# An appeal to more and more "modern composers"!



## germancomponist (Oct 11, 2013)

Why are you not willing to create your own sound? Do you like it so much to sound like all the others? What is the reason for this? 

Why do you not go your own way? Are you a coward, afraid to make something wrong? Why don't you rely on your own inspiration?

Why do you insist on using the libraries, which use any other? Do you find it very cool when all film scores sound more and more the same? 

Why do you not invest the necessary time to program your own sounds? Do you really think you could not program a synthesizer, a reverb, an eq e.t.c. ? If so, learn it!

If you want to move something, be your own boss and be not too much manipulated by others! 

The social networks like facebook contribute more intensively to depend on others. This is the wrong way! Believe me!

Make your own thing! Experiment, experiment and: Experiment! 

*There is no need to copy others!*


----------



## Lex (Oct 11, 2013)

Haha..."temp track" generation and the "trailer music that has never been used in a trailer" guys are driving you crazy, eh? 

It will blow over, it's not that different from the mass of terrible 80's synth driven scores that just died eventually, plus there is still bunch of really cool scores coming out every year...

Here's a generic picture of a dragon and an ostinato to cheer you up. 

D#D#-CC-D#D#-CC-D#D#-CC (over C G# F root progression)


----------



## bryla (Oct 11, 2013)

Lex @ Fri Oct 11 said:


> EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC (over C Ab F root progression)


----------



## Lex (Oct 11, 2013)

bryla @ Fri Oct 11 said:


> Lex @ Fri Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC (over C Ab F root progression)



true true...i'll never learn


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 11, 2013)

What I want to do is to invite the young composers to do their own thing. There is no need to copy others!


----------



## Greg (Oct 11, 2013)

The fad will probably pass once people realize how cutthroat and difficult the trailer music licensing business is.


----------



## KingIdiot (Oct 11, 2013)

art vs commerce


----------



## Alex Cuervo (Oct 11, 2013)

Dude, seriously. Get over it.

Welcome to a world full of people who are not exactly like you.

Are these people stealing work from you? Food from your table? Why are you so relentlessly obsessed with them?

Also, just because someone is a well educated musician is no guarantee that their music is at all original.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 11, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Why do you insist on using the libraries, which use any other? Do you find it very cool when all film scores sound more and more the same?
> 
> Why do you not invest the necessary time to program your own sounds? Do you really think you could not program a synthesizer, a reverb, an eq e.t.c. ? If so, learn it!


Are you suggesting every time I want to put a nail into a piece of wood that I should make my own hammer first? :wink: I look at it the other way around. I hear the sound in my head, then go looking for that sound. If I find it in a preset I'll use it or tweak it, if not I'll make one. With synths like Omnisphere (can anyone honestly say they've listened to every preset? :shock: ) and Zebra and people specialising in sound banks for them, I think a practical and time saving approach is warranted where possible. It depends where your interests lie, in the source sounds or the musical architecture.

.


----------



## RiffWraith (Oct 11, 2013)

germancomponist @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> What I want to do is to invite the young composers to do their own thing. There is no need to copy others!



Yes there is. Lex said it first. It's called _follow the temp or I will find another composer who can help me realize my vision._


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 11, 2013)

Mainstream is what people like, and thats for a reason. 

So, be happy if you sound unique an at the same time you are sucessful. No need to push others.


----------



## jleckie (Oct 11, 2013)

Keep the faith Gunther. Today, Art triumphs.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?la ... 2=commerce


----------



## Casey Edwards (Oct 11, 2013)

bryla @ Fri Oct 11 said:


> Lex @ Fri Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> > EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC-EbEb-CC (over C Ab F root progression)



+1 haha I was thinking this in my head when I read the post...then I read yours. It's almost as bad to me when I see people say: I love that vi IV I V epic progression, as if for some reason the minor isn't the tonic i! o-[][]-o


----------



## dgburns (Oct 11, 2013)

germancomponist @ Fri Oct 11 said:


> What I want to do is to invite the young composers to do their own thing. There is no need to copy others!



the ones coming up today are very different then us(or me atleast)I'm 47,and we have a young one at our studio(21 years old) and it seems at lunchtime,we always seem to have a different view of things .So one day we talked about music and the value of it.He said that bands give away the music to sell t shirts,so I asked why not just be a t shirt seller instead? He had no answer.So I asked why he thought music had no value.....

he answered "it's because of Your generation" that everything has already been said and done.

at that point someone else said to him " and that is the bigger failure.that you don't believe you can have an original idea."

crappy time to be growing up it seems.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Oct 11, 2013)

Following your logic, as a guitarist, I must build my own guitar in order to have a unique sound. Whew...glad piano isn't my first instrument!

That being said, I also place a high value on originality when it comes to music, and I'd much rather listen to something new and fresh than something overly derivative. However, when you're talking about composing using computer based sample libraries, I think it often comes down to convenience. Not all such musicians are equally good at programming, and in some cases, they aren't interested. Some would rather spend that time creating music and would rather not invest time in creating their own unique sounds. That doesn't mean that the music they create can't still be unique and original.

