# The future of harmony in dramatic film music -- what do you think?



## JohnG (Oct 21, 2008)

Harmony in dramatic and action-oriented film music has become more and more suspect, it seems. With some scores, there is mostly sound effect-oriented orchestral work, drones, some hybrid synth / guitar / choir / morphed sounds, and lots of rhythmic pulse -- whether from traditional percussion or otherwise. (Children's movies and comedies are generally another matter entirely, and for this discussion I'm aiming for drama and action). 

This raises something of a question as to whether functional harmony (with elements of key relationship, tonic dominant etc) is just too old-fashioned-sounding for modern, dramatic scores, or whether, as with Batman Begins, it's still there, but sort of -- different than it used to be; perfunctory, in that it doesn't really "mean it" when a chord progression appears.

How do you approach harmony for dramatic film scoring? Where do you think it is, and where is it going? 

A few specific questions, by no means exhaustive, might include:

1. Is harmony and harmonic progression important to you, or do you focus more on rhythm and colour?

2. Do you consider key relationships from one scene to the next? 

3. Do you develop a harmonic palette for each film, or do you have a set of harmonies and chords, or an approach (like a type of scale) that you use as a basis for different types of scores, or moods within scores?

4. Do you use a hybrid set of scales?

5. Has harmony become something that one uses more sparingly -- saved for a few moments in the score?

6. Is harmony just "dead" for the time being (leaving aside children's movies), and are we likely to see more and more scores that simply ignore traditional harmony and put in whatever pitches -- consonant, dissonant -- "feel" right to the composer?


----------



## lux (Oct 21, 2008)

Despite the fact i of course share the feeling that most likely stands behind your post, i cant avoid noticing how those threads have a certain frequency on this place (elsewhere too).

I propose a different point of view: doesnt it stands to composers to carry on changes? arent we just pointing somewhere out what we should care about in our little (or less little) activity as musicians?

I have the impulse to post every time (every) i watch John William scored movies, its like watching something nice youre just loosing and you cant tell why. Its plain sad. 

Harmony is dying and we're plain cowards. No matter what we post here.

Luca


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 21, 2008)

lux @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> Harmony is dying and we're plain cowards. No matter what we post here.
> 
> Luca



So sadly!

I think in the future more amd more "modern composers", (this nice word is written on the project sam`s Symphobia hompage) are slaves from their libs, first from their loop-libs.... . The first thing seems to be now the sound, the big boom sound... .

Sound effect-oriented orchestral work seems to be the hype now. 

In 2020, what do you think: Are there then some composers who can compose a score first in their head or are there then only "modern composers" , composing with garageband, loop-libs e.t.c.?


----------



## lux (Oct 21, 2008)

Funny thing is that i'm a fan of synth based soundtracks, like the early Hans Zimmer or John Carpenter, or Underworld, BT. Same applies to people like Dave Grusin, or to band/rock based scores.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 21, 2008)

Yeah,

but Hans is a good example into the other direction. 

The more scores he wrote, the better were his compositions.


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 21, 2008)

Define 'harmony', please... :?:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2008)

I think it's cyclical, John, or at least it changes. In the pop world we had rock 'n roll with three chords, then the Beatles came along with more sophisticated harmony, then Stevie Wonder, jazz-rock (if that can be called pop), then the Police pushed harmony in new directions, and then hip-hop came along and even jazz got a lot simpler.

In jazz there was bebop, then free jazz with a lot of modal playing (an expression of the civil rights movement), then fusion or jazz-rock, then the Keith Jarret-ish harmony style that pushed traditional pop harmony in new directions, then acid jazz (playing over hip-hopish grooves), and now hot tub music.

In the concert music we got minimalism - a return to doh.

Meanwhile we had the digital revolution and ||:loops:||.

Film music is just reflecting what's going on everywhere else.

And this is one of the glossiest histories of recent music you'll ever read.


----------



## dkristian (Oct 21, 2008)

When directors stop asking composers to imitate other composers, perhaps they (or we) will find the inspiration to come up with original and memorable music. I for one have great difficulty with orchestral arrangement because when I come up with the music, I'm not imagining it being played with traditional instruments.

I've all but completely lost interest in scoring (as in being the replacement for a temp track).

It's been a long time since I've heard a film score as memorable as Bernard Herrmann's Vertigo, Ennio Morricone's The Good the Bad and the Ugly, or John Carpenter's Halloween. I doubt any of these scores were composed to conform.

I just wish there weren't so many rules to have to break.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 21, 2008)

Yeah, the problem is that there are mostly the same temptracks on all films....., the reason why they all sound (here in Germany) the same... .

Listen here: http://music2movies.zdf.de/b2c/index.php?action=1&list=1


----------



## Hal (Oct 21, 2008)

Harmony will never die but the use of hiphop,electronic"loop" based scores might rise

u cant put enough mode or feeling with a drone or a couple of synth and loops
unless ur scoring a drak suspence or a sci fi may be

U know "crash" is a wonderful drama and an exelent soundtrack that is all synth drones and loops

i hate to think that somone with garage band would be called a movie composer !
this is kinda depressing

Harmony will never die but the use of hiphop,electronic"loop" based scores might rise

u cant put enough mode or feeling with a drone or a couple of synth and loops
unless ur scoring a drak suspence or a sci fi may be

U know "crash" is a wonderful drama and an exelent soundtrack that is all synth drones and loops

i hate to think that somone with garage band would be called a movie composer !
this is kinda depressing

at the end u almost always do what the director asks so yes temp track is a big issue if they temped Wagner then its ur lucky day,but u know who and what they usually temp


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 21, 2008)

Oops, there are many DJ`s arround the world who are feeling that they are musicians...


