# New Smalley Book - Composing for Film



## Peter Alexander (Nov 27, 2007)

The book is really short discounted so there's no room for a group buy on it.


----------



## Cinesamples (Nov 27, 2007)

Buy it - it's good.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 27, 2007)

176p=$80 :roll:


----------



## jc5 (Nov 27, 2007)

I think Synergy is onto something - it would be nice to see an organized group buy scheme emerge here on VI as it exists in other groups. A book like this would no doubt garner quite a few subscribers.


----------



## lux (Nov 28, 2007)

+1


----------



## gravehill (Nov 28, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> 176p=$80 :roll:



+1

I think I'll wait for the dollar value to sink a bit more...

Any chance to see the Table of Contents?


----------



## Thonex (Nov 28, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Nov 27 said:


> 176p=$80 :roll:



Quality... not quantity.

Personally, I'd prefer a good, short and concise book on scoring rather than a long, drawn out mediocre one.

T


----------



## gravehill (Nov 28, 2007)

^ That's why I mentioned the Table of Contents. That and a couple of sample pages would help to determine the quality.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Nov 28, 2007)

gravehill @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> ^ That's why I mentioned the Table of Contents. That and a couple of sample pages would help to determine the quality.


Check out JackSmalley.com, lower left corner there is a link to just that.


----------



## gravehill (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks! Now it's starting to look interesting, indeed...


----------



## lux (Nov 28, 2007)

Agree with Andrew, 80 usd as a starting point doesnt look nothing special, there are way more expensive books out there..

For europeans reading few words from Scott Smalley looks interesting anyway...


----------



## rJames (Nov 28, 2007)

lux @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> For europeans reading few words from Scott Smalley looks interesting anyway...



FYI
Scott is the son of Jack (I'm pretty sure). Scott does the orchestration seminars. Jack teaches at USC or UCLA film school.


----------



## lux (Nov 28, 2007)

rJames @ Wed Nov 28 said:


> lux @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > For europeans reading few words from Scott Smalley looks interesting anyway...
> ...



oops. I read scott smalley. Well, looks interesting anyway, but probably i was more interested to the orchestration thing.

I need lenses. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 28, 2007)

Jack IS Scott's father and is definetely from the jazz era.
Scott hates jazz (but loves his father I believe) :mrgreen:


----------



## ComposerDude (Nov 29, 2007)

Ordered the book yesterday from the weblink; according to their customer service line, it will be shipped as physical product and is NOT a download. The web page and receipt email suggest that all their products are downloads, but no download codes were provided (which is why I called customer service). Apparently this particular book is the exception - it will be mailed, and they say to allow 2-3 weeks for U.S. postal service.

-Peter


----------



## Jack Weaver (Nov 29, 2007)

Yes, Patrick I'm pretty sure you're right about Scott disliking jazz. 

He stated that he only uses 7th chords as 'irony' or as a stylistic joke. 

He chooses to only use triads and explains, for example, a C7#9 chord simply as two simlultaneously occuring triads - C & E flat. 



.


----------



## bluejay (Dec 4, 2007)

Hmm... I ordered this through the store however I now find that I have no way of tracking this order.

Does anyone have a contact email address for that gmdstore?

thanks


----------



## ComposerDude (Dec 4, 2007)

At the bottom of the 'receipt' email appeared the following info. Phone was answered by a live (and helpful) person. Hope this helps:

Thank you again for your order. If you have any questions, please contact our customer service department at:

Tel: 1-800-774-3700 or (310) 645-9000 ext. 1
Email: [email protected]


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Wed 28 Nov said:


> gravehill @ Wed Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > ^ That's why I mentioned the Table of Contents. That and a couple of sample pages would help to determine the quality.
> ...


Thanks, that link was really helpful! 

It looks interesting indeed, considering some statements and the overall focus: the MELODY. Then, the "Planing" concept looks especially interesting: coming up with a melody based on a scale (which, in turn, is based on a chord), then building consonant intervals UNDER that melody - as opposed to the Counterpoint concept of coming up with a bass line, or taking a given one, then building consonant intervals ABOVE that bass line (Fux's 1st species).

Then, Harmony and Scales, Voice Leading, Countersubjects, and the interesting justification for focusing on Melody: indeed, how many people are humming chords when they get out the theaters? Hmmm... 

