# Contemporary TV / Film music: important things & "NO-GOs"



## Toxeen (Nov 8, 2007)

Hi all,

Hopefully, this is a good opportunity to share any thoughts, insights and more. 

What do you think, are most important things and typical NO-GOs in modern (TV) film music ? 

Additionally, to the TV / film composer crowd: how many pitches do you participate in per year ?



-Boris


----------



## Toxeen (Nov 8, 2007)

For example:

- using modern sounds (synth and orchestral wise)
- no big and complex (poly)symphonic writing
- make it more simple but effective and convictive (clearly structured)
- no cliches
- mixing bright and clear


----------



## José Herring (Nov 8, 2007)

Toxeen @ Thu Nov 08 said:


> For example:
> 
> - using modern sounds (synth and orchestral wise)
> - no big and complex (poly)symphonic writing
> ...



It depends on the market.

Imo mocking up a full orchestra isn't that convincing of a final product. The only times I do it is when the film calls for an orchestral sound but no orchestra can be afforded. This imo puts the orchestral mockup in a very specific market. Mainly b films, direct to video, lower budget TV (sci-fi channel, ect..). Not to knock this in any way. It's all good work when you get it.

In the middle you have the hybrid score. This is becoming the bread and butter of Hollywood scores both TV and Film. These scores range from a mixture of synth and samples with a few live instruments to a mixture of synth and samples with full orchestras. Personally I think that this is the only way for a composer "up and coming" to think. The whole pallet of sounds is available to you.

It's a bit tricky because you have to write differently depending on the ensemble. Personally for TV and lower to middle budget films these days I get away from the idea of thinking orchestrally. I think in terms of synth based with sample and acoustic over dubs. Should I be called upon to do a large budget film I'd probably think orchestral based with synth and sample over dubs.

So basically you have to consider the final product. And organize from that point backwards. I've made the mistake for too long "wishing" I had an orchestra when I only have samples and a few live guys. In the end you just end up with a bad production.

In order to get everything to work together I think darker rather than brighter. Pop synth and a violin section don't match timber wise. But if you slap a low pass on the synth and add some distortion then take a little off the high end over the master buss you'll start to find that everything will blend better.

Of course there are a million exceptions to everything.

Jose


----------



## aeneas (Nov 8, 2007)

I though the temp tracks and the film makers' requirements are pretty much everything a composer needs to know about the music he or she must deliver for a project. Are there general things to keep in mind, things that would overrule those requirements?

What is a 'pitch'?


----------



## Stevie (Nov 15, 2007)

a pitch is a kind of competition. several composers participate (usually for free) to show their ideas for a certain project (intro music for a tv show). the composer with the best/appropriate results gets the job/money.

its actually a pretty shitty job to do but many agencies/tv stations do it like that.
you put effort and, in the worst case, you gain nothing. maybe another track for your library music archive. its nothing else than a gladiator fight, the best wins 

but to clearify, there are also paid pitches.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 15, 2007)

In more than 10 yrs doing this, I've never seen a paid pitch! I participate in about 4-6 a year where I have to write something new, and am asked for a demo about 8-10 times a year.

As for what's no-go's, I agree that these days, less is more. For film work, it pays to throw in flavours that are popular in the indie music scene. And that is always changing so it means you should be checking out new releases regularly. As for virtual-orchestra work, processed percs (a la RMX) with strings are popular, as is combining virtual with one or two or three real players on cello, guitar, wind, etc. Oh, and hybrid stuff that combines sounds/instr. from different cultures is also super popular. On the synth front, lots of pad chords are out, single thick synth lines are in (see French duo Justice), backed by simple bass lines + kick.

Of course, you'll completely disagree with me - go for it! =o


----------



## Stevie (Nov 15, 2007)

Hi Ned!

Yeah paid pitches exist, but they are very rare.

Hehe, au contraire, I totally agree with you 

Greets, 

Stevie


----------



## kid-surf (Nov 16, 2007)

I've done a few paid pitches in LA. Beats getting rejected for free... 