----------



## Hal (Oct 21, 2008)

Musicians ? yeah most of the ones ur talking about cant find a "FA" on their one octave controller !
they produce world records tho !?

A photoshop user will never be a painter no matter what output he gets by combining pictures.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 21, 2008)

Hal @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Musicians ? yeah most of the ones ur talking about cant find a "FA" on their one octave controller !
> they produce world records tho !?
> 
> A photoshop user will never be a painter no matter what output he gets by combining pictures.



How true!


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 21, 2008)

In popular film, tonality has had it's safest haven. Whether that's good or bad depends on one's point of view. The flexibility of film certainly allows for lot's of different genre's and styles of music. We have all seen successful and unsuccessful efforts across the board. Good epic scores and bad. Good song scores and bad etc. The percentage that are tonal dwarfs those that are not (Beneath the Planet of the Apes a rare example of true atonality.) 

Forbidden Planet has such a great electronic score that is so forward looking for the 1950's. I remember a college professor bemoaning the fact that Close Encounters looked so forward as a film and backward musically. I understood his point but still loved the score.

The big wrestling match between tonality and atonality was fought in the classical camps represented by Stravinsky and Schoenberg (though Stravinsky did eventually employ rows.) I think both camps are still active but tonality (which never really went away) is still very vibrant.

My guess is that the requirements of film and it's public will keep tonality around for a good while. Certainly as long as Disney is making their particular brand. You know all the other staples of tonality out there which aren't likely to all disappear as well.


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 22, 2008)

John,

thank you for bringing up this topic, I feel it could be nutritious for my thinking. I try to stick as closely to your questions as I can.



JohnG @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> This raises something of a question as to whether functional harmony (with elements of key relationship, tonic dominant etc) is just too old-fashioned-sounding for modern, dramatic scores



There is some truth in it imo. Harmony is such a strong musical element that certain harmonic relationships have been style forming. Example being the dominant seventh chord which will remind many people to the vienna classical era, certain progessions are linked to the romantic era etc. As a consequence much of this can sound backwards orientated to many people.

I have listened to Bruckner music lately wondering whether this could be film music today. Soundwise absolutely - but the harmony use is often so typical and strong that it defines a bygone era.

So yes, it is fortunate today to avoid certain key relationships, or at least break them with other elements. 



> 1. Is harmony and harmonic progression important to you, or do you focus more on rhythm and colour?



Harmony is very important for me but I try to do get the right portion of the unexpected whenever I can.



> 2. Do you consider key relationships from one scene to the next?



Not really atm. I should.



> 3. Do you develop a harmonic palette for each film, or do you have a set of harmonies and chords, or an approach (like a type of scale) that you use as a basis for different types of scores, or moods within scores?



I have only scored one film to date but decided on using mainly one harmony approach for it, like a harmonic leitmotiv. This would be different for other films.



> 4. Do you use a hybrid set of scales?



When writing music (my own music, not style studies) I try to think out of the box as much as I can without breaking the frame of balance (at least I try). This includes mixed use of scales.



> 5. Has harmony become something that one uses more sparingly -- saved for a few moments in the score?



No, since harmony begins for me already with two different notes. It is always a play of expection and surprise.



> 6. Is harmony just "dead" for the time being (leaving aside children's movies), and are we likely to see more and more scores that simply ignore traditional harmony and put in whatever pitches -- consonant, dissonant -- "feel" right to the composer?



Traditional harmony is as dead as wearing tails. Which is, if you look at it, the superhero costume of ancient times (manly V-shape of the male upper body with small hip, broad shoulders, link of legs etc.) - so strong in it's time that it makes people associate with something else than modern life.

Even more, the idea of wearing tails has been perverted over time. In films we see bulgy senators wearing tails, not to speak of musicians with tails that are two numbers too big for being comforteable. The element is still there as a logo but the idea of a manly superman shape is often lost.

But it is possible to wear tails today in a modern context. Break it with unexpected elements like a punk hairdo or fresh colours. Or desintegrate the original idea of it into its key elements and create a new superhero look. 

Same applies for music.

A general impression regarding harmony:

Beat me but I feel that much of today's harmony use is developed from guitar think. A _very _simplified view is that some 30 years ago some people replaced the rhythm guitar of a rock band by orchestra strings and invented 'symphonic rock' - modern use of harmony and band instruments plus the great sound of the romantic orchestra. From there it is a short way to modern and successful action film music. Yes, this is very simplified but I think there is some truth in it.

The use of harmony is often a play of surprise. Surprise only works when there is an expection. Much of epic film music has used the same 'surprises' over and over so that they have become the new paradigms or exceptions. Everything that has been overdone tends to be reverted at a later time, so I think in a way it is healthy to break with that, giving room for new surprises.

My 2 cents ...