Humming, yes, that is something that a film scorer must keep in mind. Melody reigns, everything should derivate from it. :roll: 

Notes, notes, notes... Melody, then diatonic intervals under it, then add a bass. Cool. Harmony and Scales. Supercool! Then Voice Leading! Chord Relations! Building all your filmscore from the 'roof' downwards - shaping all your structures down from your MELODY! Yeah, baby! - That's like 90% of filmscoring, according to Jack. But how about 'dynamic interplay'? - is this a secondary issue in filmscoring? How about 'rhythmic interplay'? - is 'following-the-unfolding-of-a-scene' a secondary issue while scoring for film? How about 'timbre interplay'? - is "emotional emphasis' (or neutralizing) secondary in filmscoring? Judging from his table of contents and from those few pages, I guess Jack's answer to all the above questions is YES. "Notes, notes, and notes."

Where is the film's part in this whole scheme? What are the Notes telling to the director? Or to the audience? Melody?? - Is the "audience's humming" a filmscorer's goal? All this looks to me more like a course in writing pop songs. Interesting...

All in all, it all sounds very much like old school to me, and, IMO, it has very little to do with filmscoring, in spite of the fancy title. Also, that 'intervalic' thinking smells a bit like EIS to me. Nonetheless, I would buy that booklet only as a sort of a reference guide for how to NOT write for film. But, again - $80 for 176 pages? Quality? What quality??

A better investment would be to buy two recent soundtrack CDs and their respective films on DVD, then to really study how those cues work with the films.

my two pence worth


----------



## synthetic (Dec 4, 2007)

VERY good book. Don't judge it by the page count. You're paying for the information gained from 50 years in the business, not paper. 

I liked his thoughts on melodic shapes, and also the example scene that he scores shows you an interesting approach for scoring. One of the best books on scoring and composition I've read, and I think I have most of them.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 4, 2007)

Sheesh aeneas, you're supposed to read the book first THEN review it. He covers rhythm, pacing, all kinds of stuff.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Dec 4, 2007)

Came in the mail yesterday. Kind of a Cliff Notes of Jack Smalley's "world view" of film scoring...kinda book I like. Plenty to think about. My thanks (and $80) to Jack Smalley.


----------



## bluejay (Dec 4, 2007)

ComposerDude @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> At the bottom of the 'receipt' email appeared the following info. Phone was answered by a live (and helpful) person. Hope this helps:
> 
> Thank you again for your order. If you have any questions, please contact our customer service department at:
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for this. I've now sorted out my order! Hooray!!!


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

synthetic @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> Sheesh aeneas, you're supposed to read the book first THEN review it. He covers rhythm, pacing, all kinds of stuff.


I did not review the book, obviously - those were only some thoughts based on the few pages that they have considered representative for the book, thoughts also based on the Table of Contents. From those, and especially from the latter, I understand that 90% of the book is focused on Notes. That is how it looks to me, nothing more.

IMO, if one is interested in scoring for film, the focus on Notes is counterproductive. From all music genres, in film music, notes have the least importance. There are many other factors of huge importance in filmscoring, which the Table of Contents and those pages do not even mention. Notes (lines, intervals, chords) are the easy part. That's why everybody tries to teach notes. A misleading path, IMO.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 4, 2007)

synthetic @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> Sheesh aeneas, you're supposed to read the book first THEN review it.


Since when has aeneas let a lack of factual knowledge or experience stop him from spouting opinions.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> Since when has aeneas let a lack of factual knowledge or experience stop him from spouting opinions.


Since when the lack of factual knowledge or experience has ever stopped you (or anyone) from spouting opinions.

That is, unless you are assuming that your musical knowledge and film scoring experience can justify looking down on people.

BTW, as clearly stated, my opinions were based only on the Table of Contents, and on those few pages that they have chosen as representative for the book. 

Also, the value of an opinion has nothing to do with the person who utters it. IMO.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

[quote="aeneas @ Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:09 am"


my two pence worth[/quote]



save your money


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 4, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> Also, the value of an opinion has nothing to do with the person who utters it. IMO.


A three year old is going to tell me Barney the Dinosaur is the best damn show on TV. That's his opinion and he's quite serious. But wouldn't any intelligent person consider the source before he rushes out to set his TIVO to record it every day?

If Craig Sharmat tells me there's some new guitar modeling box that's amazing, I'm going to take the time to actually check it out. Whereas if Billy Pimples on the internet makes similar claims about some other box, well . . . I probably won't bother.

