# Film music 2007: *toilet flush sound emoticon



## choc0thrax (Nov 7, 2007)

Now that the year is getting close to an end it's time to look back at what's been done this year. I'd say this is one of the crappier years for film music out there. No doubt these days I have much lowered expectations, the fantastic scores of the late eightie's to mid nineties are gone. What do you guys think has stood out this year? I'm gonna list my top 3 so far:

-John Debney- Lair (yes it's a videogame score but it still counts)

-Howard Shore- Eastern Promises

-*slot reserved for Beowulf* 8) 

Maybe there was something else that was good that I missed I dunno. I actually spend more time listening to Michael Nyman's Gattaca and The Piano than any recent music.


----------



## RMWSound (Nov 8, 2007)

My favorites off the top of my head...

Lust and Caution - Alexandre Desplat
Stardust - Ilan Eshkeri
Rescue Dawn - Klaus Badelt
3:10 to Yuma - Marco Beltrami
Eastern Promises - Howard Shore
Bourne Ultimatum - John Powell

Not a great year, but there were a few diamonds in the rough. And I'm still waiting for an official release of Debney's Lair.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 8, 2007)

What do you mean waiting for an official release? The 26 track Itunes release is official...unless you mean you're waiting for it on cd.


----------



## synthetic (Nov 8, 2007)

Bourne Ultimatum soundtrack was the other two Bourne CDs on "shuffle."


----------



## redleicester (Nov 8, 2007)

Nicholas Hooper - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Tyler Bates - 300 - it may have been cliched Hollywood fodder, but he did put his own spin on it.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 8, 2007)

Ewww Nicholas Hooper, I don't remember much of his Potter score but I think I remember it sounded sedated or something. Stardust sounded impressive but it seemed like i'd get bored of it fast. Bourne Ultimatum I didn't care for too much, Supremacy is the best of the three IMO. I don't listen to 300, I prefer to just listen to the real deal- Titus.


----------



## redleicester (Nov 8, 2007)

Well we can't all have the same taste in like Choccy my boy, that'd just get dull! :D


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 8, 2007)

Actually that would be fantastic.


----------



## Ed (Nov 8, 2007)

redleicester @ Thu Nov 08 said:


> Tyler Bates - 300 - it may have been cliched Hollywood fodder, but he did put his own spin on it.



He stole at least 90% it from Elliot Goldenthal. 

Ed


----------



## PolarBear (Nov 8, 2007)

Ratatouille by Michael Giacchino is very listenable... and I heard the film is viewable too  (even for adults!) Oh and Mark Isham's Soundtrack for the new Robert Redford film is also really great in my opinion!


----------



## OLB (Nov 10, 2007)

Atonement from Dario Marianelli is one of the best scores I've heard this year. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the score is not to be missed! Great writing!


----------



## tobyond (Nov 10, 2007)

OLB @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> Atonement from Dario Marianelli is one of the best scores I've heard this year. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the score is not to be missed! Great writing!



Agreed, great score.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 10, 2007)

OLB @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> Atonement from Dario Marianelli is one of the best scores I've heard this year. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the score is not to be missed! Great writing!



IMHO how can you call it "one of the best scores" without seeing how it works to picture? You can say it is great music to listen to but:

Music for a motion pictures top 5 jobs are:

1. Play the picture.
2. Play the picture.
3. Play the picture.
4. Play the picture.
5. Be interesting and hopefully when appropriate to the material innovative music.

This may indeed be a great score. I have no idea since I have not seen the movie


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 10, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> IMHO how can you call it "one of the best scores" without seeing how it works to picture?



Alex North's score to 2001 which was thrown out is absolutely great (as atested to by Jerry Goldsmith's recording of it.) So you can certainly have a great score in the sense of great music without having seen the film. Of course you're right in that when judgeing a film in it's entirety and how well the composer scored it you must see the film. I think we've all seen films that showed far better music than the film itself so it seems that music in fact does stubbornly insist upon itself.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 10, 2007)

I'll have to check out Atonement, Dario wrote my fav cue last year: Evey Reborn.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 10, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Sat 10 Nov said:


> I think we've all seen films that showed far better music than the film itself so it seems that music in fact does stubbornly insist upon itself.


This sentence has left me completely clueless. I fail to see the logic relation implied by your "so". I would greatly appreciate if you would explain a bit these two things: 
what is that would make film music "better than the film", and 
how does film music "insist upon itself"?


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 10, 2007)

aeneas @ Sat Nov 10 said:


> what is that would make film music "better than the film"



Well for example when a talented composer works with an untalented bunch of people. Shouldn't you know this?! Just ask John Debney. 8)


----------



## IvanP (Nov 11, 2007)

At least Santaolalla hasn't "produced" another drone based oscar awarded score


----------



## VonRichter (Nov 11, 2007)

I just watched the original Halloween. Only two short memorable cues for the entire film, both very catchy. More effective than all the endless drone soundtracks ever made put together.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 11, 2007)

VonRichter @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> More effective than all the endless drone soundtracks ever made put together.



Hmmm.... obviously...


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 11, 2007)

A few points to add to this already good discussion:

1. IMHO the music for a film generally needs to do one of 2 things: either make you feel what is happening on the screen more intensely and personally or tell you something that is not evident on the screen. If it successfully does that it is a "good score", no matter what one deems it musical merits to be or not be. If it does not, then it is not a "good score" no matter what one deems it musical merits to be or not be.

2. The fact that a score gets thrown out does not necessarily reflect on whether or not it was a "good score", only one of the powers-to be's assessment of it and some of them are sometimes really wrong.

3. If a score successfully accomplishes what it needs to do AND also is interesting and/or innovative to listen to, then it becomes a great score.

4. Self-plagiarism is an over-rated criticism.If you listen to the symphonies of Hayden, Mozart, etc. many if not most of them have similar motifs, harmonies, contrapuntal devices, When I watch a film the last thing I am thinking about is, "Hmmm, does this sound similar to other scores this composer has done?" 

It is irrelevant.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey Waywyn, Zimmer isn't the only person stealing from himself, your friend Tyler Bates stole some stuff for 300 from Hans. 8) I can more easily forgive Hans for self plagiarizing than Bates for plagiarizing others because I belive Hans has talent while Bates should be washing Remote Control's windows. And speaking of 300, what a pile of shit movie lol, the trailer though was awesome thanks to NIN.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 11, 2007)

Thanks for the answers, now it makes sense to me what you meant.