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 22, 2008)

John,

Your question has a parallel outside music.
Just look at spelling and grammar. I am still embarrassed when I read back something I've written in which I perform poorly in either or both.
Why? There are no rules now! Music is now no different, anything goes.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2008)

Call me a heretic, but I've never looked to film scores as the place where the envelope is pushed. Film composers have been applying what concert composers have been doing 30-300 years before. It's never been at the forefront of harmonic, rhythmic, etc exploration. It naturally cannot compete, as it has to be part of a greater whole (the film) rather than be the work on its own (concert). You want some interesting harmonic exploration, check out Charles Ives or Bartok. Listen to Edgard Varese (I know I should again), Takemitsu, Penderecki, etc.

PS: I was listening to the Dark Knight soundtrack. Nice crunches, lovely/cliched electroacoustic gestures (oooh, a slow gliss!), but completely un-memorable.


----------



## bryla (Oct 22, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Takemitsu, .


Hey Ned! Where to start with Takemitsu? If I had to download one track


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 22, 2008)

Takemitsu had several stages in his career, so you'd have to check out each one to get an overall idea of his output. For the more recent material, you can check out the How Slow The Wind cd on iTunes: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=203012241&s=143455 (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt ... 1&amp;s=143455)

You can really hear the Debussy influence I find - what a colourist!


----------



## bluejay (Oct 22, 2008)

I definitely think it was harmony that attracted me to film music. It was the chromatic mediant and tritone changes from composers like Goldsmith and Herrmann which seem to have had their roots in late Romantic music. I also use the parallel chord movement that John Williams used so successfully and I guess originated with Debussy. All this plus polytonality.

So ... in terms of what I'm doing I guess I'm hopefully continuing that tradition.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Oct 22, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> In popular film, tonality has had it's safest haven. Whether that's good or bad depends on one's point of view. The flexibility of film certainly allows for lot's of different genre's and styles of music. We have all seen successful and unsuccessful efforts across the board. Good epic scores and bad. Good song scores and bad etc. The percentage that are tonal dwarfs those that are not (Beneath the Planet of the Apes a rare example of true atonality.)



Dave, 

You mean Modality, not tonality in the conventional sense. The overwhelming majority of contemporary film music of the Hollywood mould is modal. And this is the point that the OP is highlighting I think. 

Modality is of course an anti-teleological system. Modal harmony doesn't seek to 'go' anywhere; modal harmony can't modulate since modulation is a tonal concept and phenomenon; modaly harmony doesn't develop in the conventional sense; and, ultimately, it either circulates around a modal centre (the final) or that modal centre shifts to another modal centre. By its very nature, modal harmony is restricted and simple and leads inexorably - in filmic contexts - to simple and restricted harmonic writing. But I think as Zimmer and others have ably demonstrated it can be highly dramatic, affective and effective. Modality, whether we like it or not, is the musical lingua franca of our day. 

I think what we as composers tend to forget sometimes is that our music is subservient and ancillary to the drama, to the image and to the dialogue; as such its primary role and sole purpose is to be effective, non-diegetically, within the context of the film. If, as a result, it fails to stand on its own as a coherent, well-structured and 'harmonically interesting' composition, so be it. I know that sounds harsh, but - well apart from soundtrack sales - that's all that matters. >8o 


Cheers


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2008)

What Ned said.

Rousseau, I understand your point and yes there's a whole lot of modal writing going on out there. Nonetheless _modal_ still falls under the umbrella of _tonal_ in the strict defintion of the latter. I think that you're referring to _diatonic_ harmony (with it's pull away from and back to the tonic) as no longer common and I agree. Modal writing is still a form of _harmony_ is my point. Semantics no doubt.

I will say that I have had many a conversation with composers that scores (particularly in TV) have gone from music to sound design with all the cool plugins out there. It sounds very old and tired to me now. As Nick pointed out, things cycle and that once new approach is already receding or becoming more balanced with harmonic music.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 22, 2008)

So would it be fair to say the consensus is that harmony just isn't the main thought when writing -- that there are tonal or modal centres (or centers, depending) but that traditional harmony is just not used in drama and action?

If we accept some of the hypotheses and points of view mentioned, modern film scoring and harmony, in the sense of traditional chord progressions with dominant / tonic relationships is, maybe, nonexistent? I can't remember in the action / drama department when I've used anything remotely "functional" (I ii IV V I is not to be found). In some scores, there may be one or two such progressions but they are rare and often, as someone else pointed out, they sound a lot like guitar / rock song cadences (i.e. IV-I) instead of V-I.

Not that tonality is gone in the sense Rousseau and others raised as a tonal centre -- modality -- because, obviously, many / most cues for most for dramatic and action scores stay in a single tonal centre or move among a few, but without any "functional" (leading tone, dominant 7th) chord progressions. This of course excepts the "sad bits," when often there are close-to-tonal or actual tonal progressions in places. 

Even a lot of what used to be common as "dissonant" chords have been heard so much that, if used too baldly, they often sound ridiculous or melodramatic (c#, d, g# for example).

I am still interested in whether anybody else does the Jerry Goldsmith thing (not that he invented it, but he used it in some scores) and derives a harmonic framework or set of rules for a score, based on a couple of chords or a scale -- anybody doing that? I often do -- I get one or two chords that I like and figure out an implied scale and then use that all through.

By way of example, Hannes mentioned a "mixed use of scales," but I'm curious as to whether that's done intuitively or with some more rigid formula.