And if some person I know absolutely nothing about (other than that he sure likes to repeat himself an awful lot) is going to write eight paragraphs of criticism based on nothing more than a skimming of the table of contents, then indeed I do value that opinion less than one from someone who read the book. Call me crazy, call me a snob, but that's how I think.

You're welcome to give your opinions here all day long. And I do mean ALLLLLLL DAAAAYYYY LOOOONNNNG. Over and over and over and over.

The internet is full of mouse humpers. Don't expect me to take you seriously until you show me some credentials, or say something that impresses me, or READ THE DAMN BOOK BEFORE CONDEMNING IT!


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, the value of an opinion has nothing to do with the person who utters it. IMO.
> ...



Interesting opinions!

1) Given the opinion that a cartoon is bad - that cartoon being bad for me has nothing to do with the fact that the opinion comes from a 3 years old or from a Nobel Prize winner. I just take into consideration that at least one person finds it bad, and, very important, I take into consideration the reasoning behind that person's opinion. Reasoning is one important thing to consider. The identity of the person - hardly. Some social assumptions may even make it misleading, so I prefer to disregard the identity info, whenever possible.

2) Of course, an opinion based on reading the whole book is more informed than an opinion based on the Table of Contents and on a few representative pages. But again, my credentials have nothing to do with it.

3) I know that I am welcome to give my opinions, especially as long as it seems to annoy you. I take great pleasure in annoying 'annoyable' people. Over and over and over and over.

4) The apellative of 'mouse humper' almost honors me, considering your inclination to look down on people and to insult people you don't agree with. It still beats me where that hate might come from.... Doktor Freud would say something about a frustrated childhood, but Dr Fraud (sic) is just a dead clown to me. Not funny.

5) Please, PLEASE - don't take anything too serious, including what I say! Especially what I say! In fact, being taken seriously would be the last reason for me to showing any credentials. Actually, showing credentials in an internet discussion may be considered as completely unserious.

6) Unlike others, it is far from my intentions to impress anyone. Dr. fraud would say that I must have had a 'happy childhood', but that would be just a cheap guess.

7) I never 'condemned' the book, how can I condemn a book that I have never read? And that I will probably never read. A book which, I bet that around 90% is about: "Notes, notes, and notes."

As a conclusion, a small piece of advice from someone with no identity and no credentials: Keep your temper. Being impolite may bring you pleasure and may inflate your ego even more, but IMO, there is a possibility that you are hurting no one but yourself. You just don't feel it. Fa(s)t food is bad for health.

And to remove any other assumptions - 
By all means, everybody: *Buy that book!* It's your money. I will use my $80 to buy 2 soundtrack CDs and 2 film DVDs. Does anyone have an issue with that?

edit:
oh, you have edited it... some more rage and sarcasm... Well, maybe, just maybe, you give too much importance to someone who doesn't deserve it. How about focusing on the topic for a change? Or on ideas, opinions, rather than on individuals (with or without identity and credentials...)


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 4, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Dec 05 said:


> 3) I know that I am welcome to give my opinions, especially as long as it seems to annoy you. I take great pleasure in annoying 'annoyable' people. Over and over and over and over.



aeneas,

this is obvious, but for what reason? Do you feel you have a mission? (This is a serious question.)


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

edit


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Hannes, sorry I forgot to insert this thing: :roll: all over the place. Seriously - don't take me seriously. :wink: You may call that my mission if you really like that formulation.
Artsoundz, I really don't appreciate taking personal interest in someone for just posting on an internet forum. There can be nothing wrong in a polite discussion among perfect strangers. If you don't like my posts, please just skip them. 
"Melody vs. rhythm, dynamics, and timbre - and how they relate to filmscoring" could be an interesting topic, maybe later. Thanks for you interest in THAT. BTW, the very sound of EEE gives me creeeps.  

The topic was Jack Smalley's "Composing Music for Film" book, which I really find interesting and I would buy it instantly at a quarter of its actual price. The Table of Contents and the few representative pages highly recommends it as a possibly useful book for many people. So, it is at the very least a very well written book, IMO. Buy it! (no sarcasm at all, this time)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 4, 2007)

Hey aeneass,

You're not making many friends here. Take a look at this when you've got some time. Actually, me thinks we should all click on the link and read a bit before we reply to your posts.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> Hey aeneass,
> 
> You're not making many friends here. Take a look at this when you've got some time. Actually, me thinks we should all click on the link and read a bit before we reply to your posts.


