres: shout-outs from Missy Elliot to old school; a young jazz soloist respectfully adding some Coltrane riff to her solo; Keith Urban doing a Hank Williams' tune; etc. In our case, the public barely considers the score, and even fewer might notice that one is writing in a Herrmann or Goldsmith style.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 28, 2009)

Thought-provoking responses. I am not surprised at the level of frustration in some of them, because it certainly is true that much of the time one feels that one's artistic / higher aspirations are buried under relatively petty / trivial demands of the media (working in film or, I assume, games).

But the fact that people find that burial irritating suggests to me that most of those posting wish for a film that would demand / allow a higher level of performance artistically than "groove-plus-chords-plus-hook-once-in-a-while."



Markus S @ 28th January 2009 said:


> In a situation where the director, wants new and unheard stuff, it is probably also an experimental film. And even then, we do have quite an idea how experimental stuff has to sound.  So, *I do believe that relating to the tradition is not only a necessary evil, but a great artistic resource*, from which we can learn so much. Some originality might come from variation, light variation, but if you want to do some research in music, I think it will be best to do this for your own (meaning without a product, that imposes so much of an artistic direction), or with very like minded artists. (make sure to post some of your music here, if you do!)



I think Markus makes a lot of good points. 

As much as I chafe at having to work in a genre, when I am NOT working in a genre, I have to think hard all the time and question everything I am doing, often rewriting earlier cues as I develop more of a personality and overall direction for the score. At least I do. It's a lot more artistic, but it's also a lot more resource-consuming.

Some composers seem to plan the whole score out ahead of time, but I usually just start writing for the more important dramatic moments, then skip all over and fill in later for the smaller / shorter cues. This is an exhausting way to work, but I find the results more satisfying.


----------



## midphase (Jan 28, 2009)

"Call me cynical this morning"

Can I call you goofy instead?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 28, 2009)

Valid points John.

I think that we all sometimes forget that the "traditional" composers that came before us were in their day quite ground breaking and in some ways still are ground breaking.

I fell into the trap for a while of worrying about what had come before me and also worrying about what more traditional composers think about my music. I've since moved on.

Just above the level of "respect for your elders" there's a type of expression that's unique to every individual. I started to tap that. My more inner feelings about music. What is it that I find fascinating about music and to be quite honest it was quite a shock.

I spent a lot of time educating myself in music and I've found that the education didn't pay off artistically until I was able to place it secondary to my own creative impulses. What I found for me personally is that I'm able to take technique from any time period or genre and create something new with it.

Perhaps someday it will actually mean something to somebody else, but at least I'm not cringing every time I hear my music played any more. I can stand up and say that I like it. It's unique to me.

Jose


----------



## madbulk (Jan 28, 2009)

Call me goofy but I say it's better to not suck and struggle with it than to suck and get away with it -- being original and true to yourself or compliant to the sub-of-traditional standard perhaps desired by your employer. That said, you gotta eat.
Longer term, I don't see how it fails to serve you, John, to consider what others might have done in the way of supporting a story, nor in terms of the craftsmanship they demanded of themselves.
But that's me. I'd never have made it at Eastman.


----------



## John DeBorde (Jan 28, 2009)

Right after I finished school I was part of a group of composers that were commissioned to write pieces for a Dutch new music ensemble. Before the premiere we had a press conference (something I don't think would ever happen in the US - who GAS about new music here?) and I was asked what it means to be an American composer.

My response that "it means that I can do whatever the heck I want" was the only part of the resultant article that was in English, so it really seemed to jump out at me as much more arrogant than I intended when I read it in the paper the next day. (Plus it was the only words I could understand).

What I had meant was that while many European composers see themselves as bound within the context of the tradition, as an American composer I do not feel that way, and can do whatever the heck I want, context be damned. Some might say this is just an ignorance on my part, but I don't really care, I just want to be able to express myself musically - as Jose said - for myself. 

So I do think that honoring historical context is important, and there certainly is a lot of precedent that is relevant to draw on in film scoring, but I don't think you should let it cramp your style, so to speak.