----------



## jsaras (Oct 22, 2008)

For me, Lyle Murphy's System of Horizontal Composition has been very fruitful in that it has provided a method to explore the endless Rubik's cube that is harmony. It's provided me 'freedom' from all the usual tonal cliches because all possible root movements are explored in the assignments (that's the meaning "Equal Interval"). Using this technique, everything has a distinct linear logic because of the voice-leading from chord to chord.

Highly recommended!


----------



## poseur (Oct 22, 2008)

ok, i veer OT, here.....

i don't wanna be too sappily optimistic, but:
i kinda think that the future of film-music is what we make it,
at least to some degree,
when we stand by our best
(&, occasionally, our most frighteningly "risky")
musical impulses.

we CAN write what we feel is correct.... within sight of the
necessary (& loved, i guess) limitations of film music,
within the boundaries
of what we know we're being asked
&/or told to do
by our employers.

i'm sure that we're clever enough to be able to utilise
what actually inspires & appeals to us, musically,
within the body of a score..... given that we also
cleave tightly to our purpose of fulfilling the film's intentions.

anyways, sorry.
i felt that i oughta blabber a little,
& this wee (interesting, for many reasons) thread
kinda triggered it.

harmony, melody, rhythm, samples, acoustic instruments,
simulations, textural ambiences, what_EVER_:
we must be capable of elevating our films
while simultaneously
truly being the creative _*composers*_
whom we intend & possibly purport to be.
a little courage & (granted: _scary_) confidence can go a long way, imo.

whatever it is we do leads us into our own futures,
like it or not.
d


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Oct 23, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> What Ned said.
> 
> Rousseau, I understand your point and yes there's a whole lot of modal writing going on out there. Nonetheless _modal_ still falls under the umbrella of _tonal_ in the strict defintion of the latter. I think that you're referring to _diatonic_ harmony (with it's pull away from and back to the tonic) as no longer common and I agree. Modal writing is still a form of _harmony_ is my point. Semantics no doubt.



Dave, 

Sure modal harmony is modal harmony - ask Palestrina et al and it worked well until about 1640 and is alive and kicking again in film. :mrgreen: 

However, I must disagree with your point that modality comes under the umbrella of tonality. The tonal system has everything to do with key relationships, modulation, teleology, and the resolution of dissonance to consonance; modality on the other hand has nothing to do with those factors. To be sure, the major and minor scales are modes, but - and this is surely the crucial point - they do not function as modes in the tonal scheme; they are keys and have functional relationships with other keys. Therefore modal harmony is quite distinct from tonal harmony. 

Cheers


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 23, 2008)

Rousseau @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> Therefore modal harmony is quite distinct from tonal harmony.
> Cheers



Yes, distinct but both a forms of _Harmony_ (as I posted and as you say here.) The title of the thread refers to Harmony (not modal or diatonic, pan diatonic, tertian, or quartal etc. You can _harmonize_ something using any or all of these devices. So in that sense the question is too broad perhaps. But I think I missed the essence of the question (I did address it in my previous post a bit.) Which is sound design taking over score. Instead of harmony you have sparkle and woosh and bam!

It's all good Rousseau and Cheers to you!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 23, 2008)

Dave Connor @ 23/10/2008 said:


> Instead of harmony you have sparkle and woosh and bam!



Then again, that could apply to the type of films that are scored for orchestra. It's all flash on the screen as well, the average audience age is 19. I think there's plenty of room for experimentation in film music, but it's more likely to be accepted in the context of dramatic psychological films, films that deal with complex emotions instead of complicated fight scenes. Thing is, these tend to have smaller budgets.


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi John,

From my very untrained perspective I learnt about film music from watching and listening, I was also _inspired _from watching and listening. I used to listen to the X-Files scores (I was an obsessed fan!) and thought it brilliant that the chord changes seemed to perfectly compliment what was going on. Everything seemed to MEAN something. So, if that is what you are talking about I do think that is something I personally want to aspire to be able to do.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi Ed,

Having the chord changes complement what's going on certainly is part of what I'm on about -- maybe the majority of it. I don't remember X-Files that well but I do remember that Mark Snow was able to create a hell of a lot of tension and even action / urgency without using much at all by way of drums or pulsing strings or -- anything. And I think it was largely to do with his harmony (and everything else too, but the harmonies I think may have been the main trick).

And maybe, in a way, you are putting your finger on something important. There are a lot of composers out there writing marcato ostinato figures in strings over a bed of drones and percussion. While this is very effective, it's also potentially very monotonous, plus it has the problem of sounding like Hans Zimmer knock-off material. 

But anyway, whether or not they are original or effective I am not really criticising -- it's a living -- but the point is that those Zimmer sound-alike cues frequently use many drum tracks and lots of pulse sounds to create the same urgency that (if I recall correctly) Snow created with a lot less noise / effort.

Is that part of what you're raising Ed?


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 23, 2008)

Hal @ Tue Oct 21 said:


> A photoshop user will never be a painter no matter what output he gets by combining pictures.



Damn that is a great quote. It perfectly sums up how I feel about this whole thing too. 