Internet friends?? 

Also, you are late, Patrick de Caumette already unmasked me as a troll, some time ago. I think that was common knowledge by now - but, yes, it's good to reminder to everybody. I am aware of that terminology and it doesn't bother me at all, personally. It only saddens me a bit when I see people that are unable to think for themselves and to resist the herd's way of thinking.

At least I am insisting on focusing on the topic. Pretty unusual for a troll, but I can't help it. Bad habits.

edit:
Who is 'we'? :wink:


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 4, 2007)

artsoundz @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> does aeneas posts remind anyone of EEE from the VSL site?



Who's EEE? Are you referring to Evan Evans? Cause that guy was like a cancer, I don't know how he can stand himself. You know who also sucks is that dude on Soundsonline-Nickysnd or soemthing like that. Novel length pseudo-intellectual white noise posts shrouded in a thick mist of nothing and semantics. I don't even read the whole posts, I just skim through them and I still can feel my life force being drained.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

[edit


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> artsoundz @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > does aeneas posts remind anyone of EEE from the VSL site?
> ...


Woow, you really make it sound as if all these internet discussions are about people rather than about information. 

That wiki link was a useful info, here is something that picked my attention: "The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." This 'ad hominem' fallacy seems to be, for some posters, the favorite means to put down the person rather than addressing the (opposing) view. Who's the 'troll', in that case? Something to think about. Also: "Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives." Sounds very familiar to me.

Hey, how about the book? Who's hijacking what?


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > does aeneas posts remind anyone of EEE from the VSL site?



"Novel length pseudo-intellectual white noise posts shrouded in a thick mist of nothing and semantics."

good name for a tune.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

edit


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

artsoundz @ Tue 04 Dec said:


> In fact the mere mention of Mr. Smalley said it all but you opened the door to something else. YOU did. YOU questioned a legends credibility . What did you expect?


How could I question a legend's credibility while I do not believe in legends? I am sorry if my unintentionally 'blasphemous' remarks have touched some strong beliefs. I only said what I saw, in the way that I saw it. You disagree with the points made and that's all. Why so big a fuss? Are you expecting everyone to get to his knees when hearing names like Smalley, Hendrix, Elvis, etc.? I see no reason for doing it, and, at the same time, I have no problem with anyone buying a book because of the name of its author. So - buy the book, read it, then come back and make a great review of it, not like my extremely limited and biased one.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 4, 2007)

Would you moderators do your job and ban me, please? I paid good money!!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 4, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Dec 05 said:


> Hannes, sorry I forgot to insert this thing: :roll: all over the place. Seriously - don't take me seriously. :wink: You may call that my mission if you really like that formulation.



I somehow feel being part of an experiment.

Actually some of what you write here and in other threads is reasonable. Nevertheless you manage to formulate it in a way that makes your position unappealing, just by throwing some remarks into your text that seems to be focused on topic otherwise.

_Opinions _are fine but in these remarks you cross the line to _ratings _in a way that creates a grade: You, the expert, evaluate - and appearently de-valuate - others that have taught many professionals. That indicates that you appearently put yourself higher in knowledge than them. _This _is what makes people like me wonder whether this is justified by your background.

Regarding the topic: After reading the excerpt I am delighted that Smalley explains an essential harmonisation know-how that can be very useful imho. He explains it so simple that it can be underestimated very easily.


----------



## sevaels (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks goes out to you guys who point these products out. I have been trying very hard to find information on these topics and if it weren't for the people here bringing up great resources like this I would never know about it.

Bought the book and am going to Scott's course in NY.

=o 

Thanks again!


----------



## madbulk (Dec 4, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue 04 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > Why so big a fuss? Are you expecting everyone to get to his knees when hearing names like Smalley, Hendrix, Elvis, etc.? I see no reason for doing it...



This is a good day for Smalley. He should see this. He'll want that stitched on his PJ's.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 4, 2007)

Buy the book! It looks full of useful information presented in an appealing way, and its author's credentials are indisputable.

IMHO, on the downside, this book looks 
- a bit thin for its price (and vice-versa  ), it also 
- seems to cover too much about the 'pitch' part of music (melodies, intervals, chords), while 
- too little about other important aspects of music, which I am unable to find anywhere addressed (like some analysis of the role of dynamics, timbre, and rhythm, in filmscoring).