Dave Connor @ Sun 11 Nov said:


> 1. Film being a collaborative art, any number of it's elements can be along a range of quality from very bad to very good. So a film can win an oscar for cinematography and another for sound another for costume etc. My point is that in the history of film you have movies that just weren't good for a number of reasons but may have had very talented the people doing the score which was of a better quality than the film itself.


So, if I understand correctly, you like to sometimes separate the ingredients of a film, so that you can say, for example, "I liked the acting more than the cinematography" or "I liked the music better than the montage". This critical approach is valid and I have nothing against it. However, I have a different way to look at a film: those ingredients, whatever good or bad they may seem individually, what counts for me is how appropriately they blend with each other within the whole-ness of my own experience. For example, there was a highly acclaimed film that I consider to be among the worst that I have ever seen: Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven". The ingredients in that film were certainly exquisite, but they did not match in no way, they did not work together for me. I mean - the acting, the script, the cinematography, the montage, the music, etc., when observed separately, were nothing but superlative. But they did not match at all each other, they did not build a coherent whole, making, for me, one of the worst film experiences ever. Even Ennio Morricone's score, it sounds fantastic separately, but in the film context it continuously sounded to me very awkward, like it came from a different film. There was a lack of connection between the ingredients of that film, that is the best way I can put it.

So, from my point of view, a score can't be better than the film in a same way that a melody can't be better than the chord sequence that accompanies it. For me the score is part of the film in the same way the cinematography is. They surely can be experienced separately, but, when one ingredient stands out by itself (either as better or worse than the whole) that is a sign that something is wrong with the film as a whole.



> 2. Music is the least 'real' element in a film. We see people walk and talk and fight and argue and worry and fly in airplanes etc., etc., every day. But there's never a symphony orchestra playing right along with it. Hence music it's one of the most easily detached elements of a film since it's the most attached in a peculiar sort of way. Also being a very powerful art form in itself it seems to demand to be taken in on it's own terms which is why we buy soundtracks and not dialog tracks or sound effects tracks or books with pictures of the costumes from the movie.


This is a great point. Music adds irreality to the film. Irreality is crucial for film. Film is fantasy, and nothing lifts our state-of-mind into the fantasy realm better than music does. I don't quite agree with detaching music from the film and considering it separately, but I see your point, it makes sense in a way. We, as professionals, we tend to inflate a bit the role of the music, normal audiences do not care too much about it. Yet many 'normal' people do buy soundtracks, which proves your point. FWIW, the explanation that I give to the cause is actually opposite to yours: it is not the good-ness of the music that makes it desirable as a separate experience (soundtrack CD), but on the contrary, it is its appropriate-ness to the film that makes us to call the music - "good". I have no other criteria to judge a film score but its appropriateness to the film, and I think normal audiences have a similar way to value the soundtracks. It is the magic of the whole audio-video experience that fills with value its separate ingredients, and not the other way around. For example, the "Titanic" score is extremely silly (it is to me) but its success as a separate soundtrack comes from how well it worked with that well-ensembled film (in spite of its own silliness). I mean, Titanic was a silly but masterfully packed film, so the quality of the whole, in a sort of an illusory reflection, made that silly music seem good.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 11, 2007)

aeneas @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> FWIW, my impression is actually opposite to yours: it is not the good-ness of the music that makes it desirable as a separate experience (soundtrack CD), but on the contrary, it is its appropriate-ness to the film that makes us to call the music - "good".



I was quite happy calling Cutthroat Island "good" long before I ever saw that piece of garbage movie. Maybe i'm weird.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 11, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Sun 11 Nov said:


> Maybe i'm weird.


We all are. o-[][]-o


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 11, 2007)

I was lying about being weird just to make you feel better that i'm right. o/~


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 11, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> Hey Waywyn, Zimmer isn't the only person stealing from himself, your friend Tyler Bates stole some stuff for 300 from Hans. 8) I can more easily forgive Hans for self plagiarizing than Bates for plagiarizing others because I belive Hans has talent while Bates should be washing Remote Control's windows. And speaking of 300, what a pile of [email protected]#t movie lol, the trailer though was awesome thanks to NIN.



Crap movie for ones, good movie for others ... and Bates isn't my friend.

Anyway, I never heard distorted, ethnic and percussive elements combined so well ... and if it wasn't Bates, my credit goes out to his sound engineer if there was one.

Besides the copying and stealing I would already be really happy to get the sound and atmosphere Bates was able to achieve for 300 ... and I would give a lot to wash RC's windows.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 11, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Sun 11 Nov said:


> I was lying about being weird just to make you feel better that i'm right. o/~


Being right is the absolute weirdness. You must be the weirdest of us all. =o


----------



## VonRichter (Nov 11, 2007)

I think it's near-sighted to make generalizations about what film or soundtrack is or isn't supposed to be.

There is nothing invalid about music being the star of the film, with the rest of the elements the "supporting cast".

There is nothing invalid about a film driven completely on dialog with zero music.

There is nothing invalid about a soundtrack that intentionally goes against the grain of what's happening.

It all depends.

The fact that two people can have diametrically opposed opinions of the same film only makes everything even less concrete. (Case in point, I know film fans who love Days Of Heaven to death and consider it a masterpiece, while a poster above thinks quite the opposite. I haven't seen it myself)


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 11, 2007)

(reply to aneas - quote wasn't working)

I agree that a film needs to be (is designed to be) taken as a whole experiance with all the elements working together. Of course you could have music that is a certain quality but perhaps is not a good _score_ to a film. Or you could have any number of elements be good or bad and yes this effects the whole to be sure. My original point was simply that sometimes the music is done better and even scored well to picture but that the picture just isn't that great. The first Star Trek film for example was considered by many to have missed the mark as a film but Goldsmith's score is great and lived on to even greater glory.


----------



## VonRichter (Nov 12, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Sun Nov 11 said:


> sometimes the music is done better and even scored well to picture but that the picture just isn't that great.



There are plenty of films like that. 

There are also perfectly good films taken down a big notch due to a generic boring score.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

VonRichter @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Nov 11 said:
> 
> 
> > sometimes the music is done better and even scored well to picture but that the picture just isn't that great.
> ...