My test would be, if we all lost electricity and the ability to use technology to make music, how many film composers *could* write for orchestra (without the aid of copyists, orchestrators and such)? My guess would be 75% of the popular composers today would be up shit creek without a paddle.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 23, 2008)

It is interesting to discuss the subject from a composers POV but what about looking at it from a filmmaker's POV? Are we also giving thought to the "film" itself, its purpose?

Specifically, the tone of the film. More specifically, the idea that film in general has become, in many ways, more "grounded" (screenwriting/directorial term). There are, perhaps, less films made today that call for harmony. To play some of them this way would feel almost melodramatic. 

I can only speak definitively about what I do and where my head is: The last two scripts I wrote, when directed, would not call for harmony. Literally, that approach would ruin them as films. The next film I'm writing, same. The film after that, same. The TV shows I'm developing, same. That's at least 6 projects, back-to-back that I don't see as benefiting from harmony. More to the point; this isn't done on purpose, I'm not against the idea of harmony, but I tend not to write projects that would/could organically employ it. And...I know what score would work before "FADE IN" is written.

Point being: There are someone people out there doing work that simply doesn't lend itself to harmony. And I don't think the writer/directors/TV-creators can be scolded for that aspect. Bluntly; looking at music from this side of the fence, I don't care what a composer wishes to do, it's about the story, themes, character, etc. (which, btw, is likewise not about 'my' ego either -- if my ego gets in the way the film/TV-show will be garbage).

*Even when I'm writing a dark fucked-up film, I'm writing it with classical sensibilities. Which means; "it ain't about me -- it's about the value of the story"

One aspect to consider is that the way in which we tell these stories has changed to some degree. Not to piss anyone off, but, many of the older films do not hold up today. Specifically, some of the classics that we all 'remember' as being brilliant. I'm not the only one to notice, once held up in the light of day, that there is often a more pronounced suspension of disbelief, plot holes, [etc.] in many of the older films. (not to say that there aren't many amazing films throughout the history of film -- obviously there are).

Another aspect to consider is that, too many newer writers-writer/directors-directors don't have a "voice" of their own but instead look to copycat/look-alike. They first copycat the script, then the film, finally the temp score. They look to what the most successful guys in town are doing and 'attempt' to do the knock-off version. What they end up with is the watered down version that, hey, is valueless. So, what sort of score MATCHES their film? Does it really matter?

Another aspect to consider is that it's hard as HELL to get a 'good' script/film made. Many of the classic AMAZING films from our past would not get made today. Sadly. As ass-backwards as that is, it's the reality out there. Look at what's playing in the theaters this moment. Anything you feel like seeing? All the studios care about most of the year is "smash-and-grab". Those types of films may or may not lend themselves to harmony, and when they do, does it really help the film? Not convinced.

On the flip-side we have independent films. That market is clearly looking for the "break out hit". Means it'll likely be a comedy. Harmony in a screwball comedy? Not seeing it. What I am seeing is a request for a JUNO temp.

...Add this (and many other aspects not mentioned) together and you've got far less 'need' for harmony.

Ironically, the film I want to direct first (if it gets made) will have almost no score. Instead, 85% source music, and it's a drama. Why so much source? Because that is what will "allow" the story to be most powerful. Done any other way it will feel melodramatic, which is not what I'm after.

BTW -- the very first script I wrote, I wrote it from the standpoint of wanting a VERY melodic score. Turned out that VERY few people "got" the script.  I changed my focus to "story" and suddenly things began to fall into place. Suddenly people understood what I was trying to say.

Many of my other projects are action oriented (think: The Departed/Raging Bull etc). I see some harmony working in moments, but over all? Not so much. Then again, if it's a studio film, it's not my call (yet). If they wish to ruin it with harmony it's their call.

Far as the TV-shows I'm developing: The concepts lend themselves to much source music there too, and/or score that is simplistic and not overwrought. Although, have you heard Dexter's theme? I love that. 

I don't feel I owe it to composers to write material that lends itself to harmony. I'm trying to tell a story here. The music aspect is in fact critical. But no, not necessarily harmony. Not for me. I'll never write anything that feels like Star Wars or E.T. or Superman or LOTR [etc.]. Not the stories I'm interested in telling. I like dark, fucked up characters...I tend to write introverted characters fighting inner demons, as opposed to (literal) external demons (i.e. no CGI for me, thanks).

I know some people get bent when I use my work/POV as an example, but, why would I care what everyone else is doing? That's what's wrong with film in general, particularly with the new-er guys.

My point is simply: We must also take into account the film's purpose. It's the determining factor, in my view.

...But I do apologize if I went too far OT. :D


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 23, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> Hal @ Tue Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > A photoshop user will never be a painter no matter what output he gets by combining pictures.
> ...




Great test if they are to write orchestral music unto itself...

Not a great test for a "film composer". Again, it's not about the composer, not even about the director or writer, but instead THE FILM itself.

...The film's value unto itself.

Sorry to say...that comment strikes of ego, composers puffing their chests in hopes to aggrandize themselves. 

Look at it this way, how the heck do we make a film without electricity? We don't. I could write a script in the sand at the beach, but that ain't a movie.

If, on the other hand, we are not discussing "film composing", the point is well taken. Otherwise, not what I personally believe.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 23, 2008)

Well, kid, I think that's really what's driving a lot of the music being written. 

I am not trying to moan about or deplore an absence of harmony -- that's like moaning about the weather -- I am asking that, given our environment and the degree to which it's changed, how actually do our colleagues approach harmony.