All the personal ramblings on this thread don't really mean a thing (except maybe keeping this thread into attention), ultimately it all comes down to this: do yourself a service and buy the book!


----------



## madbulk (Dec 4, 2007)

sevaels @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> Bought the book and am going to Scott's course in NY.
> =o
> Thanks again!



Scott's course in NY? Has he always done this in NY and I just never realized it? I thought it was just a So. Cal thing.

And is there an internet based version? I recall someone mentioned in another thread that Smalley might be developing one. Apologies for hijacking the book thread, but is anybody enjoying that anymore?


----------



## lux (Dec 4, 2007)

artsoundz @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> Would you moderators do your job and ban me, please? I paid good money!!



We want extra cash for that


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 5, 2007)

done. sent the cash through USPS to Italy. : )


----------



## bluejay (Dec 5, 2007)

madbulk @ Wed Dec 05 said:


> sevaels @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Bought the book and am going to Scott's course in NY.
> ...



My understanding is that Scott runs two 2-day courses every six months. One of the courses is in LA and the other is in NY.

...and I still haven't managed to get to one of them yet.


----------



## lux (Dec 5, 2007)

artsoundz @ Wed Dec 05 said:


> ...through USPS to Italy. : )



oh, no! :(


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 5, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue 04 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > In fact the mere mention of Mr. Smalley said it all but you opened the door to something else. YOU did. YOU questioned a legends credibility . What did you expect?
> ...



In my experience, those who do not respect the accomplishments of others generally have few themselves. Those with accomplishments generally respect others accomplishments.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 5, 2007)

Oh geez... Here we go! Jay and Aeneas in a cage fight, with choc0 as ref:


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 5, 2007)

I kind of wanted to stay out of this but here goes.

I have taken Scott's course and for the 2 days it was worth it, I still apply some of the thinking so it stuck.

I also took privately from Jack off and on over a few month period as a supplement to EIS as I wanted orchestration advice. I was not interested in the theory as EIS covered that. I never saw Jack's book till now and will probably buy just out of curiosity. The theory in the gratis examples of Jack's book are covered in EIS but 80 bucks is a lot cheaper than EIS too. Actually many things are cheaper than EIS. 

The question to ask yourself, is this book going to give you real insight on scoring to film, or is it just another persons approach to theory. It appears pages 109 till the end are all theory. When I took from Jack I asked not to be given his theory approach as it was not the reason I went to him. As stated I have not read the book so i am not going support it or condemn it. i have 80 bucks to spend on a nice guy who takes his craft seriously, and if I am able to grab 3 useful concepts that I can carry with me it is worth it. The same can be said though of a few good DVD's and a score but I can buy those too.... I highly doubt that studying all this stuff has put a crimp on my career, lack of talent maybe but not studying. At the very least I can afford a few good DVD's and Jack's book with the money I saved over the years being a hack composer.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 5, 2007)

Craig says ".... I can afford a few good DVD's and Jack's book with the money I saved over the years being a hack composer."

I'm glad you finally admitted this to yourself. That's the first step. And I want to help...so..

Casio has a keyboard that tells you what note to play by having the keys light up. That should help your stuff a great deal. Also, Mel Bay has a lot of great books. AND- playing live at rest homes and all you can eat buffets offers a great experience.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 5, 2007)

If writing like Craig is being a hack, then I want to be one too!


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 5, 2007)

I hope he knows I was kidding. Right after I posted that, my server went down for a few minutes.

Well played.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 5, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Nov 29 said:


> Yes, Patrick I'm pretty sure you're right about Scott disliking jazz.
> 
> He stated that he only uses 7th chords as 'irony' or as a stylistic joke.
> 
> ...



Yes: he illustrated his argument about not assigning/voicing chords with tensions to an orchestral section but rather, finding the equivalent polychord/ triad pair and assigning each triad to a different section... and I believe that he used the C7#9 as an example :mrgreen:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 5, 2007)

bluejay @ Wed Dec 05 said:


> madbulk @ Wed Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > sevaels @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> ...



That's right, Scott does 2 days seminars in NY too. And it's a lot of fun.
We hung out in a local pub afterwards and after a few beers he insisted we have a group hug on the sidewalk. So there we were: a dozen grown men group-hugging publicly (not that doing it privately would have been less noteworthy). Probably quite similar to what goes on at LAVI meets.