Plus you also have to consider that composing for film, television, commercials, etc. are just that...commercial pieces of music. The paying customer most often isn't interested in charting out new territory...sadly, they want the tried and true.

The cold hard facts are that profitability and originality are more often than not, mutually exclusive. I blame Elvis.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 11, 2013)

I actually disagree.In my experience, the more original you are,the more profitable opportunities come up.

just sayin'....


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 11, 2013)

Wow, you are really aiming at the wrong people here Gunther. Let me tell you why.

First off, composers learn by imitating. Young composers especially will be more prone to sounding like such and such composer because they like that composer and tend to listen to them a lot. Everyone does it, including all the "original" composers you can think of. Then comes the tricky bit. At some point a composer begins to deviate slightly from those little tricks they picked up from other composers. They may begin to meld together ideas from separate composers, creating new ideas (or sometimes rediscovering old ones). After awhile those slight deviations add up and this composer starts to sound a bit different than those they were initially imitating. This is perfectly normal, and it happens to every composer once they start to get more confident.

We have had a huge influx of young people starting to write music and put it up for people to listen to. Why? Because of all this wonderful new technology. Most are going to be in those early stages where they are still learning through imitation. As time goes on things will get a bit more balanced.

But what happens when a young composer tries out something different, only to have a director or producer tell them that they don't like it and it needs to sound more like the temp? That little bit of confidence starts to dwindle, and you go back to imitating. After all, you have to make a living so you have to please the client. This also happens to everyone, even A list composers like Danny Elfman (Spider-man 3).

So what can you do about it? Well, first off, understand that listening to young composers is like listening to a 12 year old learn to play the guitar; he will probably play something you recognize, but not very well. You can either smile and wish them the best, perhaps even giving some encouragement when they do something well, or you can just stop listening to it.

As for the second part, that is going to keep happening until directors and producers stop being so damned attached to the temp track.


----------



## kmlandre (Oct 11, 2013)

Thanks for the idea, but I think I'll stick with this guy:

"Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."

- Igor Stravinsky

As I recall, his career was somewhat successful...

Kurt M. Landre'
http://www.SoundCloud.com/kmlandre


----------



## Daniel James (Oct 11, 2013)

These types of discussion always bother me (and lol Gunther this must be like the 12th time you have created a thread like this right?)

I don't think there is any more or less copying going on nowdays than there ever has been. I mean back in the classical age of music are you telling me every single piece sounds radically different from one another, without anyone imitating someone else but putting there spin on it or trying to evolve what came before?...I mean they all used orchestras right? one could argue that all the composers back then using orchestras with choir and piano is no different from today using synthesized bass lines sampled strings and over processed percussion, its the tone that seems to work for our ears right now.

Modern composition is just that, its the general tone of this era of music which has been shaped by the music that has come before and is constantly molded by the technology we have available to us to evolve things further.

Also while we are on the topic, lets be honest...there isn't really a 'true' original composer...everyone has a style which is a combination of their skill set mixed with music that has influenced them. The 'Heroes' of the 'Modern Composers' you speak of are probably vastly different from the people you idolize and admire...therefor their output would most likely not be to your taste. 

I personally love the new wave of modern composers...they are filling in so many 'what ifs' ....ie what if you mix Skrillex with John Williams....what if you Take the sound of a car and manipulate it to double a solo cello. It's truely inspiring to see the little things people are experimenting with, which even though it may be over looked by they high and mighty musical purists, is actually contributing to the evolution of the musical craft in a more positive way that simple sitting back in your computer chair shouting at us for BEINg SILLY MoDERN COMPoZERZ. 

-DJ


----------



## bbunker (Oct 12, 2013)

Yep. + (10 * (10^10)) on what DJ said.

[Edited because the original post didn't actually add anything of value.]


----------



## re-peat (Oct 12, 2013)

kmlandre @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."
> - Igor Stravinsky


http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... 61#3604461

_


----------



## Resoded (Oct 12, 2013)

Daniel kind of beat me to it, but something that fascinates me is that as soon as technology based composers sound even remotely close to HZ, they are "copying". But then we have the old school composers who keep talking about "studying" the scores of the greats, and uses the exact same orchestral setup as they do. Same instruments in the exact same seating. That's not very creative at all. Or the fact that the western world has its own music theory which both old school and technology based composers rely heavily on. It's clearly fine to adore Williams or Ravel, Stravinsky or Bach, but not HZ.

I have the deepest admiration for old school composers. I could never match the likes of Shore, or the talents of some people on this forum. But lets not fool ourselves that the old school composers are somehow more original in general.

I do agree with your last comment though Gunther. Experimenting is really interesting and a lot of fun and can lead to new discoveries.

Another thing that fascinates me is that no matter which genre you look at, you can always find someone that thinks it all sounds the same. Each genre has a tonne of subgenres, but I can tell you right now, I couldn't for the life of me tell the different techno and dance genres apart. Same thing for lots of people, they can't tell the great composers apart. It all sounds the same to them. They do not notice or appreciate the nuances that sets composers apart.


----------



## kmlandre (Oct 12, 2013)

re-peat @ Fri Oct 11 said:


> kmlandre @ Sat Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal."
> ...



