# How to appreciate film music...



## Brian Ralston (May 20, 2008)

A fox news story on film music (titled "Music to live by: How to appreciate film music") with interviews featuring Bob Townson of Varese Sarabande, Brian Tyler, Michael Giacchino, Trevor Rabin, Marco Beltrami and John Ottman (who...um....is looking much different than when I last saw him)...

Nice to see this get some major broadcast airtime.

Looks like the footage may have been taken at the recent Dark Delicacies composer signing event in Burbank, CA.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=549992&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749 (Click Here For video!)
(Have to watch at 30 second AMEX commercial first)


----------



## John DeBorde (May 20, 2008)

Thanks Brian. They tried to trick me into watching another commercial at the end, but I'm too smart for 'em!

john


----------



## choc0thrax (May 21, 2008)

Like I wanted to know what Trevor Rabin thinks about anything. 8) John Ottman looks like he spent the past year living in a dumpster eating ice cream and fried chicken.


----------



## midphase (May 21, 2008)

For once I agree with chocObo!


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 21, 2008)

Not much in there.

Thanks anyway Brian (you gotta look for a more reliable source for your news!! :twisted: )


----------



## kid-surf (May 21, 2008)

What struck me, watching them yammer about the classics, is how little I have in common with those sorts of composers... 

To them, the score is the film. To me, the film is the film. 

As well, why should I give a crap about orchestral music? I don't. I care about the experience of a story accompanied by whatever music fits. If there happens to be orchestral music in it, fine. But that is far from our reason to experience any given story, nor what my focus is.

(Movies now a days are akin to an amusement-park ride while wearing a fucking fanny-pack and gobbling down some funnel cake... WTF? Pardon me for not "wanting" to write that crap. Yet in Hollywood you're supposed to think that's the big time, oh the respect...)

Although, I most related to Michael G. Sounds like he's trying to tell the story through music as opposed to trying to show-off his composing prowess to other composers. 

Story is story -- It's interesting to me how many folks in Hollywood are brainwashed into believing the EPIC-er the better. I find epic movies trite (unless they're old, back when people used to care what the story was). Yet, those HUGE films are the films composers aspire to, so they may do their big impressive production. Ironically, many of those films are the same films plenty of hot directors don't want to do and are, in fact, begged to. The same films many composers here would kill to score.

In a nutshell -- I don't need composers telling me why I'm supposed to love orchestral film music. Funny the stigma against anything electronic based or minimalistic. Nope, it's gotta be HUGE or it's not good. Absurd.

I'm not the only writer who thought Spiderman was a POS (talk about plot-holes). Although, Elfman did his job. Iron Man may finally begin to change that tired old template... although, quickly replaced with a new one (talking film, not score).

Really all this clip does is make me curious what type of films composers would write if given that liberty. Would they all be big epic (fantasy) movies so they could stuff them with epic orchestral music for the sake of it...?

Makes me wonder how many composers actually stop to consider whether or not the story/script is any good. I know what it's like scoring something you know sucks, but still, I wonder where people's heads are at. Maybe I was meant to be in my own corner of the sandbox (as the Cohen bros said about themselves), 'cause I don't get it this epic-y overdone stuff, nor the flimsy stuff written just to stroke the ego and make a smash-and-grab, buck. Then again, I didn't read comic books in high school instead of fucking girls, doing drugs, surfing and traveling (although I did go to private school). Nor have I ever watched Friends or worn Dockers. Plenty of things I've missed out on that may have stood a chance at imparting a myopic filmatic sensibility... 

I know... I'm an egotistical asshole, and what I said here has nothing to do with the clip, but really, it does. Glad I'm outta that myopic rat race into one I have some control over. One where I can do "my" thing with no apologies to those I flatly disagree with. Perk is that I get to ignore those who are narrow minded in their ideas of art.

Superman the "film" was boring as fuck. Although the music was good... That's the point. 