IMO -- #1 most important thing is to aim for a "style" all your own. Which is generally just about "not copycating". Costs you jobs initially (because all those low budget directors who suck are copying a bigger director anyway. See? So of corse they'd what the copycat music to go along with it.) but a unique style is the best chance one has to become "demanded" by the GOOD directors.

So many of those going for the quick (low budget) pay day will not advance because their catalog sounds identical to 8 trillion other composers all copying the 10 or so guys at the top... or was in 9 trillion? Anyway, those are just some worthless words from someone who doesn't care anymore.

Although, when I was offered "hip pocket" representation (which essentially means "we wont really do anything for you... cept for the off chance someone comes to use with a gig the 'name' composer spits his milk at") I was told it was "because" my music didn't sound like "all the rest". Whether that's true or not I don't know. But I would have a hard time deciding what composer to use if they all had the same music. I'm probably gonna notice they guy who's different at least somewhat different.

Too many composers catalogs have the same interchangeable cues. It because a blur of noise after a while, I'm sure. How do you stand out?


I decided to write my own movies instead and get out of that rat race. But had I continued on I would have further distanced myself, simply by ignoring the targets and doing what I like. Those trying to sound like someone else and writing toward a "target" it's like, good friggn luck ever breaking out of that if you never write anything "different".

Cheers,
KID


----------



## Stevie (Nov 16, 2007)

KID, I also agree on that.
having your own style makes you unique.
But I see one big problem, which always haunts me...
How do you get a personal style if you have a very broad musical style?
This would mean you develop your own style in orchestra, pop, funk, hip hop, jazz,
d&b, country, ethno, etc..
Is this possible anyway?


Greets, 

Stevie


----------



## Stevie (Nov 16, 2007)

:D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 16, 2007)

Even when you are known, there may still be times in your life when you cannot afford to turn down unpaid pitches, especially when you only make your living from composing for film/tv/games.


----------



## Stevie (Nov 16, 2007)

Well, true, you never know, when a new project appears...


----------



## Daniel James (Jan 23, 2008)

> KID, I also agree on that.
> having your own style makes you unique.
> But I see one big problem, which always haunts me...
> How do you get a personal style if you have a very broad musical style?
> ...



I think the best way to look at it (or at least the way I do) is to have a firm understanding of what each genre is, then when you come to create one of these select genres you still have a universal touch (style) to each one that identifies you....so that someone could listen to one of your compositions in any style and get that sense of you.

I try to do this in all of my work (http://www.dazdicks.com (www.dazdicks.com))

DaZ


----------



## DKeenum (Jan 26, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Nov 15 said:


> As for what's no-go's, I agree that these days, less is more. For film work, it pays to throw in flavours that are popular in the indie music scene. And that is always changing so it means you should be checking out new releases regularly. As for virtual-orchestra work, processed percs (a la RMX) with strings are popular, as is combining virtual with one or two or three real players on cello, guitar, wind, etc. Oh, and hybrid stuff that combines sounds/instr. from different cultures is also super popular. On the synth front, lots of pad chords are out, single thick synth lines are in (see French duo Justice), backed by simple bass lines + kick.
> 
> Of course, you'll completely disagree with me - go for it! =o



Ned or anybody else,
Would you be willing to go into more depth about this? I went and listened to Justice, and I think I get your point about doing what is current... but I'm not sure.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 26, 2008)

David,

What exactly do you want to know more about?


----------



## DKeenum (Jan 26, 2008)

Let me see if I can be more specific. I think it centers around your statement, "On the synth front, lots of pad chords are out, single thick synth lines are in (see French duo Justice), backed by simple bass lines + kick. " I think that's that part I don't really understand.

Are you saying that music supervisors or directors are wanting music with the punch, rawness, and impact of a group like justice? Or are you saying that right now leaner mixes are more the norm?

I think I'm a little confused about how I would incorporate that. Is that clearer?


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 26, 2008)

In any musical field...

The most important thing is being recognizable. Otherwise, you'll get shit jobs where you'll be spending all your time trying to sound like someone else.

I tell anyone who will listen the same thing...DO NOT pitch. Spend that time playing your ass off, getting into bands that tour, learning to play jazz, creating your own scene that people want to be a part of....