Film scores (traditional, not song collections) are not analyzed/evaluated piece by piece by the general public. They either like the film or they don't and if the music is working well with the picture, frequently they will not notice it at all because they are involved in the film. If it is distracting or inappropriate it will take them out of the film and that they may notice.

The fact that other composers may not think highly of it as music is once again, irrelevant to anyone but that particular composer.

I remember when the movie "Terms of Endearment" came out. Several lay people told me the music (Michael Gore) was great. When I saw the film it only had about 2 minutes of music, one simple theme. But the people liked the film and when they did notice the music they liked it so to them it was a great score. 

Also I guarantee you neither Hans nor Tyler is scanning forums like these trying to find out if unknown composers were impressed by what they did. They are too busy working.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 12, 2007)

Hans has admitted to reading film score websites. I know Giacchino reads the FSM boards.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Hans has admitted to reading film score websites. I know Giacchino reads the FSM boards.



Read my whole sentence. If they are, it is not because they want to know what guys like you think of their work unless they are remarkably insecure.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 12, 2007)

I hope Hans doesn't care what we all think otherwise he'd be suicidal. 8)


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> I hope Hans doesn't care what we all think otherwise he'd be suicidal. 8)



i dunno, there are Hans Zimmer scores I like, ones I don't, as is true with most composers.

I think if my career had progressed to that level, which it did not sadly, perhaps deservedly, I would care what other composers doing my level of work thought of it. Even at my level I am gratified that some more successful composers have commented to me that they enjoyed my work. 

But I would simply not care what people who had not done that level of work thought of it. Maybe that is a failing in me.

Geez, I am waxing introspectively here, aren't I? Time to call a therapist


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 12, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> The fact that other composers may not think highly of it as music is once again, irrelevant to anyone but that particular composer.


James Horner couldn't have been thrilled when four of the greatest film composers of the last century completely trashed his score to Titanic (in a big pre-Oscar article in the LA Times Calander section.) One said 'no comment' and the other's were just merciless.

Film composers (known and unknown) are always talking about how great or awful someone's score is. I can't imagine that a composer of any quality wouldn't be interested in what his peers think. I don't mean peers in 'success' but musical peers. I don't care what some hack thinks of my music but certainly anyone who's serious and informed about the art (which would include non-musicians as well.)


----------



## synthetic (Nov 12, 2007)

I found out the hard way that some name composers read this site.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that other composers may not think highly of it as music is once again, irrelevant to anyone but that particular composer.
> ...



OK, point taken. However, some of those composers may be jealous. They are human after all and "Titanic" is arguably the most commercially successful score of alll time.

Also none of us here are Jamie Horner's peers commercially and I have listened to music by a lot of you here and while some of it was quite nice none of you have convinced me that you are his peer artistically or chops-wise. 

Which does not mean that some of you may not someday be but at this point you (we) have not earned the right to be considered his peer on any level. IMHO, of course.

And as I have stated many times, peer status is not a birth right but something you earn by achievement.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that other composers may not think highly of it as music is once again, irrelevant to anyone but that particular composer.
> ...



OK, point taken. However, some of those composers may be jealous. They are human after all and "Titanic" is arguably the most commercially successful score of alll time.

Also none of us here are Jamie Horner's peers commercially and I have listened to music by a lot of you here and while some of it was quite nice none of you have convinced me that you are his peer artistically or chops-wise. 

Which does not mean that some of you may not someday be but at this point you (we) have not earned the right to be considered his peer on any level. IMHO, of course.

And as I have stated many times, peer status is not a birth right but something you earn by achievement.


----------



## Waywyn (Nov 12, 2007)

Out of curiosity, I would like to know who of famous composers read this forum


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 12, 2007)

Waywyn @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Out of curiosity, I would like to know who of famous composers read this forum



*Crosses fingers that it's Eric Serra.* /\~O


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 12, 2007)

synthetic @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> I found out the hard way that some name composers read this site.


Yeowch! Someday I'd like to hear the stories. Misery loves company!

A couple months ago I had to edit an old post on NS because I was a little too "candid" and somebody linked the thread on one of the TV show forums on the imdb website.

Truth has it's costs.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 12, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Mon 12 Nov said:


> Truth has it's costs.


That sounds interesting, although I know very little about truth and absolutely nothing about its costs. My understanding of the above sentence is that different people do value honesty in different ways, which, if I got it as it was intended, would match my own experience. When politics and social interests come into play, honesty tends to shy away, unfortunately.

BTW, Billy Joel got it right! :wink:


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

aeneas @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon 12 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > Truth has it's costs.
> ...



But really, other than self-aggrandizement, what possible good does it do for any of us to come on a public forum and bash some very successful composer? It makes us look jealous and petty, it changes not a thing in whether or not that composer will continue to get good jobs nor does it increase our chance of getting them, and let's say it, our assessments are subjective.

Isn't it better for us to come on instead and say how much we like a particular composer, particularly if he is isn't that well known?


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 12, 2007)

Does this mean I can't call M. Knight Shamylamananmam a hack anymore because he's more successful than me? What will I do when i'm in the theatre and the trailer for his next film comes on? Not say anything? It could be dangerous to my health to hold in that level of sarcasm.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 12, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> Does this mean I can't call M. Knight Shamylamananmam a hack anymore because he's more successful than me? What will I do when i'm in the theatre and the trailer for his next film comes on? Not say anything? It could be dangerous to my health to hold in that level of sarcasm.



Fine. Tell your friends you think he's a hack. If someone you meet asks you your opinion about , tell them. But why come on a public forum where no one asked your opinion about him and write it? Do you really think it will affect the success of his career one way or the other? If his movies make money, he will get hired to do more, If they do not he will not.

It really is a sign of psychological maladjustment IMHO if you derive satisfaction from doing that.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 12, 2007)

When someone opens up a thread in a public forum and says: "I don't like that movie (score, etc.) Do you?" - I don't think that his/her intention is to do any harm to the author of the movie (score, etc.), but is doing that to find gratifying agreement and/or stimulating disagreement. I personally see nothing wrong with any of these two. On the contrary, they often are the salt and pepper of a discussion board. (would you pass me that ketchup please?  )

I don't agree with calling names though. If the focus is on the movie (score, etc.), then it's perfectly OK to give a honest opinion on it, no matter how positive or negative someone else might consider that opinion.