***None of my rant is directed at you, Brian, but at the ideas presented in the clip.


----------



## kid-surf (May 21, 2008)

Ok... just a bit more...


the classics: FYI, many of those classic films would NOT get financed today. The golden era of film is often considered to be 1968. There is a great book (title escapes me) that was suggested reading at a particular agency by a particularly smart agent. Why? Because the industry is a fucking mess of the amusement park ride type films currently splashed across the screen for the smash-and-grab studios. Long gone is the time when you could actually tell a story... now it's about a THRILL RIDE..? WTF, go to Magic Mountain for that shit. Well, Speedracer was in-and-out. Tried to smash-and-grab, didn't do so hot. They lost their ass on that con job.

The bigger prob is that the classics would have a hell of a time getting made today as even an INDEPENDENT. It's gotten that pathetic out there. Luckily some risk takers have somehow slipped through the wall-of-china surrounding Hollywood and gotten their films made (Hi Cohen bros, etc.)

I have a big problem with this tent-pole mentality. Luckily so do some powerful people around town who are getting feed-up. The prob is that these veterans where THERE when these classic films where being made, all these nu-skool development kids weren't. So, the kids, they want the fast ride to the top, they don't know what it's like to actually care about how good a film is, they've only been at this a couple years after all... and now their mob mentality has convinced them that bigger is always better. Mostly because that's what the studio thinks. Trickle down.

Well... Iron Man may be the first step in getting back to again being "allowed" to create classics... you know, where the score even mattered. 

That's my prob. The scores now a days are written for disposable movies. As opposed to back in the day when there wasn't this fixation on opening weekend... to the point that the friggn laymen now knows the numbers. Back in the day a film would be in the theater for 4-5 MONTHS at times. Now it's like two weeks then... peace. Hmm..? Wonder why? People aren't seeing films over and over, why would they, the film sucks.

The fact that so many went to see No Country (essentially an Indie) is a sign the audience wants a whole lot more. Iron Man did gangbusters because it wasn't the same old template. The audience is smarter than many give them credit for and they are EVOLVING past Hollywood's perception of them. I mean fuck, nobody would pay to see the films they are THEMSELVES making. "Well, I wouldn't watch this crap but I'm sure THE AUDIENCE would". As if the audience is some group of morons so very different from "us", the smart ones. 

This is especially true of the studios, but more increasingly true of these crap-ass directors in Indy land trying to smash-and-grab, essentially trying to use the studio-model. Really, just hoping the big studio notices them "Hi Mr. Studio, look I wrote and directed a piece of shit just like you... will you give me a job now?" 

We'll start to see classic scores reemerge once this industry wises up and gives the people what they want. Which is a NEW experience that isn't dumbed down.


Ok... back to my cage...


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 21, 2008)

ever notice that scoring rhymes with whoring? /\~O


----------



## Bruce Richardson (May 21, 2008)

and @Brian....

How do you watch that crap? I watched the fat guy interview Dennis Kucinich. Is it really a right-wing versus left-wing issue that it would probably be better to wean off of oil rather than start breaking the addiction now? Even knowing the source, I was a little appalled.

B.


----------



## choc0thrax (May 21, 2008)

kid-surf @ Wed May 21 said:


> In a nutshell -- I don't need composers telling me why I'm supposed to love orchestral film music. Funny the stigma against anything electronic based or minimalistic. Nope, it's gotta be HUGE or it's not good. Absurd.



Did we watch the same video? I saw a bunch of film composers geeking out about their childhood favourites. I wonder if you were there and asked one of them to their face why they think that film music has to be huge or it's no good they'd look at you like you're nuts.


----------



## kid-surf (May 21, 2008)

I _am_ nuts... but.

The vid seemed to very squarely focus on BIG scores. Or did I miss something? Ain't Thomas Newman the most temped music, the most familiar to the layman aside from JW? Or was the segment aimed at other geeks? If so, don't they already geek out to film music, specifically JW? Did they include any scores from the last decade? I didn't take notes.