It's delusional to think you can sit in a MIDI studio all day long, scoring "spec" scenes from existing films, and somehow that is going to come off as anything but sad to someone looking for a collaborator. In fact, I just cringe every time I see this. First of all, if a scene didn't have music in the film...it probably doesn't want music, and pissing all over it with some kind of derivative movie-sound crap is a one-way ticket to loserville. Second, it just looks pathetic. Third, repeat the second.

I've gotten comments that this seems awfully arrogant. It's not. It's realistic. Los Angeles is full of young, earnest, wannabe composers scratching each other's eyes out for the opportunity to be grossly underpaid on somebody's shit film. Rinse and repeat. Shit brings shit brings shit.

MAKE YOUR OWN SCENE!!!! Get out in the world and play, and let the dramatic/film/media world come to you. They will. If you create a musical scene for yourself, people will knock your door down to get your mojo on their product.

If you can't play...then you'd better step back. This is a player's business. Almost every major film composer you can name can play his ass off. Most of them have either been in major pop acts, or they've been world-class sidemen on stage or in the studio.

That's the skillset. There are a few "paper composers" working. But not many who haven't lived music as a performer.

You don't learn how to create emotion at a desk. You learn it on stage, watching the people you're playing for. When you can get yourself laid with your axe, you're getting there. When you can coax someone off a chair, and get their butt moving on the dance floor, you're getting there. When you can make an entire shouting room go silent and attentive, you're getting there.

Here's why: MEDIA/DRAMATIC MUSIC...is very, very, very different from art music...that includes pop, jazz, and any music for music's sake. Scoring is different. If you think they're the same, you're lost. Everything you do in scoring has to happen at either accelerated or drawn out speeds. Almost nothing paces itself at the same pace as "pure" music. It's just like nothing in film/tv/theatre dialog plays at the same timing as human conversation. People who write dialog that way are known as unemployed writers. Tom Stoppard calls it "thinking time," as in, "On stage, there's no thinking time."

It's the same with the music. If you're a trained composer (which I recommend), the first thing you notice about media music is that everything you're doing takes way too long when you put it against picture. You want to build for ten seconds, but you discover you've got two. Somehow, you have to make ten seconds worth of emotional content fit into two, without thrashing your listener around like a rag doll.

Some people say to simplify. That's right. It's not the same as writing simple music. I would actually say, "concentrate," rather than simplify. You have to take that twenty-note phrase, and say the same thing in five notes, without reducing yourself to a sing-song. It's harder than you'd imagine. Hindemeth is your friend. The tension/release cycle is much shorter, so each interval has to pay off in a melody. Nothing is static in music for media. Every frame is a constant state of "becoming."

That said, you also have to learn the skill of saying NOTHING, when the goal is to allow the picture to unfold without spoiling the narrative by giving away the nut. So, it becomes important to learn how to meander in interesting ways. You've all heard scores where that didn't happen. You've also all heard scores that hit you over the head with a frying pan.

Probably the hardest thing to learn, early on, is to tell the story differently than the picture and dialog. "Mickey Mousing" is the pejorative term for tracking the frame too closely. The picture is doing its job. The dialog is doing its job. Sometimes your job is to reinforce or punch up one or the other (as in action, or romantic release). But most of the time, your job is to spackle over those elements, and to do the job of reinforcing (or thwarting) the overall narrative.

Study theater. Learn to act. Direct a show. Build a set. Shoot a video. Paint with oils. Create a Bonsai. All applicable.

There's one final ingredient. Every winner in every game has it. Every loser lacks it. One word: Audacity. Without it, you're dead in this business.

Believe me or don't believe me, but that's the skillset and those are the important things. Genres, styles, instrumentations, MIDI or not MIDI, live or canned, old, young, rock, jazz, none of that matters. These things are wholly insigificant, and the moment you misplace significance on any of them is the moment you'll be proven wrong--by someone who breaks that rule better than you. You can't pin it on any of those things. It's all about your mojo, and there's only one place to earn it. The stage...in the broadest Shakespearean definition.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 26, 2008)

I am not much of a reader but that was the best insight on film scoring that I have ever read. Very "concentrated"! :wink: Thanks for sharing your perspective - it makes tons of sense to me, also that's very generous from your part!