Everything is subjective, including this very statement. :wink:


----------



## synthetic (Nov 12, 2007)

Put it this way, if they're here, and they're working, they're sure as hell reading this thread! 

<fake high voice> "What about ____? I thought that was very nice."


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 12, 2007)

I used to shred a paticular composer on line who is very successful. I was decrying the slipping of an art form from truly great art to abysmal crap and sighting him as a perfect example. Ultimately I would refer to _modern film composers_ (certainly not all and I would always sight the guys/gals that were doing great work.) Often times it was in reference to big budget films which in the past showcased brilliant composers and great scores. For this to be replaced often times by mindless drival was tragic to me. I'm sort of over that now having made the statement and do find it distasteful but all composers have at different ones: Debussey even Beethoven!

I really felt like I was sounding a cultural alarm of sorts and particularly wanted to point out to younger composers the difference between great and abominable. This was done for me when I was very young and learnng Jazz. An article comparing Return To Forever (who I thought was great) and Herbie Handcock's Headhunters said RTF was just awful and Herbie's music/band great. It woke me up and made me penetrate into the music more. The guy was absolutely right and I'm grateful for that unput.


----------



## choc0thrax (Nov 12, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 12 said:


> But why come on a public forum where no one asked your opinion about him and write it?



Because I can. o-[][]-o


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 18, 2007)

Un autre vote for Powell's Bourne Ultimatum. Killer soundtrack, especially Tangiers. I so wish I had his chops... :roll: o/~ :lol:


----------



## almacg (Nov 18, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Tue 13 Nov said:


> choc0thrax @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Ashermusic @ Mon Nov 12 said:
> ...



On a whole the music in modern (last 10 years or so) films is complete and utter drivel. We as composers _should_ have extremely strong opinions when it comes to music, and we have every right to express ourselves. Of course everyone's opinions are subjective, but I personally think that pretty much every score Ive heard in all the films made in my life time at least, just don't cut it. The thing is, whenever an old black and white film comes on, the music is just a million times better than what we hear today. The orchestral music they used to write to accompany news bulletins was in a league of its own in comparison to music written for the biggest budget movies.
Now I know that I personally cannot write music to the proficiency as someone like Alex North or Miklos Rozsa, but the composers writing for the biggest budget films should be able to. 
Hans for example, although his music complements the film well, generally writes music with little musical direction. Its actually quite puerile; there is usually simply a melody moving over a repeating chord pattern. There's little melodic development, there's poor orchestration, there's hardly anything going on at one time; there's little use of modulation; there's no innovation; its simply banal. And let's face it he ripped off Gustav Holst's masterpiece Mars, the arrogant bastard!
Basically modern film music sounds like orchestrated pop music. This in my opinion isnt acceptable, and anyone who agrees with me absolutely has the right to express such views in a forum dedicated to discussing music.


----------



## wonshu (Nov 18, 2007)

almacg @ Mon Nov 19 said:


> Basically modern film music sounds like orchestrated pop music.



That's why it sells and that's why it pays the bills for whoever produces it. And we should all learn from it.

Easy.

I like to eat and not freeze in the winter

Best
Hans


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 18, 2007)

wonshu @ Sun Nov 18 said:


> almacg @ Mon Nov 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Basically modern film music sounds like orchestrated pop music.
> ...



You missed almacg's excellent points entirely it seems. Any professional should be able to deliver music in a wide range of styles if asked. So one can _learn_ from whatever. This is completely aside from the fact that the level of composition in many big budget films displays a free fall from the heights of the great composers of the past. It's just an unfortunate fact. 

You can ask a great gourmet chef to study MacDonald's cheeseburgers because they outsell everything else but what's he going to learn? How much talent and craft will it take to duplicate or do something similar?


----------



## wonshu (Nov 18, 2007)

point taken, I try to do art in my free time... my clients never seem to ask for it and I do need to make a living.

Signs of the times I guess... but instead of emotionally destroying myself by being hung up on what it "should be" I'd rather try to stay happy and healthy...

There's more important things to life than music. At least for me.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 19, 2007)

Film music, in general (I'm sure you can find some exceptions), has always been much closer to pop music than concert music. All the greats of the past rarely went farther harmonically than what Debussy was doing at the turn of the century; maybe Mahler, Ravel. Stravinsky rhythms are still being used and thought of as avant-garde in film/tv music. Meanwhile, if you listen to Ives, Varese, Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Webern, Stockausen, Berio, etc, etc, etc, you'll see that film composers have always had to compromise what is possible in order to sell more popcorn. 

I think that there are always 'greats' to be found in every generation. You just have to have an open mind as to what is interesting in film music, and not compare to the past.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 19, 2007)

wonshu @ Mon 19 Nov said:


> point taken, I try to do art in my free time... my clients never seem to ask for it and I do need to make a living.
> 
> Signs of the times I guess... but instead of emotionally destroying myself by being hung up on what it "should be" I'd rather try to stay happy and healthy...
> 
> There's more important things to life than music. At least for me.


+1. Here's to life! o-[][]-o 

I'd rather prepare pizza and cheeseburgers that sells, rather than preparing high brow stuff that doesn't.

I don't understand: why should a film composer fight the pressures towards cheap solutions?(pressures coming from the Film Producers, mind you...) And to be fighting that, in the name of what? In the name of art? Art will live forever, I won't. Art doesn't have my needs, so, at my turn, I won't have its pretensions. I would prefer to make myself and my family happy while I live, rather than to supposedly make some strangers happy after I'm dead.

I don't remember what film maker once said something to the effect of: "I don't make art, I make and sell crap. I buy art instead." o/~


----------



## Niah (Nov 19, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Nov 18 said:


> Un autre vote for Powell's Bourne Ultimatum. Killer soundtrack, especially Tangiers. I so wish I had his chops... :roll: o/~ :lol:



That's an amazing track !


I've also listened to a little of the atonement and it seems like it's very good.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 19, 2007)

_________________
"The first requirement for a composer is to live." - Alfrenold Schwarzehonegger


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 19, 2007)

aeneas @ Mon Nov 19 said:


> I'd rather prepare pizza and cheeseburgers that sells, rather than preparing high brow stuff that doesn't...