I'm sure that I'm not alone in having directors who don't like tunes or don't like anything "orchestral" (i.e. no woodwinds and no functional harmony), and who temp with what amount to sound effects stuff, or perhaps American Beauty, which is every young director's favourite score (I like it too -- don't get me wrong!)

So, given your position, which I think reflects reality / what's going on in the film world sensibility, how do we think about harmony -- meeting the needs of the film but escaping drones and sounddesign?


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 23, 2008)

I hear you...Ironically, that is the very reason I set out on the journey I'm on now. Not that I'm some great composer, but I was tired of trying to convince new-er directors of the values present in objectivity.

Can I also say, first, that; I also have a real problem with these young directors who couldn't write a decent script to save their lives. If one doesn't posses an intimate knowledge of 'story' they shouldn't be directing.

To your question:

Man that's a tough one. It seems as though it's about finding those directors who do not wish to temp American Beauty. It is flat out shocking to me that these 'directors' either don't realize, or don't care that they are stealing tone/sensibility from an "original" work. What sort of young director (trying establish a unique POV) does that? I, too, like the American Beauty score, but it's Sam's and Thomas'. Not to mention, we may like the score a whole lot less had the film sucked...said another way...had it been the "original" score to the very same knock-off film temping it now. Allan Ball EARNED the score with his script, Sam then EARNED it with his directorial prowess. This allowed Thomas to deliver something "authentic". Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?

Believe me, I have a real problem with those so-called filmmakers who steal. 

BTW -- I also dislike this idea-young composer often have-that louder and more bombastic is somehow impressive. I mean, it can work, but if I were looking for a composer I'd skip that cue to try and figure out what this dude's "voice" is. Though, I may be the anomaly? Lotta young directors get a hard-on when they hear that stuff, particularly when they've never worked with a composer before.

Orchestral -- I see having an aversion to orchestral as about as naive as not liking classic story structure. 

How to circumvent these obstacles: I dunno? I would say first order of business is to read the script to really dive under the hood to understand the "story" as opposed to getting too caught up in the images. Then, be honest about what this film 'needs' as opposed to what we 'want' to do. If the composer, from that point, is convinced they've got a take that will act as the emotional thematic spine. Cool! The term "elevate the film" is an idea I'm squeamish about. I tend to think that idea is really just another way for the composer to stand-out as result of their music standing-out. My belief is that nothing should "stand out", that the film should be so seamless that the writer, director and composer are invisible.

Take -- Selling that take to the director. Perhaps it's about subtly alerting this director that he's stealing tone (i.e. earned POV/Voice) from someone else if he temps. Or, if it's instead about employing harmony into a film which will support it (or, would be supported by it)...perhaps in that case it's about nudging the director with ideas about the value in establishing HIS voice (so that he may have a career -- bigger deals etc.) Does this guy wish to reach the next level? Maybe remind him (specific films) of those who have made original films, the icons who came before him, the guy he's likely ripping off this very moment. Maybe pull some clips from filmmakers he admires to demonstrate how it's worked for the best of the best...while at the same time nailing down the idea that each of these scores were "originals".

I dunno? I suppose it's a fine line between who is right or wrong. Director -vs- Composer. If I'm 100% convinced that woodwinds/functional-harmony won't work on a particular project, that's pretty much that. Then again, I've been thinking about the music's role since before the script was written. In fact, I wrote the script TO music. As we know, some directors, amazingly, find themselves in Post before they've given thought to the function of the score. Maybe ask them WHEN they decided on the function of the score. Maybe that's a clue as to their attachment. Maybe they can be broken... 

BTW -- I always keep an open mind. If a guy said "let me sketch something out for you, just to see", I'd say "go for it...I'm interested to see what you come up with!". Maybe approach a director that way? Maybe AFTER you've landed the gig. :D Bait and switch, but hey... 

That's a lot of rambling: In a nutshell, I'd pull examples to demonstrate films that have done well using 'my' approach (even if they are dissimilar films. Perhaps, specifically dissimilar films. Don't want to give any ideas about temping). Hard to argue the validity of one's approach to a well respected film.


I, too, would like to see more harmony, more adventurous, etc. Just...it's gotta be what the film calls for.


----------



## lux (Oct 23, 2008)

Kid sometimes I feel your position (that we discussed a lot in the past) as one of those who say that the secret of a good relationship is being totally free eachother.

I respectfully disagree. I'm probably the less experienced composer here, no joke, but it happened to me more than once to hear from a guy "wow, this music suggests me an approach i wouldnt have thought of". And i'm really nothing.

So, is the filmmaker point of view, as you often recall it, just a matter of freedom or light underline of some given visual happenings? Really the story tells us that half the composers just made their homework trying not to hurt "the visuals" or "the director's approach" or whatever you like it best?

I still remember George Lucas sayin that while the first movies was about to become the biggest disaster of all times, and he was really depressed, the only thing that went far beyond his expectations was the music, and how much he was surprised and amazed by what he defined a symphonic poem.

So, again: You dont know what the movies calls for. Probably half times the director does neither in an absolute way. And in my honest opinion there's lot of space for composer to try, offer, experiment, apply, study. Harmony and composition give you the wider palette to give a plus to a visual.