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jan 27, 2008)

That's all really more an insight into Bruce's hair style more than anything else. 

:wink: :D


----------



## poseur (Jan 27, 2008)

Bruce Richardson @ Sat Jan 26 said:


> In any musical field...


(snipped)

that's a truly beautiful idealogue, bruce,
& does occasionally outline/parallel some
of my experientially-based "beliefs", as well, but.....
some of what ya said there does def not resonate too deeply
with my own life in publicly-available music, music-for-film etc.

as far as i've seen, there are not too many composers
(in hollywood, at least) who have remained conversant with
the more visceral aspects of actual performance;
fewer, still, are even remotely capable of "playing their asses off".
there's nothing too wrong with that, imo, of course,
so long as the composer remains focussed on the functional elements
of the arc of a score in relation to the play, the plot, the connections
to character & the overarching perspective of the picture.

as well, i often wonder if
what might pass as "audaciousness / audacity" in the musical side
of film-making doesn't 
--- at second glance --- 
still often appear as overly regular collections of simple clichés,
lowest-common-denominator quasi-or-semi-emotive
(and often quite passive) tropes derived directly from basic fears
of the creative process, and how those processes might potentially
negatively-impact the flow of careers..... & the money that allows
said film-careers to continue (& occasionally flourish).

in my own opinion, the presence of such thoughts in my own mind
does not, however, truly great musical collaborations to occur;
there is much that i love of films, composers, their intentions & their 
execution.

i simply wander, here..... as an involved individual
who perseveres with a stalwart desire to do something of
great value, one day..... that still telegraphs audacious "appropriateness"
for the play-in-question.

d


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 27, 2008)

@Brian....shit, I'm busted.

@Poseur....

In retrospect (obviously, I type without a lot of filtering...hence saying things that sometimes make absolutely no sense upon reading them later)...

I probably discount the fact that there are people who "play their asses off" by means of a purely intellectual approach to score and narrative. I do think that's a slower way to discover the way music works on people. On stage, you figure it out very quickly. Unless you're extremely prolific (and widely played) it's a much longer path to see how what you do affects those who listen.

In the way of tempering what I said earlier, I think my comments go most to people who are feeling as if they're beating their heads against a wall, and getting nowhere with that hard work. That's no life for a musician, in essence, trying to be heard. I think one has to examine that, and realize that the most important thing is indeed being heard. And if the rejection cycle of "breaking in" is thwarting that basic need, then my advice would be to create a vehicle for getting music heard by people--however that is possible.

Some ways I have done it:

The aforementioned...play in bands/groups that offer you a showcase and a way to be noticed

Start a group...One of the best exposures I've had is through BL Lacerta. It's a fully improvisational group of really good musicians. We often do live film scores. I got a nice-paying feature gig from someone I didn't even know, just because he came to one of our live scores and got exposed.

Create a chamber group to play concerts
Write for schools
Produce for schools
Lecture at local schools

Do Theatre: You'll probably have to go about this by doing sound design. In my opinion, that's good. Learning to be a good sound designer (not talking doorbells and phones, but certainly including them) teaches valuable things about mixing, about the use of musique concrete elements. To me, it's all good and a valuable bag of tricks to pick up. I've never done a show, even when the director said, "NO ORIGINAL MUSIC," that I ultimately did not get to sprinkle with original music. Then, it becomes a six-week live calling-card...where you can call up the press, call your film pals, call TV directors, get them free tickets and take them out for drinks after.

Any of these things creates more of a "scene of you," than sitting alone in the studio, submitting spec work to directors.

The bottom line to me is always about reversing the power ratio in the conversation. If the composer's power ratio is less than the director/producer's it's EXTREMELY difficult to negotiate good deals, and get good collaborative projects. Personally, I don't think there are too many cases where you ever exceed the director/producer's power. After all, they're the founders of the feast, and unless your name is John Williams, et. al., it's difficult to be the more valuable property in the discussion.