But that doesn't encompass what I find goofy about it. 

Point was made that we (audience) can listen to these scores and be transported back to the film. Fine if we're talking the classics, but how about the films these guys scored? Do we really want to be transported back to a shitty film? For example: I dig Chris Beck's hybrid scores, yet he's not scored a film I'd care to revisit (not his fault, he did his job). But...

Problems is, there aren't many films worth being transported back to today. Back in the day? Sure, everyone can name the classics. Very few films today hold up beyond opening weekend. Not the composer's fault, but makes for a very weak argument as to "How to appreciate film music..." Unless they aren't talking about their own music. 

For the layman it's irrelevant what the score is if it's in a shitty film. Yes, I'm calling Fast and the Furious a P.O.S. I plan on being sued and run outta town shortly. 

I mean, let's face it, there are few film cues the layman would even recognize. They would more likely think "Oh really..? This music was in the film? Where..? I don't remember hearing it?" Which is probably part of the reason film score soundtracks don't sell.

I mean, the Star Wars themes are arguably the most recognizable cues there are. How many units has the soundtrack sold over the last 30+ years? Kinda goofy to play Star Wars themes while pointing out that filmscore takes us right back to the film. How about, instead, play some of 'their' cues and ask a laymen to guess what film it's from.

I'd bet lay people could pick out the score to There Will Be Blood. I'm guessing they'd have a tougher time with disposable popcorn films. So...?


----------



## Niah (May 21, 2008)

The beauty of film music is that is can be anything, epic, small, orchestral, electronic....anything.

But the fact remains that, IMO, is still one of the most unappreciated and misunderstood forms of music by the majority of the public or the media.

How Fox handled this piece is a clear example of that.


----------



## Ed (May 22, 2008)

Some of my favourite film music isnt really orchestral, or if it is isnt in the classic (and "serious") sence they are talking about . This will give people are skewed idea of film music, and its telling people how to appreciate it, so its saying you must like orchestral music basically. Annoying.


----------



## kid-surf (May 22, 2008)

Exactly... film music is so many things. It's shortsighted and a little presumptuous to act (essentially) as an ambassador of film music and assume the general public will care about orchestral the way a composer would. 

Would have been a more well rounded and thoughtful segment to start with Star Wars then quickly move to "Did you know that film music is also all these things?".

Connect the dots for a general public who may not care about "sweeping"... 


BTW -- I miss Choc0.


----------



## JohnG (May 22, 2008)

Hi kid-surf,

Always a pleasure to hear your thoughts, as they always provoke other ideas. I see your point, but I want to gently take issue with your thesis of "everything stinks" in the mentality of the studios -- which I hope doesn't oversimplify where you are coming from. 

The likelihood that most everyone on this forum would love to work on a big orchestral extravaganza doesn't seem so bad to me. Fantasy / action / family movies, at their best, self-consciously invite us to play and make believe, but include something earnest or "real" as well. Sure, their conventions make some characters or plot elements fatuous, but the best filmmakers manage to add real humanity or emotion or loss or pain inside the overall confection (like the first "Raiders" movie or "E.T. The Extraterrestrial" or "Dave" or just about all of the Pixar films) that helps the film feel meaningful and important, notwithstanding a tendency to cutesy / pandering / cheap thrills or laughs at other times.

And one of the most fun challenges about a fantasy or action film is that music plays such an enormous role in creating whatever is going on. So I love writing for those kinds of movies, even if they are not at the Spielberg level.

Besides, it's not just studio pictures that suffer from convention. In my view, many artistically-ambitious films of recent manufacture suffer just as much as the "thrill-ride films" from predictable caricatures which bore me as much as do the conventions of the action/adventure genre -- the Suffering Artist, the Sensitive Victim-Ingenue, the Nasty Businessman / Nasty Politician. These weaken such films as much as a preposterous or two-dimensional Good Guy or unlikely plot turn weakens Spiderman 3. Another vein -- the "intense" films, have their own straight-jackets.