If you love something dont just leave it free, make your best to "add" something that really works. And something probably works if you have enough respect of what you work with. Not that hard i guess.

Addition. Multiply. The least i can expect from a guy who spend his life playing notes.

Luca


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 23, 2008)

kid-surf @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> My belief is that nothing should "stand out", that the film should be so seamless that the writer, director and composer are invisible.




Disagree, if the music stands out because it's actually good I'm all for it. When they are flying to the island in Jurassic Park I'm glad the music wasn't seamless and invisible.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 23, 2008)

> Kid, I think there are some directors who can handle the kind of interchange you're describing, but not too many.




Unfortunately...



> There is no such thing as music that does nothing to the film and is "invisible."




Whoa...Not what I meant.  I know the saying, I should have said it another way, because I believe the saying is total bullshit. This one, correct?: "A good score is one you don't remember and wouldn't recognize if you heard it a third time". :D 

Ok, so I've taken some liberties with paraphrasing, but that's what the saying MEANS to me. Which is bullshit. Agreed!

How 'bout this saying: "A good score moves us..." Whereby, if we hear it again we will immediately be transported back to the world the film inhabits. For some reason the Donnie Darko score pops into my head.

Definitely!! The music MUST mean something and therefore MOVE us. What I'm referring to is moving us without being heavy handed and "obvious". Like those shitty scripts where everything is "on the nose" (i.e. Please cry here). No, we're still on the same page. 



> It was so striking that they parodied it in Dreamworks Animation's movie "Madagascar." Sometimes I get asked for music that just "noodles" -- i.e. provides energy but doesn't really do anything. This to me means that the scene is not quite there and nobody can fix it any other way. It is the hardest stuff to write on earth.




Agreed! It says exactly that. Those type of films are my gripe. The thing shouldn't have been made yet. 99x out of 100, it's a problem with a script that wasn't ready. Post ain't going to fix a bad script...usually.  There's always an anomaly.




> Most directors would not tolerate any composer telling them any of this, kid. They barely tolerate composers telling them about anything at all, even like whether he should uses strings in the score, and implying that the director is unoriginal or something would be just nuts.



Only if you are on-the-nose about it. I'm saying, that is your subtext, your motive. Obviously, one must walk on far too many eggshells with these many fragile directors. So we must form it to be more palatable. But the message is the same.

Perhaps I think too much like a screenwriter at this point. I deal with subtext all day long. My characters never say what they mean. 



> It is naive to think that most people want to make a movie as brainy as American Beauty -- I'm sort of sorry I mentioned that because it's an anomaly. Most of them want to make -- money. And they are scared out of their wits to try anything artistic or original.



Agreed. Which is why I couldn't deal and split off to do my own thing. I can write whatever I wish (even if agents and managers don't think it's the right thing = $). Some producers have flat out told me, "I'm just looking for something to sell". I appreciate the honesty, but that's not what I'm after. Not my first concern anyway, my first concern is quality.

No, it's good you mentioned that film BECAUSE it's an anomaly. Just goes to show how many knuckle-heads don't understand WHY the film is an anomaly. They wrongly assume they can steal the music (implied voice) and posses a work that resemble anything at all. Not the case. I agree with you. Have you read my stuff? :D



> People have done this from time to time, but if they've been living for months with a temp score, they almost always prefer that -- a giant orchestra version of some huge score that they've heard 100 times -- to a computer mock-up of something they've never heard before. Besides, you only can do this if you have time to write scenes twice, which is not all that common.



Again. Agreed. But remember I said it was a tough question.  I've dealt with these knuckle-heads too. I didn't want to continue on down that path. My brain doesn't work that way is all I know for sure. I know music so I will not bother to use a temp. I have my own point of view (which btw, is the reason people wish to work with me now after having written for only a short while). I agree, the amount of guys out there who don't fall into these (naive) traps are few...All I know for sure is that I'm not that guy and never wish to be.



> I don't know; maybe I have the wrong gigs. The ones this year have been great but in general the kind of give and take you describe seem like a fantasy to me, especially as the budgets get bigger.




I don't know the answer. But I suspect it has something to do with turning down work and fighting for what you believe in, artistically. I'll tell you what, it was no easy task to suddenly, out of the blue, decide to become a screenwriter who wanted to direct and score his own films. I told myself that I wanted to, in one year, go from never having written a thing to having something going on. And I wanted to do this in one of the most competitive markets in the world (Hollywood/Studio). 50,000 scripts per year registered with the WGA, tens of thousands more which likely were not. Some would call that crazy, or even stupid. Well, it took me a year and a half to get something going. Then again, this is a process. 

In that year and a half I wrote 5 scripts. 

The point is not self congratulatory. Not at all. I don't need praise, don't need my ego stroked. The point is; I believed in what I was after enough to take the risk, do or die. But I had the idea that I WILL make this happen, period. But only as a result of delivering quality and having something "original" to say. I knew I had to earn it. The other crazy thing I did was to NOT write commercial material (the scripts that are landing for me are both very dark). My only focus was on "quality". Perhaps I could have already had a film in production had I aimed at a payday, but I didn't want that. Seen other folks hardly make a mark going that route. Besides, it ain't me anyway.

I was probably the wrong personality type to be a composer because I constantly felt like I had better ideas and more to say (thematically) than those I was working for. At the same time, I felt like every direction I turned, I was faced with some dude looking to do the knock-off film. Frustrating. I agree.