And as per you cynics, I would say that while most people if polled would not GAS (how do you like my new acronym?) about music, I do think that people are able to perceive an underlying degree of quality as part of an overall whole, even if they aren't able to identify any of the specifics that make it so.

Thus concludes my wind-baggery for this chilly winter's morn.

john


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 29, 2009)

Musicians set standards of quality for those who follow. It's just the nature of art. You can break from tradition in style but the tradition of high quality workmanship should never wane. Debussey is a long way from Beethoven in style but he executed his style with supreme artistry and craft. So did Jerry Goldsmith. So one is aware of went before and doesn't want to contribute some pitiful effort to it's history. Often times when someone speaks of the _commercialization_ of something they are bemoaning the fact that the artistry and integrity of it's roots has vanished. Nothing noble of a higher order remains, just crass commerce in order to turn a buck.

I would think whatever one's station or profession in life, they would want to excel and put forth their best. I think it was James Brown who shined shoes and apparently was the best kid around at it. That's the kind of person that goes on to make musical history.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 29, 2009)

good one, Dave. I think I feel as though I'm still shining shoes a lot!


----------



## IvanP (Jan 29, 2009)

nikolas @ Wed Jan 28 said:


> You can't really work on serial music (for example), and orchestrate it like it was Beethoven. It will sound 'wrong'. Exactly like taking a lovely Italian melody, aria-like and orchestrating it with snyths and percussion only.



Nice topic...

Nikolas, since I know you're trained as a contemporary composer, let me comment on that quote...

Isnt' precisely what you say it can't be done that what has been done on the opposite?
For example, talking of orchestration, what Webern did to the Musical Offering was an orchestration of a Baroque piece following serial acquainted òÇ;   “»'Ç;   “»(Ç;   “»)Ç;   “»*Ç;   “»+Ç;   “»,Ç;   “»-Ç;   “».Ç;   “»/Ç;   “»0Ç;   “»1Ç;   “»2Ç<   “»3Ç<   “»4Ç<   “»5Ç<   “»6Ç<   “»7Ç<   “»8Ç<   “»9Ç<   “»:Ç<   “»;Ç<   “»<Ç=   “»=Ç=   “»>Ç=   “»?Ç=   “»@Ç=   “»AÇ=   “»BÇ=   “»CÇ=   “»DÇ=   “»EÇ=   “»FÇ=   “»GÇ=   “»HÇ=   “»IÇ=   “»JÇ=   “»KÇ=   “»LÇ=   “»MÇ=   “»NÇ=   “»OÇ=   “»PÇ=   “»QÇ=   “»RÇ=   “»SÇ=   “»TÇ=   “»UÇ=   “»VÇ=   “»WÇ=   “»XÇ=   “»YÇ=   “»ZÇ=   “»[Ç=   “»\Ç=   “»]Ç=   “»^Ç=   “»_Ç=   “»`Ç=   “»aÇ=   “»bÇ=   “»cÇ=   “»dÇ=   “»eÇ=   “»fÇ=   “»gÇ=   “»hÇ=   “»iÇ=   “»jÇ=   “»kÇ=   “»lÇ>   “»mÇ>   “»nÇ>   “»oÇ>   “»pÇ>   “»qÇ>   “»rÇ>   “»sÇ>   “»tÇ>   “»uÇ>   “»vÇ>   “»wÇ>   “»xÇ?   “»yÇ?   “»zÇ?   “»{Ç?   “»|Ç?   “»}Ç?   “»~Ç?   “»Ç?   “»€Ç?   “»Ç?   “»‚Ç?   “»ƒÇ?   “»„Ç?   “»…Ç?   “»†Ç?   “»‡Ç?   “»ˆÇ?   “»‰Ç?   “»ŠÇ?   “»‹Ç?   “»ŒÇ?   “»Ç?   “»ŽÇ?   “»Ç?