I accept that the "disposable thrill-ride" has been in vogue for some time and of course most of those movies are feeble. But I guess I don't get so offended / angry about it because I often enjoy the visual and auditory effects for their own sake, independently of the foolish story. For example, I really admire the score and many of the artistic aspects of Peter Jackson's "King Kong," even though that story doesn't grab me. Same thing for "Mission Impossible: III" -- a superb grab-bag of action set-pieces and jaw-breaking score sequences, even though some of the plot issues are hilarious.

Looked at from the perspective of another medium, I think many stories / plots in ballets and operas are pretty lame too, even though I like the experience of the ballet or opera, so at some level I don't quite know whether it's fair to expect movies to live up to the standard of Great Art.

I admit that I am baffled, both by the studios' willingness to rush out weak films or start shooting without a great screenplay, but I'm equally baffled by audience reaction. Why "Transformers" did so well I will never be able to really explain but, I guess, so what? Sometimes people want an excuse to relive childhood, I suppose, or are desperate for pure escapism. Same thing with "Independence Day." For what they are, both are perfect examples. I don't find that so bad; it's just not for me.

It is a shame that "The Last Picture Show" and even the good Westerns from 30-40 years ago probably would be 45 minutes to an hour shorter if they were made today, which would destroy them. Even Barry Lyndon, or "The New World" or "2001 A Space Odyssey" or "Bonnie and Clyde" are so slow compared with movies from the recent past that I don't see how they could get made today, at least in the form in which they were released. 

maybe the LA-based group should go see a movie and have a few laughs some time. There are still good films made -- "The Painted Veil" being one that I admire -- among the dross. And I will certainly take the kids to Pixar's new film when it is released.

Maybe I should be more bothered; now that I have written this it sounds like a defense of mediocrity!


----------



## kid-surf (May 22, 2008)

John--

You're the yin to my yang. :D

I'm glad you posted that. I'm definitely guilty of using extreme examples to make a point. And I'd hate to see a post go one-sided.

I've got more to say (of course :D) but I gotta run. Want to respond to some of your specific thoughts. Not necessarily to disagree, just feel like responding.

In the meantime, I appreciate your POV.


----------



## kid-surf (May 23, 2008)

> I see your point, but I want to gently take issue with your thesis of "everything stinks" in the mentality of the studios -- which I hope doesn't oversimplify where you are coming from.



Actually, I would say it does oversimplify my POV. Yet, can understand how you could draw that conclusion. The reality is that I've liked plenty of studio films. Just... not enough. :D

When I look at new releases out to next December there's maybe 3-4 films I would pay to see. And one of those my wife's client wrote (Yet, I feel it'll be good despite the association... likely the reason it's opening then - Oscar.) 

My issue is more so that there way too many duds. I believe "professionals" should get it right much more often. With the majority of the films getting "C grades" that's not good enough IMO. "Average" films from pros? Something's wrong when we're surprised we like a film like Iron Man. Then again that was Marvel Comics driving the ship, I suspect they know what their audience wants. Which lends credibility to the point that "let the people drive who know where they're going". 

Some (producers) would say I should just shut-up, get in line, follow the rules and write what I "should" be writing. That I'm just a spec in the machine and therefore irrelevant. Yet, I wasn't born to merely serve someone else's vision (vision of stacks of money).

Then again, like you pointed out, some of these gigs are exactly what these people want to do. I can totally understand that. Probably is that my sensibility doesn't neatly fit Hollywood's idea of what "good" is. Which means I may take issue with more of their concepts than others.

But... I don't just rant on composer forums. I put my butt on the line for what I believe in. Which is quality. 

...So I do things like, begin working with some agents, start to develop a TV-show then press "pause" to go write a very dark script. What "I'd" want to see. A gamble. Here I could just continue to work on the commercial (yet out of the box) TV idea or write a "clearly commercial" studio-type film ("what I should be doing"), or... I could do what "I" want to do. Which is write something I feel is good and take the chance that these people loose interest in me. But the way I feel is that nobody can stop a writer... especially when you are capable of writing 5 scripts a year. I refuse to write stuff I know full well is trite garbage even if there's a nice paycheck.