BTW, forget about the orchestra. What Scott really wants is to be playing guitar in a Led Zeppelin-type hard rock band (and I'm dead serious) =o


----------



## aeneas (Dec 6, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Wed 05 Dec said:


> aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > artsoundz @ Tue 04 Dec said:
> ...


First, I was referring explicitly to the Table of Contents and particularly to the excerpts from the book, and NOT to anyone's personal accomplishments.

Second, while I do appreciate the polite way of putting the whole point, and also, while I am aware of the emphasis you have put on 'generally', - I think that the type of logic in the quote above would make Maria Callas appreciate Britney Spears. In my experience, someone's accomplishments have nothing to do with his or her sense of criticism. I have no reason to believe that Andres Segovia's accomplishments would make Andres Segovia appreciate Jimi Hendrix's accomplishments. I am not saying that he surely wouldn't, nor am I saying that Maria Callas would surely hate Britney's singing - I am just saying that there is no connection whatsoever between someone's accomplishments and his or her capacity to focus on a particular topic and to give their opinions precisely on that particular topic. 

Consequently, the fact that I do not bow down to Jack Smalley accomplishments says absolutely nothing on my personal accomplishments. That was, IMO, yet another logical fallacy, yet another 'ad hominem' attempt to put down the author of a statement instead of addressing the statement itself. It was a polite way to say: 
_You do not appreciate Jack Smalley's accomplishments, therefore you have none (or maybe few and small ones). Furthermore - having few/small accomplishments, that makes everything you say worthless._ 
As a derivative consequence, it also implies this: 
_When someone does appreciates someone else's accomplishments, he does that because of his own many and/or big accomplishments. Therefore, since we all do appreciate Jack Smalley's accomplishments, that is a proof of our accomplishments. Since you don't, then you haven't any (or, you have few and small)._

Taking doubtful premises as granted, also making forced connections between disconnected premises, one can reach to the weirdest conclusions and can 'justify' most everything (personal attacks, ghostwriting, plagiarism, etc.)

edit:
Please refer to this: http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=100581


----------



## gravehill (Dec 6, 2007)

We need a mute button.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 6, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed 05 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:
> ...



OK let me put it plainly. I would find it hard to respect anyone who could not respect Smalley's accomplishments. He is a pro and has proven it over and over.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2007)

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> bluejay @ Wed Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > madbulk @ Wed Dec 05 said:
> ...



I missed the beer and group hug too? This is just getting worse and worse. I gotta move back to NY.


----------



## choc0thrax (Dec 6, 2007)

Wake me up when Scott Smalley decides to do a book. 8)


----------



## jorgen (Dec 11, 2007)

I bought the book, it is really worth the money. Consider it a whole lifes experience boiled down in a very easily read book. There is no nonsense in it, there are lots of facts to learn from.

Jack Smalley has a great knowledge and experience in this field and he is most generous in sharing this through the book. A kind person too, I met him once.

which is a great way to communicate BTW - openminded and musical 
As opposed to internet trolls...


----------



## alanb (Dec 11, 2007)

madbulk @ Thu Dec 06 said:


> I missed the beer and group hug too? This is just getting worse and worse. I gotta move back to NY.



The hell?

I missed the beer and group hug, _and I live in NY_...

:? 

.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 04 said:


> Buy the book! It looks full of useful information presented in an appealing way, and its author's credentials are indisputable.
> 
> IMHO, on the downside, this book looks
> - a bit thin for its price (and vice-versa  ), it also
> ...



Wow, great review. To think you've never seen the book before and can deliver such a detailed review, that's great. Can you review the new Iron Man movie while you're at it? I'd like to know how that one is going to be. 

p.s. You're a cabbage head.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 11, 2007)

Don't feed the troll please everybody, thanks alot.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2007)

But if we keep him busy here, then maybe he won't visit the rest of the site. I'll take Tuesdays.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 11, 2007)

:D :D


----------



## bryla (Dec 11, 2007)

Then one day... Bilo break out of cage... and Bilo he got it...!!


----------



## aeneas (Dec 11, 2007)

Hannes_F @ Tue 11 Dec said:


> Don't feed the troll please everybody, thanks alot.


Thanks for the advice, I won't. 
I can only hope that, maybe, a look on what trolling and baiting do mean will prevent further trolling and baiting. Reading a couple of articles on rational thinking won't hurt too. Also, focusing on the topics rather than personally attacking - that would be a good, useful, and civilized habit to be learned.