So Jaws is high brow or Planet of the Apes or Star Wars or China Town or The Wizard of Oz? Hollywood Film's have always been popular entertainment. Attended by great scores from great composers. It's like having great cheddar on a burger for years and then at some point it becomes processed cheese food and taste just awful. Also the quality of the meat goes downhill in a big way too.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 19, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Nov 19 said:


> Film music, in general (I'm sure you can find some exceptions), has always been much closer to pop music than concert music. All the greats of the past rarely went farther harmonically than what Debussy was doing at the turn of the century; maybe Mahler, Ravel. Stravinsky rhythms are still being used and thought of as avant-garde in film/tv music. Meanwhile, if you listen to Ives, Varese, Bartok, Messiaen, Schoenberg, Webern, Stockausen, Berio, etc, etc, etc, you'll see that film composers have always had to compromise what is possible in order to sell more popcorn.
> 
> I think that there are always 'greats' to be found in every generation. You just have to have an open mind as to what is interesting in film music, and not compare to the past.



By and large I agree.

I am a huge fan of Berio, Stockhausen, Varese, Boulez, etc. but frankly I have seen very few films that would benefit the picture to be composed in that style since film music is abut enhancing the audience's emotional relationship to the picture and that kind of music is emotionally inaccessible to a great deal of audience members and it is not our job to open them up to it unless it really is the right lexicon for the film. 

"Straw Dogs" by Jerry Fielding is a good example of a case where it really worked.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 19, 2007)

You might be surprised at how much Berio, Webern, Strawinsky, Bartok etc. ... has entered film music over the years (from its earliest days onwards, in fact), very often only superficially, yes, but it's there nonetheless. Filmmusic, as we know it, would be simply unthinkable without the 20th century musical innovations and I don't think there's any orchestral sci-fi, thriller or action score that doesn't borrow heavily from 20th century orchestral music.
As for 'emotional inaccessible': it's precisely because this type of music can have such a strong emotional impact that it is so well suited for use in films.

I don't like the assumption that an audience is too dumb to understand or appreciate the slightly more demanding music. If John Williams, Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith or Jerry Fielding would have approached their job the way that you, Aeneas and Wonshu seem to be inclined to do, there would never have been a 'Jaws', a 'Psycho', a 'Planet Of The Apes' or a 'Straw Dogs'. All four timeless examples of music that does perfectly what it is supposed to do - enhance the film for which it was written - and still rises FAR above the (conveniently) assumed limitations and shallowness of the genre. 
All this to say that it is perfectly possible to write profound, good, serious and long-lasting music for films - provided there's a composer involved with talent, craft and pride of course ... Unfortunately, these days, the job more often than not seems to go to the 'Bruckheimer-type' of filmcomposer: people who's every bar of music exhibits a complete lack of courage, imagination and inspiration, and who can't seem to produce anything but bland, uninteresting, bloated, cliché-ridden drivel.

_


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 19, 2007)

And of course, the downside of 20th C techniques being applied mostly to horror and sci-fi film/tv contexts is that when music students first hear contemporary and electroacoustic/computer music, the first thing they say is, "Wow! That made me think of ______________ (insert Aliens, Star Wars/Trek, etc)". As a former teacher, I can attest that it was sometimes difficult to get some students to appreciate new music for itself and not only as accompanying images.

I have found that 20th C writing techniques can regularly help to express complex emotional states in characters. I think for eg of Sean Callery's use of microtonality for the relationship between the president and his supposed deranged wife in season 6 (?). Or the electroacoustic textures in the film Traffic.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 19, 2007)

[quote:af591d1dcd="re-peat @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:30 am"]You might be surprised at how much Berio, Webern, Strawinsky, Bartok etc. ... has entered film music over the years (from its earliest days onwards, in fact), very often only superficially, yes, but it's there nonetheless. Filmmusic, as we know it, would be simply unthinkable without the 20th century musical innovations and I don't think there's any orchestral sci-fi, thriller or action score that doesn't borrow heavily from 20th century orchestral music.
As for 'emotional inaccessible': it's precisely because this type of music can have such a strong emotional impact that it is so well suited for use in films.

I don't like the assumption that an audience is too dumb to understand or appreciate the slightly more demanding music. If John Williams, Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith or Jerry Fielding would have apprò	ä   gD.	ä   gD/	ä   gD0	ä   gD1	ä   gD2	ä   gD3	ä   gD4	ä   gD5	ä   gD6	ä   gD7	ä   gD8	ä   gD9	ä   gD:	ä   gD;	ä   gD<	ä   gD=	ä   gD>	ä   gD?	ä   [email protected]	ä   gDA	ä   gDB	ä   gDC	ä   gDD	ä   gDE	ä   gDF	ä   gDG	ä   gDH	ä   gDI	ä   gDJ	ä   gDK	ä   gDL	ä   gDM	ä   gDN	ä   gDO	ä   gDP	ä   gDQ	ä   gDR	ä   gDS	ä   gDT	å   gDU	å   gDV	å   gDW	å   gDX	å   gDY	å   gDZ	å   gD[	å   gD\	å   gD]	å   gD^	å   gD_	å   gD`	å   gDa	å   gDb	å   gDc	å   gDd	å   gDe	å   gDf	å   gDg	å   gDh	å   gDi	å   gDj	æ   gDk	æ   gDl	æ   gDm	æ   gDn	æ   gDo	æ   gDp	æ   gDq	æ   gDr	æ   gDs	æ   gDt	æ   gDu	æ   gDv	æ   gDw	æ   gDx	æ   gDy	æ   gDz	æ   gD{	æ   gD|	æ   gD}	æ   gD~	æ   gD	æ   gD€	æ   gD	æ   gD‚	æ   gDƒ	æ   gD„	æ   gD…	æ   gD†	æ   gD‡	æ   gDˆ	æ   gD‰	æ   gDŠ	æ   gD‹	æ   gDŒ	æ   gD	æ   gDŽ	æ   gD	æ   gD	æ   gD‘	æ   gD’	æ   gD“	æ   gD”	æ   gD•	æ   gD–	æ   gD—	æ   gD˜	æ   gD™	æ   gDš	æ   gD›	æ   gDœ	æ   gD              ò	æ   gDŸ	æ   gD 	æ   gD¡	æ   gD¢	æ   gD£	æ   gD¤	æ   gD¥	æ   gD¦	æ   gD§	æ   gD¨	æ   gD©	æ   gDª	æ   gD«	æ   gD¬	æ   gD­	æ   gD®	æ   gD¯	æ   gD°	æ   gD±	æ   gD²	æ   gD³	æ   gD´	æ   gDµ	æ   gD¶	æ   gD·	æ   gD¸	æ   gD¹	æ   gDº	æ   gD»	æ   gD¼	æ   gD½	æ   gD¾	ç   gD¿	ç   gDÀ	ç   gDÁ	ç   gDÂ	ç   gDÃ	ç   gDÄ	ç   gDÅ	ç