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2009)

IvanP @ Thu Jan 29 said:


> nikolas @ Wed Jan 28 said:
> 
> 
> > You can't really work on serial music (for example), and orchestrate it like it was Beethoven. It will sound 'wrong'. Exactly like taking a lovely Italian melody, aria-like and orchestrating it with snyths and percussion only.
> ...


Fair enough... 

Thing is to differentiate between ignorance and choice... 

I was talking about the later. 

If you do want to go on and orchestrate Bach with synths, go ahead (already done). If you want to have Baroque-ish music but more contemporary go on again (Stravinsky, for example). It's all examples.

What I was saying is that usually things go hand in hand and Webber orchestrated with pointistilism rather than Beethovian orchestration, exactly like Debbusy used an harp, viola and piano (I think?), rather than a normal quartet. Then again he did write a masterful string quartet as well. 

For me, intentions, is what counts in the end. Butter, cello and two spiders? Why not if this is what you want and it 'serves the music'.

I hope it makes sense... :-/


----------



## Dave Connor (Jan 29, 2009)

rJames @ Thu Jan 29 said:


> Dave Connor @ Thu Jan 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Often times when someone speaks of the _commercialization_ of something they are bemoaning the fact that the artistry and integrity of it's roots has vanished.
> ...



I certainly couldn't do without Peg. You can't argue with the artistry (which is my point.) If someone wants to be more popular in style they still should bring the highest level of artistry they are capable of. Aaron Copeland's early works are pretty severe and not at all populist in nature. At some point he decided to create music that was far more accessible to the public. So now even young children know his music since it's part of the American psyche. No one could argue that he dropped down to some cheap level. In fact he is one of the biggest influences in film still today. Randy Newman sure has a lot of Copeland in his music. So there you have it.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 29, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ 29th January 2009 said:


> In many cases, it's best for a given scene that the score not .... take some of the viewer's attention from the overall film. It's a delicated balance between an intelligent, masterful score and one that doesn't call too much attention to itself. Quite another context when one is writing for the ears alone (concert, home listening)



Well, actually, I disagree with this perspective, that the music should not call much attention to itself or should limply remain unnoticed by the audience. On the contrary, many of the greatest films use concert music, or music that is both assertive and demanding of the viewer's attention.

Some individual cues maybe should be diffident, but my perspective is that if they want the music to be invisible / unheard, turn it off altogether. Music alters the picture -- it changes it, it digs in, it asserts itself and makes the film different.


----------



## nikolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Certainly they do use well known pieces, but the goal is probably to 'enhance' the feeling of the picture by adding that of the music. 

(Then again the usage of classical music in 2001, and children of men is simply fantastic!)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 29, 2009)

John,

I'm afraid that you've turned my "not call too much attention to itself" into, "bury the mofo". That's not what I meant. What I believe is that _in most cases_ the music is there to serve the picture, and if it's so interesting in and of itself, it may take away from the overall experience of a given scene. I know I've experienced this myself, but then again, I pay more attention to the score than the average person. The average viewer may simply react by noticing that the cool music has suddenly gone away - why? They noticed it too much, and the fade-out surprised them. Now they've got to catch up with any plot point they may have missed.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 29, 2009)

I didn't mean to exaggerate what you were saying, Ned -- sorry!

I was thinking of films like 2001, Star Wars, The Godfather, just about everything I can remember that Jerry Goldsmith scored (in which the music takes over repeatedly).

So that's what I was getting at. I think the degree of attention that the music does / should attract is part of the tradition that is getting lost, and one we don't control; the level in the mix of the music and its prominence is of course a director decision. 

But it's frequently wrong / a lost opportunity these days. I can't remember nearly enough of the Narnia movies' scores, for example -- the music was set to "medium" more or less all the time, except in a very few spots.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 29, 2009)

No prob, John.

It also helps when the director has left room for the music. Often, there's so much dialogue (including off-screen narration) wall-to-wall, that there's little room. Where are the sweeping, plunging-into-a-jungle montages? How much dialogue is there in many of the memorable score moments in history? Nowdays, often it seems to me, scenes with little or no dialogue are filled with source music, not score.


----------