On topic, again. I thought that was clear enoug: that was not a review of the book. I only said that, based on the table of contents and on those 6 pages, it looks to me
1) full of useful info presented in an appealing way (judging only upon those 6 pages, as I insisted. Those samples were provided so that anyone can make a rough idea of the qualities of the book, right? or what else was the purpose for providing those six pages?)
2) a bit thin for its price (176p=$80, compared to, say, Fred Karlin's "On the Track": 560p=$48 )
3) judging upon the table of contents, it looks to me that the book is covering too much pitch info (melodies, intervals, chords), comparing to how little info seems to be offering on other important musical aspects of filmscoring (rhythm, dynamics, timbre, etc.)
Please address the statements above, and stop trolling and baiting the person who posted them.

And, again: Buy the book! Then come and make a real review of it. I bet my two pence that a book review will hardly rule out those three statements above.


----------



## bluejay (Dec 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Fred Karlin's "On the Track": 560p=$48
> 
> How does Fred deal w/notes as it relates to your comments? What can you say about this book?
> 
> ...



I've got this book and I think it's really great. Some interesting ideas discussed and a couple of nice cues taken apart. The book tries to go through pretty much every aspect of film scoring including meeting the other people involved and the legal side of everything. It covers the actual scoring of a film from the concept through mockups to orchestration and production. Also it includes snippets of interviews from various composers which stop the text from feeling too dry.

If anything this book spurred me on to listen to some soundtracks I would have ignored otherwise.

Hope this is useful!


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 12, 2007)

Thanks, Bluejay. Yeah-looks like a no brainer. That's 2 books on my xmas list. 

And thnxv,aeneas for the tip.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 12, 2007)

artsoundz @ Tue 11 Dec said:


> BTW- "On the Track" has 200 pages just for calculating click tracks.


Correction:
I was talking about the 2007 edition, which as I said is 560p, no click book included. The 1990 edition is 856p, where the last 200p is the click book and the index. I think that edition is out of print by now.

Review? It is not the place here. That book is simply a must, I don't think there's a book that can compete with it on filmscoring. Although Jack Smalley book seems to focus on some cool compositional tips that I'm sure you won't find in On the Track. Those books have different scopes, it would not be fair to compare them. I was just referring to the ratio: amount of info (no. of pages) / price, that's all. No further comparison between them. To each one its merits.


----------



## nikolas (Dec 12, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> On topic, again. I thought that was clear enoug: that was not a review of the book. I only said that, based on the table of contents and on those 6 pages, it looks to me
> 1) full of useful info presented in an appealing way (judging only upon those 6 pages, as I insisted. Those samples were provided so that anyone can make a rough idea of the qualities of the book, right? or what else was the purpose for providing those six pages?)
> 2) a bit thin for its price (176p=$80, compared to, say, Fred Karlin's "On the Track": 560p=$48 )
> 3) judging upon the table of contents, it looks to me that the book is covering too much pitch info (melodies, intervals, chords), comparing to how little info seems to be offering on other important musical aspects of filmscoring (rhythm, dynamics, timbre, etc.)
> Please address the statements above, and stop trolling and baiting the person who posted them.


Okie 

Challenge accepted:

1. "appealing way"? In what way exactly? All I see is an *educational* book, rather simply writen. I am ready to bet that when he advances to 20th century stuff (which is a great idea for such a book, imho) the language will be less "simplified" if you will. But appealing? Not really, not for me.
2. The sun costs 20p in the UK! And is rubbish. Price is NOT decided by the quantity of pages, or anything simmilar. If Smaley, pretty much worked his arse to write this book and to gain the knowledge needed, it is up to him to set the price (and the publisher probably). Again, price is not decided on how many pages a book has. This is a bit oversimplified.
3. You are right, but I do find that pitch is most important. Probably he felt that other things you mention have been covered in other books maybe? I can hardly expect a book to cover everything, after all. And of course the book is called "composing for film", it's not about orchestration really, even if it covers part of it. So timbre and dynamics are rather off topic of the book.

That said, unless someone buys the book and reads it and is willing to give a review on the actual book, and not the 6 pages + contents, I would be most willing to read the review. I'm not, personally, on the lookout for any book really (although a matter of mood is much elluding me, tbh), but anyhow. I won't be buying it anyways. I simply don't care for any book right now.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 12, 2007)

nikolas @ 12/12/2007 said:


> . I won't be buying it anyways. I simply don't care for any book right now.