----------



## aeneas (Nov 19, 2007)

re-peat @ Mon 19 Nov said:


> If John Williams, Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith or Jerry Fielding would have approached their job the way that you, Aeneas and Wonshu seem to be inclined to do, there would never have been a 'Jaws', a 'Psycho', a 'Planet Of The Apes' or a 'Straw Dogs'. All four timeless examples of music that does perfectly what it is supposed to do - enhance the film for which it was written - and still rises FAR above the (conveniently) assumed limitations and shallowness of the genre.


First of, I do respect your way of valuing film scores, I honestly do. However, I do value film scores according to different standards: IMV, a film score is only as good as the film maker thinks it is. This is my top standard, and I don't see how it can be inferior to yours. So, if we are all equally subjective, let me pick the film maker's subjectivity as the most authoritative one. 

My aim is not to write timeless, or innovative scores, but only appropriate scores appreciated by the film makers who hired me. Give me one reason why I should care about Herrmanns and Goldsmiths more than I would care about Selznicks and Buckenheimers. As someone here pointed out, the only opinion on a film score that counts is the opinion of the guy who cuts the check. I expect no checks and I need no words of appreciations from no Herrmanns and Goldsmiths. Re-peat, would you turn down Buckenheimer for not allowing you to expose your own innovativeness in HIS films?

In film music, there is place for Newmans and Williamses and Zimmers and for a wide palette of composers. Why not let them all follow their own aims and luck? Who are we to judge them and their music? What would give you, Re-peat, the authority to look down on composers for doing the jobs they are hired for? And that, only because they are not enough "innovative" according to your personal standards? If you personally are all into innovativeness, then just jump only on the projects that require innovativeness, and leave other composers to jump in whatever they want. They won't harm you in any way. Considering your aesthetic, those composers are not your competitors. Considering your authority, they are not your inferiors either. So just let them be.

Really, there is place for everyone in this business. Let us respect each other.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Nov 20, 2007)

> James Horner couldn't have been thrilled when four of the greatest film composers of the last century completely trashed his score to Titanic (in a big pre-Oscar article in the LA Times Calander section.) One said 'no comment' and the other's were just merciless.



Can you elaborate on that story... or perhaps link me? Sounds interesting.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 20, 2007)

Aeneas,

Truly sorry, but I've read your post 4 times in a row now and I can't find a single thing in there with which I agree. Not one single thing. (Except for the very last sentence of course.) Amazing, isn't it?



> A film score is only as good as the film maker thinks it is. This is my top standard, and I don't see how it can be inferior to yours. So, if we are all equally subjective, let me pick the film maker's subjectivity as the most authoritative one.


A film score (or any piece of music, for that matter) is as good as I think it is. That is my top standard. Never said anything about mine being superior to yours or Jay's however, although, come to think of it, mine does seem to make a lot more sense.




> Give me one reason why I should care about Herrmanns and Goldsmiths more than I would care about Selznicks and Buckenheimers.


Pride. Self-esteem. And humble respect for all the great music and all the great musicians that precede and surround you.




> As someone here pointed out, the only opinion on a film score that counts is the opinion of the guy who cuts the check. I expect no checks and I need no words of appreciations from no Herrmanns and Goldsmiths.


Sad. Very sad. Don't know what else to say really.




> Re-peat, would you turn down Buckenheimer for not allowing you to expose your own innovativeness in HIS films?


Yes, in all sincerity, I would. Not because I wouldn't be allowed to, as you call it, 'expose my innovativeness' (see my remark on 'innovativeness' below) as that would be an utterly stupid reason, but because I know I wouldn't last one minute on a Bruckheimer-project (for more than merely musical reasons). Now, the point is highly theoretical anyway, which of course makes it fairly easy for me to say what I've just said, but even so: yes, I'd turn the nice man down. Politely but firmly. Call it wisdom.




> What would give you, Re-peat, the authority to look down on composers for doing the jobs they are hired for?


I'm not looking down on them for doing their job, no, no, no, I only have a problem with the way they approach and do their job, that's all, and the awful music they produce as a result. 
I don't care for the mediocrities of this world who misuse the concept of 'professionalism' to allow for complacency and lack of talent, who hide behind the lazy and cowardly excuse that a job is a job, and who tell themselves that their excrements are entirely justified because their producer, director and audience all want crap anyway. And I don't care for the horrible 'snobbery-in-reverse' attitude which condemns serious music out of the theatres, because it's apparently 'high-brow art music'. Nor do I care for the derogatory attitude that says that this so-called 'art music' is usually 'emotionally inaccessible to a great deal of audience members' anyway. Those attitudes are, in all their dumb and sanctimonious arrogance, terribly insulting to everyone who is (or has ever been) truly serious about music and about their profession. In short: I have a big problem with musicians who hold the art of music in such low esteem.




> And that, only because they are not enough "innovative"ò
>    gPŠ
>    gP‹
>    gPŒ
> ...


----------



## aeneas (Nov 20, 2007)

Re-cap, I truly admire your honesty. Also, even if our views largely differ, I appreciate the 'cool' tone of this discussion. Let me re-cap o the main points, as I see them:

- You think that a score is as good as you think it is, because your taste is the most important. It makes sense.
- I think that a score is as good the filmmaker thinks it is, because I consider the filmmaker's taste as the most important. I hope it makes sense.