Anyway... I'm going OT. The point there is simply that I put my money where my mouth is and take the gamble with hopes of achieving great films, as opposed to simply getting something made. Even though I could have sold-out right away.

Having said all that. I totally understand that not all filmmakers like what I like. Totally cool with that. What strikes me is only the dishonesty in too many of these films of late. Too many films aimed at "hit" -vs- "good". It's like, ummm, if it's good it stands a better chance of being a hit. :D Too few are willing to take an honest risk. I don't mean contrived risk, that sort of writing is transparent. Ask any agent, manager, producer etc. what their favorite film is... none of them will list one from the last couple decades. I see that as a problem, an indication far too many are after fame and fortune. The templets in place now are based on those "original" films. :D



> The likelihood that most everyone on this forum would love to work on a big orchestral extravaganza doesn't seem so bad to me. Fantasy / action / family movies, at their best, self-consciously invite us to play and make believe, but include something earnest or "real" as well. Sure, their conventions make some characters or plot elements fatuous, but the best filmmakers manage to add real humanity or emotion or loss or pain inside the overall confection (like the first "Raiders" movie or "E.T. The Extraterrestrial" or "Dave" or just about all of the Pixar films) that helps the film feel meaningful and important, notwithstanding a tendency to cutesy / pandering / cheap thrills or laughs at other times.




I agree with you. And that's great. But wouldn't it be nice if there were more films like that from THIS decade. :D Thing is, there are plenty of writers who can deliver great films. They mostly aren't allowed to (Hence, all the rewrites... mostly uncredited). Too many "let's make it safer, broader" notes. I have no prob with G rated films. My buddy writes that stuff. I simply believe the bar needs to be raised across the board. We're at that point... again. 




> And one of the most fun challenges about a fantasy or action film is that music plays such an enormous role in creating whatever is going on. So I love writing for those kinds of movies, even if they are not at the Spielberg level.



Cool. I can imagine it'd be a lot of fun.




> Besides, it's not just studio pictures that suffer from convention. In my view, many artistically-ambitious films of recent manufacture suffer just as much as the "thrill-ride films" from predictable caricatures which bore me as much as do the conventions of the action/adventure genre -- the Suffering Artist, the Sensitive Victim-Ingenue, the Nasty Businessman / Nasty Politician. These weaken such films as much as a preposterous or two-dimensional Good Guy or unlikely plot turn weakens Spiderman 3. Another vein -- the "intense" films, have their own straight-jackets.



100% agree. That's my other gripe. The faux "indie film" that uses smoke and mirrors to pretend it's hip/quirky/fresh/risky etc. It's the the "indie-template" type film where using retro references is considered enough.

S'what I meant by this...

*This is especially true of the studios, but more increasingly true of these crap-ass directors in Indy land trying to smash-and-grab, essentially trying to use the studio-model. Really, just hoping the big studio notices them "Hi Mr. Studio, look I wrote and directed a piece of [email protected]#t just like you... will you give me a job now?" *

Good film has never really changed. Mostly has to do with honesty. I write with honesty knowing someone out there is going to hate what I do. On page one I know that. But what that also gets me is others loving it, telling me things like "I hate everything but I loved this". 

I read a lot of scripts. Far too many look desperate to be a hit. Template writing that's far too obvious.

Back to point: Believe me, there are some "indies" I feel are just as trite as many of these popcorn flicks. I'm thinking of a particular "indie" film that was an obvious attempt at adhering to the "quirky-indie template", but why name names. The script was the worst thing I read last year. 