BUT...I think most good musicians, with a well-constructed career path, can move that ratio very close to a 1:1 stake. If you can set up your potential jobs where the person on the hiring end wants you equally as much as you want the job, that's successful in my opinion...each side willing to engage in the give and take necessary to create the deal.

And most important, you don't come onto a project where you're being asked to perform as a functionary!!!

B.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 27, 2008)

poseur @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> as well, i often wonder if
> what might pass as "audaciousness / audacity" in the musical side
> of film-making doesn't
> --- at second glance ---
> ...



I agree 100% with this, by the way. I'm defining audacity in this case as "that which makes the enlightened smile with delight."

One of the scores (which can hardly be called that in the traditional sense) that I really love is _Amelie_. It's unimaginable to me how hideous that film could have been with an orchestral score. In that case, the director sought out Yann Tiersen, because his creaky minimalist thing made the film take off like a rocket.

I would call Elmer Bernstein an audacious composer of his time. Ditto John Williams (who can still hit it out of the park...just listen to Harry Potter without him as opposed to with him...audacity).

Ennio Morricone had a lot of audacity.

So, I guess my definition of audacity in the sense of film music is the willingness to step away from the obvious, at the time that stepping away makes sense for the film at hand.

But to round back to your well-stated point...audacity, in the sense of what I'd call cheap-audacity, or rather more obtuse-ity (if there were such a word), is just another way of failing the project. I like to think that every project has a secret locked door, and that the only key to it lies within me. If I am able to construct that key, somehow, and open that door...then I have succeeded as a collaborator. The project has become more successful because I was there. I am never more depressed artistically when I fail to find that key, and must finish the project using my "professionalism."

When that happens, I truly wish I had never taken on the project, and that someone else--who might have been able to find that "key"--would have stepped up and grabbed the attention of the producer.

It's really hard to write about this stuff. It makes me feel exposed, and frankly, like a big fat hack, because I don't know how to do things any other way than I've done them. I guess I try to write it down as best I can, then I read back over it, and it sounds so unequivocal...I think a devotion to Strunk and White can sometimes result in writing that has no room for being unsure of itself...


----------



## tobyond (Jan 27, 2008)

Bruce, your on the money, your writing is refreshing and your views are what's needed to refresh the tired cliché's we are inundated with every time we watch anything. Thanks!





Bruce Richardson @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> One of the scores (which can hardly be called that in the traditional sense) that I really love is _Amelie_. It's unimaginable to me how hideous that film could have been with an orchestral score. In that case, the director sought out Yann Tiersen, because his creaky minimalist thing made the film take off like a rocket.



Couldn't agree more, it is the one score that I can listen to over and over and never tire of.


----------



## kid-surf (Jan 27, 2008)

I really enjoy the way you think, Bruce... I agree, it's refreshing.


As someone attempting to direct my own films this ideology is exactly the quality (if I ever did use a composer other than myself) that I'd be looking for. Someone with the audacity to believe they can and will create something inspired, something that will be relevant to "only" my film --- which would absolutely mean "no fucking temp score". God no...

I have audacity. The audacity to believe I can do my 'own' films. But that's not really the point here.


Back to composing:

poseur --- speaks about creating something of "value". Exactly the point! Thanks for pinpointing what often is lost in the fray. I feel that so many have lost that perspective (at least in Hollywood). The idea here is value = box office $. Yet many of these films will be irrelevant to our society less than a year after they are released. Then forgotten entirely as if they'd never been made. The moneys made from them will have long since been spent at some point. Nothing remains at that point but one's recollection of an irrelevant film they made in order that the folks doing all the CREATIVE work could aim to make more money than the creatives. Some people are comfortable with that definition of "value" but that sure as hell isn't my definition. 

This idea goes hand in hand with the reality of so many film composers copy-cating one another in order to "just land a friggn gig". I get it, it's damn tuff out there. But what happened to being an inspired creative? I would say the definition (my definition) of a "creative" is someone audacious enough to take a fucking risk. Yeah, I get it, it's scary, but what's the point otherwise? Fame? Money? Security? All of those trappings can be had far more easily in a occupation other than being a film composer.