- You care about Herrmanns' and Goldsmiths' appreciations more than you care about Selznicks' and Buckenheimers' appreciations, because it would add to your pride and-self esteem, because you have a "humble respect for all the great music and all the great musicians that precede and surround you."
- Although I admire all the past, actual, and future composers, inside and outside me, dead or alive, I do prefer the appreciations of my employers infinitely more than the appreciations of any composer, no disrespect meant. And that, because the 'being-able-to-deliver-what-I-am-paid-for' gives me all the reasons to be proud of. And it is precisely humbleness that makes me think this way, it is the humbleness of accepting that the filmmaker knows better than me what their film needs. My presence in their project has no other meaning than serving their vision, taste, and ideas, and not mine.

- You have a problem with "the awful music they produce as a result" (they, the composers).
- I don't have any problem whatsoever with their results, and I would never call a score: 'awful'. Since the film is out, then that is the way the filmmaker wanted it. End of story. Whether or not I like the score has nothing to do with the 'quality' of the music. In fact, I don't quite like to use the term 'quality' in a discussion, it often creates problems and leads to misunderstandings.

- You evaluate a score "on strictly musical qualities". 
- First, I don't understand what is that 'something' that you call with those terms, it escapes me completely. :| I would appreciate an explanation: what is 'strictly', what is 'musical', what is 'qualities', and what is 'strictly musical qualities'? 
Second, I never evaluate music, I just like it or not. And it's more than semantics to it: 'evaluate' means to assign value, right? Well, 'liking', for me, doesn't mean to assign anything, it only means that the music happens to correspond to my taste, that's all.
Third, I don't think it is fair to 'evaluate' a score outside the film. If it's there, then the filmmaker wants it there. If I don't like it theò
#   gS¡
#   gS¢
#   gS£
#   gS¤
#   gS¥
#   gS¦
#   gS§
#   gS¨
#   gS©
#   gSª
#   gS«
#   gS¬
#   gS­
#   gS®
#   gS¯
#   gS°
#   gS±
#   gS²
#   gS³
#   gS´
#   gSµ
#   gS¶
$   gS·
$   gS¸
$   gS¹
$   gSº
$   gS»
$   gS¼
$   gS½
$   gS¾
$   gS¿
$   gSÀ
$   gSÁ
$   gSÂ
$   gSÃ
$   gSÄ
$   gSÅ
$   gSÆ
$   gSÇ
$   gSÈ
$   gSÉ
$   gSÊ
$   gSË
$   gSÌ
$   gSÍ
$   gSÎ
$   gSÏ
$   gSÐ
$   gSÑ
$   gSÒ
$   gSÓ
$   gSÔ
$   gSÕ
$   gSÖ
$   gS×
$   gSØ
$   gSÙ
$   gSÚ
$   gSÛ
$   gSÜ
$   gSÝ
$   gSÞ
$   gSß
$   gSà
$   gSá
$   gSâ
$   gSã
$   gSä
$   gSå
$   gSæ
$   gSç
$   gSè
$   gSé
$   gSê
$   gSë
$   gSì
$   gSí
$   gSî
$   gSï
$   gSð
$   gSñ
$   gSò
$   gSó
$   gSô
%   gSõ
%   gSö
%   gS÷
%   gSø
%   gSù
%   gSú
%   gSû
%   gSü
%   gSý
%   gSþ
%   gSÿ
%   gT 
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT
%   gT	
%   gT

%   gT
%   gT
%   gT 
%   gT
%   gT
%   g


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 20, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Nov 20 said:


> > James Horner couldn't have been thrilled when four of the greatest film composers of the last century completely trashed his score to Titanic (in a big pre-Oscar article in the LA Times Calander section.) One said 'no comment' and the other's were just merciless.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on that story... or perhaps link me? Sounds interesting.


You would have to go to the LA Times Calender section (pretty sure it was a Sunday issue) around Oscar time the year of Titanic. The four composers were Elmer Bernstein, Leonard Rosenman, Laurence Rosenthal and David Raksin. The article covered various things but they were all very clear on the current state of the art. Being the fine fellows they are, I'm sure each would (and did in fact) acknowledge good work and very talented composers. Nonetheless they were troubled by big budget films with dreadful scores and expressed that in no uncertain terms (about what would prove to be that years Oscar winner.) Raksin was the 'no comment' of the four.


----------



## _taylor (Nov 20, 2007)

One of my favorites this year was Shooter - Mark Mancina.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 21, 2007)

I should add that the concept of _delivering_ a score being one thing and it's quality another was certainly not true in the golden age. In fact the great scores of yesterday were delivered in less time than today and the music is great. I don't think there is any justification for _bad_ music in any context really. It's like _bad_ coffee or _bad seats_ at the theatre. Bad is never good. People often equate this type of thinking as snobbery but they throw bad food out of their refrigerator all the time. 

Music (in any context) doesn't have to be complex or ornate or hi-brow or anything. But it has to be good - it has to be music. Is a single high note in the violins over a scene music? - or even good music? This is a contextual change where music is functioning differently as _score_ but that isn't license for crap anymore than score in an opera is. Simplicity is not only fine, it's welcome but there's an art to writing simply and there is far too little art in film scores these days.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 21, 2007)

re-peat @ Wed Nov 21 said:


> Hi Aeneas,
> After that, it's probably no surprise when I say that I am not a filmcomposer. Never could be. I've done (and still do) the occasional short film (not entirely unpleasant experiences, I must admit), some tv- and radiowork, lots of music for the theatre, but mostly I write music just for my own and hopefully a few others' pleasure. The only reason I'm interested in filmmusic is because there are couple of superbly gifted and inspiring musicians at work in that field and there's been some truly wonderful music created over the years.
> 
> Jay,
> ...



Piet, it is good that you acknowledge you are not a film composer and could not be one. It is not for everybody. and it is IMHO certainly not for those who want the freedom to write whatever music they hear in their head. 

Charles Ives sold insurance (quite successfully and he enjoyed it) so that he would never have to have a commercial consideration in his head when he composed. He also clearly could not have been a film composer.

I agree with you about Thomas Newman's quality. He does good music that plays the picture well IMHO. He grew up on soundstages with his father and uncles. 