> I accept that the "disposable thrill-ride" has been in vogue for some time and of course most of those movies are feeble. But I guess I don't get so offended / angry about it because I often enjoy the visual and auditory effects for their own sake, independently of the foolish story. For example, I really admire the score and many of the artistic aspects of Peter Jackson's "King Kong," even though that story doesn't grab me. Same thing for "Mission Impossible: III" -- a superb grab-bag of action set-pieces and jaw-breaking score sequences, even though some of the plot issues are hilarious.



Part of that may be that you are entertained by the score in a way others may not be. Either way. No harm in that, unless you're writing (scripts). It's hard to sit through that stuff after you've written a few scripts. It's like sitting through music with a lot of wrong notes even though it's mixed well. Just doesn't land and you wonder how other people don't notice how bad the writing is.


----------



## kid-surf (May 23, 2008)

HAD TO BREAK IT UP DUE TO QUOTING AND SAYING TOO MUCH. :D




> Looked at from the perspective of another medium, I think many stories / plots in ballets and operas are pretty lame too, even though I like the experience of the ballet or opera, so at some level I don't quite know whether it's fair to expect movies to live up to the standard of Great Art.



I can understand that perspective. Not everything is great. My point is merely: I don't see the point of "setting out" to create something one knows is less than great. In fact, aiming for that. I'd hate to be on my death bed with (as a screenwriter/director) a slew of box-office hits that came and went. Seems pointless, regardless of how decadent the room I'm dyeing in, is. At that point I'd be questioning my life's worth. I'd personally be more satisfied with a film hardly anyone saw but the folks who did, it stuck with them. Meant something in their lives other than a "thrill-ride". Which is why I respect filmmakers like Hitchcock. People still enjoy his films for good reason. He wasn't about box office numbers, but story. 

But... you know, that's the point where I'd start to flat out disagree with many producers about the purpose of film. To a producer/studio that's a good enough reason to make a film (good opening weekend). For me, that's not a good enough reason to write one. Regardless of what the quote to write it, is...

Having said that, my next script will be sell-out. For me. Which means it'll probably be just the right balance of commercial and gritty to everyone else. My barometer for "dark" is very different than most. What is simi-dark to me is extremely dark to many. Most scripts/films play, to me, like skipping a rock over the story. I like to be immersive with mine. Those are also the films I like to watch... regardless of genre.



> I admit that I am baffled, both by the studios' willingness to rush out weak films or start shooting without a great screenplay, but I'm equally baffled by audience reaction. Why "Transformers" did so well I will never be able to really explain but, I guess, so what? Sometimes people want an excuse to relive childhood, I suppose, or are desperate for pure escapism. Same thing with "Independence Day." For what they are, both are perfect examples. I don't find that so bad; it's just not for me.



I say that a lot. "Wasn't for me". That's the persona I take on in public so I don't get myself into trouble by being honest, the way I am here. :D

Well, none of what I said really matters, we're all in this for different reasons and I supposed that's fine.

Really all I'd ask of the filmmaking community is HONESTY.

One guys POV... unedited... sorry no time to edit. :D


----------



## kid-surf (May 23, 2008)

BTW -- having said all that. I don't say these things because I'm envious of someone else's career. No, I just care about art, is all. Passionate. I'm actually right were I want to be. New script going out today actually. Now it's probably back to developing my TV idea with the agent I'm dealing with. Think it could do well for HBO... it definitely wouldn't be a cheaply written show. I love artistic challenges. 

Maybe that's my point... Too few today are willing to fail. Greatness comes from a willingness to fail. My first script was a failure on many levels. But that was 5 scripts ago. At this point commercial shit is a breeze to write since I've challenged myself and been willing to fail. I'm sure I'll fail again. Good! :D



Going full circle... Once the bar is raised (film), I believe only at that point do the composers in the clip have a valid point.


----------



## JohnG (May 23, 2008)

Reading your posts is kind of painful and agonizing, though fascinating -- like watching a method actor in a torture movie.

I guess I'm as passionate about excellence as anyone -- multiple all-nighters struggling to meet what the film needs and what I guess the filmmakers mean by their comments (which sometimes don't make logical sense but always mean something). And then writing stuff and studying scores in between to get better; so I doubt we are far apart in caring about quality.