Then, I have to ask: why bother posting on this thread then?


----------



## synthetic (Dec 12, 2007)

If your opinion of a good book is page count versus price ratio, then the Yellow Pages is the best book I own and Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" is a rip off. So is Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

...but you should really buy that last one anyway.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 13, 2007)

synthetic @ Thu 13 Dec said:


> If your opinion of a good book is page count versus price ratio,


I was never relating "page count versus price ratio" to how 'good' those books are. So, to get things straight: No - that is not my opinion. My opinion is this: $48 for _"On the Track"_ (560p) seems to me a more appealing price than $80 for _"Composing Music for Film"_ (176p). To make it even clearer, I don't think that "page count versus price ratio" has ANYTHING to do with the 'good'-ness of a book. (So, I think it is better to keep 'good' for a separate discussion. IMO, 'good' is a subjective, personal evaluation, differing from person to person.) The price of a commercial book is set for commercial purposes only - it cannot reflect how 'good' the content of a book is. Also, the number of pages will say nothing about the 'good'-ness of a book's content. The number of pages will only go into the book's price, because of the paper (and printing) costs involved, that goes without saying. Hence the relation price/no. of pages that I was making.



> then the Yellow Pages is the best book I own and Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" is a rip off.


According to the premise/presumption in the previous quote - yes, it may appear so. But that was obviously a false premise, leading to false conclusions. 'Artificially connecting disconnected facts' is often leading to false conclusions. That, plus 'taking for granted doubtful assumptions', constitute the basis for all logical fallacies. 



> So is Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."
> 
> ...but you should really buy that last one anyway.


That is a blatant provocation related to nothing but to its author's manifest appetite to bring, quite insistently, this discussion to a low and personal ground.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 14, 2007)

aeneas @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Hannes_F @ Tue 11 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > Don't feed the troll please everybody, thanks alot.
> ...




I think this a fair group of statements

on price ratio, I can think of few music books if any at 176 pages which command as high a price tag. It may very well be worth it depending on your needs but I have no idea yet.

on no 3, few books if any address rhythm, dynamics etc based in depth as it relates to filmscoring. Maybe this book does and we don't know, but it would seem to set a new precedent. I could ask Jack about this if people here want to know.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 14, 2007)

Craig Sharmat @ Fri 14 Dec said:


> few books if any address rhythm, dynamics etc based in depth as it relates to filmscoring. Maybe this book does and we don't know, but it would seem to set a new precedent. I could ask Jack about this if people here want to know.


Yes, that will be highly appreciated.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 17, 2007)

I have ordered the book and will post my thoughts once I am comfortable with the material.

Jack is aware of this thread, flattered by the attention (both good and bad), but it will be up to him if he wishes to be involved. I have warned him it can be slippery sledding here.


----------



## rJames (Dec 17, 2007)

I've had the book for a week or more. I've skimmed it once, read it once and reread a couple of sections.

If you are an EIS student, I think the book is a must. It has given me a reference point that relates EIS to the rest of the world. (Bi-tonality, serial composition, minimalism) It also tells why a composer might use these approaches.

If you are not an EIS student then it gives many glimses into the world of EIS and music that is not created from a diatonic perspective. (plus much from a diatonic perspective)

The examples are undoubtedly simplistic...and yet quite illuminating.

I have never taken any filmscoring classes, so I can't review the book from a perspective of knowing what is included and what is left out. I will put the ideas from this book into use in my compositions.

Some of the simplest ideas that are in this book are new to me.

$80 is the cost of one private lesson with someone like this. 

Being concise is a tough task. This book is concise. It will save you more than $80 in time alone that you would spend with other books ("On the Track" for example) trying to find the sections that will help you score a film or understand what others are doing in their work. (On the Track is a great book but spends a lot of words on the business of film scoring)

This is a book you can study. If you can extrapolate, then you will enjoy this book. If you cannot, you shouldn't be in this business.

This book is the antithesis of studying scores. (IMHO)

By studying a score you can glean what one composer has done in one fininte set of circumstances. You don't have much of an idea what another composer would do, nor do you even know what this composer would do in anohter set of circumstanses.

While studying scores is illuminating, it is microscopic.

By studying this book you can see what/why numerous composers might do in a wide variety of circumstances. It is a general study. It is a macroscopic study.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 29, 2007)

My small review of the book can be found here.

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=102638


----------