However, his musical lexicon is pretty traditional, not exactly Berio 

For me, I absolutely love the challenge of writing music that enhances a film/tv show. It just fascinates me and I never feel more intellectually and artistically alive then when I am doing it. I learn more with each one I do.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 21, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Wed Nov 21 said:


> I should add that the concept of _delivering_ a score being one thing and it's quality another was certainly not true in the golden age. In fact the great scores of yesterday were delivered in less time than today and the music is great. I don't think there is any justification for _bad_ music in any context really. It's like _bad_ coffee or _bad seats_ at the theatre. Bad is never good. People often equate this type of thinking as snobbery but they throw bad food out of their refrigerator all the time.
> 
> Music (in any context) doesn't have to be complex or ornate or hi-brow or anything. But it has to be good - it has to be music. Is a single high note in the violins over a scene music? - or even good music? This is a contextual change where music is functioning differently as _score_ but that isn't license for crap anymore than score in an opera is. Simplicity is not only fine, it's welcome but there's an art to writing simply and there is far too little art in film scores these days.



Good points Dave but if holding a single high note in the violins worked better with the picture than anything else I came up with I would write it 

Also, when we talk about thee golden scores of yesteryear bear in minnd 2 things:

1. On the whole, film composers then were generally better trained and got to work on more projects so trey improved. They also frequently were mentored.

2. There were a fair amount of lousy scores then too.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 21, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Wed Nov 21 said:


> Also, when we talk about thee golden scores of yesteryear bear in minnd 2 things:
> 
> 1. On the whole, film composers then were generally better trained and got to work on more projects so trey improved. They also frequently were mentored.
> 
> 2. There were a fair amount of lousy scores then too.



1. True. Those are huge advantages as far as orchestral scoring goes.

2. Even more true.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 21, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Wed Nov 21 said:


> Good points Dave but if holding a single high note in the violins worked better with the picture than anything else I came up with I would write it



Me too. I was actually trying to make the point. Doing that where its appropriate _is_ good music, just not complex. People often think that when we say music should be of a better quality we are saying it should be more complex (which is not at all what I'm saying anyway.) It's what's going on in the score in general, which is either a well written, well handled score or not. I can't think of one film where the music is uninformed drivel but I think it's a terrifically appropriate score.


----------



## VonRichter (Nov 21, 2007)

I personally have no trouble at all switching my brain from "concert hall mode" to "film score mode". Perhaps it helps that I've been writing and directing my own films for a long time.


BTW,

I wish people would stop inò
   gT
   gU
   gV
   gW
   gX
   gY
   gZ
   g[
   g\
   g]
   g^
   g_
   g`
   ga
   g


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 22, 2007)

VonRichter @ Wed Nov 21 said:


> I wish people would stop insisting on using the mainstream (particularly American) as a barometer of artistic film success (and film scoring practices) as a whole.



My particular point is that mainstream Hollywood used to have great film score's in their most popular films as well as artistic films. Whether it's Citizen Cane or Robin Hood or The Wizard of Oz or Psycho or Alien, these films all boast real compositional technique as well as wonderful writing to picture.

I agree that excellent work is being done today in smaller budget films worldwide (which is why I'm not complaining about it.) Nor is my scope limited by any means to Hollywood personally. It's just that there's where the art has slipped the most precipitously.


----------



## midphase (Nov 22, 2007)

One of my favorite scores of this year is by a composer whom many of you have never heard of, for a film which will never be seen.

The score is for the film Shadow in the Trees by composer Jeff Toyne.

iTunes link:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=257840771&s=143441 (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt ... 1&amp;s=143441)

Jeff tracked the orchestra in Eastern Europe and what makes this a soundtrack ,which I think is one of the better ones out there, a standout is that Jeff is also an Orchestrator for guys like Ed Shirmer and Klaus Badelt, and as such has such a great control of the orchestra in his writing. I feel that the music is a great example of what happens when an orchestra falls into the hands of a composer who really knows what to do with it.

Anyway, I know that nobody really knows about the movie or Jeff...so I figure I'd bring it up in a thread about good scores because I firmly believe that some of the best work being done nowadays is not coming from the "big names" but by the up and coming guys (many of whom populate these forums).


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 22, 2007)

VonRichter @ Thu Nov 22 said:


> To respond to your particular point... _Perhaps_ singling out the scores for criticism is futile. _If_ the entire project from the script up is generic, _maybe_ it's natural for the score to follow suit. I'm not making that argument, just throwing it out there as an idea.



Absolutely true. In fact I just didn't take the time to type that fact. The films themselves (i.e. film makers) aren't on the same level in Hollywood as they were back in the day. At least not in the same numbers. It's probably the same reason pop radio is in the toilet: corporate suits running things now that haven't got a clue - just MBA's from Harvard or whatever.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 22, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu Nov 22 said:


> VonRichter @ Thu Nov 22 said:
> 
> 
> > To respond to your particular point... _Perhaps_ singling out the scores for criticism is futile. _If_ the entire project from the script up is generic, _maybe_ it's natural for the score to follow suit. I'm not making that argument, just throwing it out there as an idea.
> ...



I disagree. Everyone remembers the good films from the past but there were always a lot of crappy ones. I doubt the percentage has changed much.

Look at last year. We had The Departed, Blood Diamond, The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, United 93, Venus, Volver, Little Children, Notes On A Scandal, The Good German, The Prestige, Flags Of Our Fathers, Thank You For Smoking, Miss Potter, etc..

That is a lot of good films in one year.


----------



## aeneas (Nov 22, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Thu 22 Nov said:


> I disagree. Everyone remembers the good films from the past but there were always a lot of crappy ones. I doubt the percentage has changed much.


Well put. I very much doubt that too.



> Look at last year. We had The Departed, Blood Diamond, The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine, Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, United 93, Venus, Volver, Little Children, Notes On A Scandal, The Good German, The Prestige, Flags Of Our Fathers, Thank You For Smoking, Miss Potter, etc..
> 
> That is a lot of good films in one year.


Your list makes a great point. However, I think that it supports the OP's argument, which is: 2007 vs 2006 and before. Although lists are highly subjective, can you come up with a similar list for 2007? 

In a more nuanced way, I tend to agree with the point made by the OP. I mean, in the sense that there are considerably more films that I enjoyed in 2006 vs this year.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 22, 2007)

aeneas @ Thu Nov 22 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu 22 Nov said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. Everyone remembers the good films from the past but there were always a lot of crappy ones. I doubt the percentage has changed much.
> ...



1. In any era there are better and worse years for films. If 2007 does indeed to turn out to be a bad year that does not make it a trend.

2. We are just now coming into the time of the year when most of the Oscar worthy films are released. I'll make that list for you at the end of January


----------