Plus, I feel like an alien when asked to opine on movies lately, since so many of them are not my cup of tea -- so I think maybe we agree on that too.

Where we differ is maybe you have a lower tolerance for mediocrity or higher expectations for those in the media in general. Many people just don't care that much about what they do and the entertainment bus is, as you know, no different. Plus, the skills that it takes to obtain and stay in the seat one occupies may not be the same ones it takes to be good once one have that seat, whether that be writer, director, producer, or composer. 

I have met composers who are just astonishingly good who are stuck doing petty projects they are sick of and they don't seem able to break into the next level that they crave. And the converse is true -- silly people who nevertheless are really good at winkling into a job and hanging on for dear life, all of which sort of bugs me, but just not the same way that it bugs you.

Frankly, I'm kind of glad that a lot of material is weak. It gives me hope that somebody will notice that my best stuff is better than that so I can find a good collaborator; I was really lucky to meet a guy whom I think really is a great filmmaker on my last outing, so I will keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## kid-surf (May 23, 2008)

Yeah...? I seem that tortured? Ok. Well, I just came off a month and a half writing binge, dark film, I'm a little loopy. Maybe I should go hit some auditions and make use of it..?

Didn't mean to imply that quality isn't important to you, if you felt that way.

Yep, that's my thing. I expect a lot more of film in general. 



> I have met composers who are just astonishingly good who are stuck doing petty projects they are sick of and they don't seem able to break into the next level that they crave.



Not to be grim or overly dramatic, but... That's that guys 'life'. Sometimes I wonder if people forget that this isn't a rehearsal. That's why art is important to me. 

Good luck with the filmmaker.


----------



## JohnG (May 23, 2008)

It's important to me and I take it seriously too -- I was just joking about the torture, because if you care about it it's always torture at some level. So I've adopted a torture-joke focus.

And I didn't get the sense you were paving over me about quality -- not at all. I find your posts interesting and full of raw personality, so if it's a little rough here and there, that is ok with me.

I want to do great work but I also want to keep working. Sometimes, when they drop in a source cue that I just hate, or use some bizarre sound effect that I've never heard before that is just distracting and takes away from the scene, I start to go out of my mind too, and it's all I can do not to run around shouting or something. But that doesn't lead to another gig, so I just keep cooling along and trying to remember that it's not just my movie. I can control my own output but I can't control everything, etc.

As a writer / director you are in a different position and actually I like all that fire. I just think that sometimes you sound like there is this energy / entropy with your notes that makes me worried for you a little. We should get a beer some time.


----------



## kid-surf (May 24, 2008)

Gotcha...

I tend to write very unrefined if I'm not writing a script. Stream of consciousness. So, it likely goes raw and redundant, etc. In script form my POV would be two sentences -- writer joke, but true.

I hear you, there's not as much room to be a ball-of-fire when you're the composer -- perhaps I've got too much at times. Entropy, yeah? I suppose I can see that. I suspect my views, snared to type, play more gloom-and-doom than intended. The actuality is that I feel the film industry is at the tipping-point, at the beginnings of an upswing. 

I can't help but also care about the macro. Day-to-day, I don't have time to express that view, nor a reason to, it's only when I stop to consider it do I take issue. Doesn't help that I'm reading PICTURES AT A REVOLUTION (the book I mentioned previously). Really gets one thinking about the progression of filmmaking. The year, 1968. Many similarities with today's market (i.e. too much fluff) when suddenly a few mavericks burst onto the scene and changed what film could be. Fascinating read. Which is likely the reason the book was suggested reading. Likely that many of the industry's younger people (say, 40 and under) don't realize the industry's already been through this very thing just a few decades ago.

Anyway... that's the book. Probably not much of concern to a composer as the "type" of films made isn't their fight.

Sure, let's grab a beer. Like any well developed character, I've got a lovable side, too. :D


----------