I suppose my point is simply that I only knew/know what's right for me, and went after it. And that it is, thus far, paying off. Which leads me back to--



> I don't know; maybe I have the wrong gigs. The ones this year have been great but in general the kind of give and take you describe seem like a fantasy to me, especially as the budgets get bigger.



I felt I could CREATE that opportunity for myself. I HAVE to work that way...I need it. I didn't want for it to be a fantasy because I knew in my gut the way it's supposed to work. It took me a minute or two, once I began to get meetings, to get used to the question "what are YOU looking to do?"


*please excuse me sea of words. I only know how to edit scripts.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 23, 2008)

well, it appears we generally agree, kid. And from what you've written I find it droll to picture that you ever imagined you were willing to submit to anyone else's POV, since yours is so vivid and specific. I think you made the right move.

anyhow......

My original motive in asking about harmony was NOT to deplore the state of filmmaking or wish that I could write Star Wars again. That was 30 years ago.

I would sort of like to return to the question about approaches to harmony -- had a few good ones so far -- for action / dramas.

We still have to write some harmony, just not the way we used to -- how do you think about it?


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 23, 2008)

JohnG @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> My original motive in asking about harmony was NOT to deplore the state of filmmaking or wish that I could write Star Wars again. That was 30 years ago.



Interesting that that score was designed to be a throwback to scores from 30-40 years earlier (as was the film.)


JohnG @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> We still have to write some harmony, just not the way we used to -- how do you think about it?



Like any approach, some people are better than others in staying away from traditional harmonic movement. I have a certain admiration for people that do it well because they have essentially had to come up with their own harmonic language. Some of the worst scores I can think of are failed attempts at this where chords just sort of meander with a total lack of relationship. 

Conversly, period scores allow for this approach and sometimes with very good results as in Elmer Bernsteins, The Age of Innocence. Silvestri's Castaway is very tonal and diatonic score which was effective (to name a contemporary score). So there will always be flat out tonal scores in film I would think.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 23, 2008)

kid-surf @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> > Kid, I think there are some directors who can handle the kind of interchange you're describing, but not too many.




Exactly. 

And how about these without noticeable music underscore:

Elliot Goldenthal's Interview with the Vampire when Lestat first attacks Louis?

Wojciech Kilar's operatic opening to Bram Stoker's Dracula?

The finale of The Accidental Tourist with a soaring statement from John Williams?

Psycho shower scene?

Jaws- well, everything from that film score?

Jerry Goldsmith's opening cue to Papillon when a prisoner gets shot trying to flee (after 20 minutes of no music)

there are too many examples to pull from cinematic history.

Oh and you can blame Prokofiev and Eisenstein for starting the idea of sound montage in film. Alexander Nevsky has got to be one of best examples of music affecting the narrative intrinsically.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 24, 2008)

Droll -- perfect word. Thing is, I had no idea I had a filmic POV back then. I fell into it...suddenly it felt like I'd been doing it for years. Agreed, I made the right move for me. Though, I understand it's not what everyone is after.

As for "how" to approach harmony: Don't you feel that, that part hasn't changed? Or has it? What I mean is - if the film called for harmony, wouldn't it be the same approach as ever?

Your original question pointed out that scores have become less harmonic - I felt it pertinent to mention that the screenwriters' language has become less flowery / dramatic...therefore the film follows...therefor the score follows. I felt there was an innocuous reason for the current state of less-harmony

I believe the paramount question you asked was; "is harmony is dead?". I don't think it's dead, I just think it's not what's called for often enough to _feel_ like it's dead, or dying. Functionally, I believe, on the right films, it works as well as it always has, and will continue to.

So this boils down to (IMO) perhaps fighting a little harder for it when you know it is what's called for. What else can one do? Other than bend-over and write music they don't feel is organic/fitting...

Just...I'm not sure the question is 'how', but 'when and where and why'.

But that's only an opinion...


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 24, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu Oct 23 said:


> kid-surf @ Thu Oct 23 said:
> 
> 
> > > Kid, I think there are some directors who can handle the kind of interchange you're describing, but not too many.
> ...




So we agree then! o-[][]-o 


I love a happy ending. _(no I don't...I like dark, unresolved or interpretive endings, but hey, that shit doesn't play in Hollywood.  )_


----------



## Kennith Nichol (Oct 31, 2008)

All I have to say on this topic, since it's so broad, is the following:

Harmony as we should define it at its simplest is merely the result of placing two different 'things' (in our case sounds) against each other.

Conssonant, Dissonant, and Noise (which is really an utlra complex form of both together)

So nothing can exisit without harmony, it has been there from the beginning.

In a musical point of view, harmony has exisited since monophony, the harmony of a melody is implied, always. The harmony of polyphony is more anchored.

Traditional Tonal music has anchored harmony in the bass line. ATonal music is harmonicly related through dissonance. 

So really.. Harmony isn't dying, the practice of any harmony will always be the basic vocabulary of music.

To top it off, modern scores are filled with poly chormaticism and other neo romantic ideas. 

So it's a futle argument really.

To rephrase my opening thought, harmony is really just the relationship between two or more sounds/pitches/noises.


Well, at least, that's my two cents worth.


----------