I have to be blunt and say that -- Now as I'm thinking more like a director and less like a composer that there are very few composers I'd be interested in working with based on what I generally hear on reels. I don't mean to offend anyone, and this is one guys opinion. But I'll tell you what I'd pass right over. Anything that sounded like what I've already heard a trillion and a half times. Especially composers that seem to have covered every genre there is.... I've seen plenty of composer's websites that actually list nearly every genre. Never have I heard anyone nail them all in an INSPIRED way, much less convincingly. By the way, "convincingly" is another way of saying "ordinarily".

*Adding that -- I feel there is also a segment of composers that aim to please each other. Which is another trap. Directors don't think like composers. They aren't impressed by the same qualities (again - the good ones)

You don't think a director looks at that like "Wait... I know that I can't write/direct every friggn genre there is, I know that I would be giving the watered-down fake version of a few of those genres if I tried". More to the point, a GOOD director will look it like that. They'll want the "real" guy, not the look alike generic version. After all they don't consider their own work to be "generic" so why would they want a composer who is? Again, we're talking the good writer/directors who will END UP somewhere. Does it really matter all that much if you have a relationship with a writer/director who's got no point of view and therefore is ok with using "ordinary" music in their film... or a tired temp score?

Who are these directors (on our level) that are content to ask for the same old score? They are the same ones who know almost nothing about film music (or any music) and why it's so important. They are the same ones writing screenplays that are altogether forgettable and irrelevant.

Hollywood isn't looking for indie writer/directors who are doing the same old ordinary thing. They are looking for FRESH points of view to hopefully infuse this into something that is utterly marketable but somehow retaining the slightest glimpse of that freshness.


Here's one glaring problem I see in indie film. An inordinate amount of writer/director/producers are aiming for the break-out-hit now a days. They are dumbing down independent films which should instead be ABOUT something other than a desperate and transparent attempt at career springboard... whereby they hope to bypass "good" straight into the lap of box-office adoration.

Yet, how many filmmakers find themselves trapped in that cycle? Which includes trapping their composers in this same cycle... Well, it's a lot. More that what seems logical, in my opinion.

My take is that there are generally two groups of creatives. 


1) The audacious crowd who will not be backed down from their convictions -- these are generally the folks who go on to breakout into studio careers.

2) The desperate crowd who will attempt to follow the trends yet always seem to find themselves one step behind -- these are generally the folks who find themselves trapped. They do get lucky here and there. 


I would say this goes for composers but also filmmakers. Obviously they each generally find each other. That is my belief anyway. I have no scientific data to back it up. 


Take a look at the most successful writers directors and composers. They all have one very significant thing in common. They all have a distinct point of view and almost none of them "do it all". They do what THEY do and they do it very well. (Hence: voice)

Hollywood is looking for people that have a "unique artistic voice". This means that, like I said before, those sorts of people will lose out on many jobs initially because there is a flood of folks doing the same "samey" crap at our level so you either compose for them or you hardly ever compose. But it definitely is a trap. At some point you must get away from those sorts of people and find your voice. THAT is what gives you value... the same quality that will cost you jobs now with the copycat filmmakers. (unless you're cool with being a service person -- which, hey, nothing wrong with that I suppose)

If I get to direct my film and compose on it I can't exactly pinpoint the music for you because it's not something I hear in every other film. Not that I believe I'm some genius, just that I don't really care what everyone else is doing. 

Some would call me an egomaniac. Which I'm ok with. I think of myself, instead, as audacious with unbreakable convictions about what I am compelled to create. It is this same mentality that would allow me to step away from the composers role if I was certain someone else was more fitting. At which point, since I believe in them, I'm simply asking them to "create". Not match my voice, but to "collaborate", to express that quality that is unique to them. Whereby we infuse our sensibilities with an aim to arrive at a film that maters... I definitely don't need all the credit. But on the other hand, if I seem like I'm best suited for the job I'll do it. Whatever it takes to arrive at a film that matters.

I'm in the business of trying to get there at all costs. 

Those are the types of directors I sought out, and usually never found, when I was still composing.


One guy's POV:


KID


----------