"By 'stealing', Stravinsky always meant: the assimilation/integration of musical elements — that he found in all of music, from all ages and styles — which he felt he needed to fully explore the musical paths which his musical instincts made him follow."

- Some guy named "re-peat" on another thread :wink: 

Yup, pretty much that right there.

As long as I think it's leading the tune somewhere new to *me*, I'm going to keep on being happily unoriginal.

Kurt M. Landre'
http://www.SoundCloud.com/kmlandre


----------



## guitarman1960 (Oct 12, 2013)

> Another thing that fascinates me is that no matter which genre you look at, you can always find someone that thinks it all sounds the same. Each genre has a tonne of subgenres, but I can tell you right now, I couldn't for the life of me tell the different techno and dance genres apart. Same thing for lots of people, they can't tell the great composers apart. It all sounds the same to them. They do not notice or appreciate the nuances that sets composers apart.



Yes, exactly, Hybrid epic music is a genre, just like Heavy Metal, Trance, Classical, and Flamenco are genres. There's nothing wrong with that really. In any genre you have the few geniuses who stand out above everyone else, and thousands of others that all sound more or less the same. The Hybrid genre is very popular in movies and trailers because it ticks all the boxes the clients demand, such as epic, massive, grandiose, dramatic and of course modern.
Clients want their movies and trailers to seem epic and dramatic and modern so this is the music that fits that purpose. It's not really music that most people would put on their hifi and sit back and listen to at home, but that's not what its for.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Oct 12, 2013)

EDIT


----------



## TheUnfinished (Oct 12, 2013)

Don't listen to him... buys moar presetz!!!

But to be serious for a moment. I don't particularly like the epic/trailer style of music. I never listen to it. But I know many contempoaries and friends who write it, and I appreciate their skill in doing so. Writing to genre is a skill in itself... as I'm sure many classically trained composers have learned when asked to do dance music.

One of the best lessons I've learned as an 'artist' s stop worrying about what other people do.

I mean... where does this whole argument leave me? I follow Gunther's rule of creating my own sounds for my own music and then I tear right through it by selling some of those sounds to others! :?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Oct 12, 2013)

TheUnfinished @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> But to be serious for a moment. I don't particularly like the epic/trailer style of music. I never listen to it. But I know many contempoaries and friends who write it, and I appreciate their skill in doing so. Writing to genre is a skill in itself... as I'm sure many classically trained composers have learned when asked to do dance music.



This.


----------



## doctornine (Oct 12, 2013)

Actually i think it boils down to something very simple :

1 - Do you want to be a great artiste, spend a lot of time creating something wildly original, full of your own bespoke noises and satisfy your inner creative muse. And not make a lot of money from doing so.

or

2) Make a living from writing music. Thereby not having to do a crappy day job you hate.

Its one or the other I'm afraid.


----------



## MrLinckus (Oct 12, 2013)

Gunther, the main problem is NOT that a young composer tries to find its style by imitating other styles or composers... that is great for praktice to learn etc... BUT the main problem is more and more the bad composers get the attention YOU might earned more then those. 

The whole Trailermusic fraction grows more and more every day and most of the music what comes out is really shit, cheaply produced, no own voice etc... the point you got.
The main problem is... and i don't want to bother any of you ... they just get the attention of the audience... but not of some serious producers... many "so called" film composers haven't even scored a film... haven't even scored a trailer... but honestly... who cares? they won't take your jobs and they n'fact WON'T last long out there if there not willing to get out of the mass... 

I listen every day to music from guys who are even younger than me... (i mean i'm 29... whole life still in front) and i try to help a lot to get them thinking about there music, some take the advice, some don't... some have talent, many don't.

the point of what i want to say is... don't get bothered by it... nobody is perfect and well there are thousands of bakery shops out there... thousands of restaurants... all baking or cooking the same stuff... but you know what? who cares... there are some bakeries and some restaurants who serve special food... it's the same with modern composers since the internet gives everybody publicity.

If they won't learn or won't go further with there creations it's their problem... not yours... save your heart gunther...  don't get bothered by it... 

Cheers,

FL


----------



## Guy Rowland (Oct 12, 2013)

doctornine @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Actually i think it boils down to something very simple :
> 
> 1 - Do you want to be a great artiste, spend a lot of time creating something wildly original, full of your own bespoke noises and satisfy your inner creative muse. And not make a lot of money from doing so.
> 
> ...



Actually I don't agree with just those two options, certainly with regard to making a living = hating writing crappy music, but it depends where you're coming from. With scoring, my primary interest is in storytelling, not in making a standalone musical masterpiece. It's incredibly satisfying making a gag work or helping a motivation or plot point, even if the music on its own isn't groundbreaking. If your motivation is primarily to write innovative music in its own right, and especially you're actually a frustrated concert composer then I agree making a living will probably be hell.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Oct 12, 2013)

I think the ones that WANT to do their own thing WILL do their own thing. It won't matter what anyone tells them.

Additionally with regards to not using libraries that are already created and making your own sounds, some people don't want to do they - they just want to make music using "instruments", regardless of what they are.

Whether you use a real piano or a sampled piano, creating music is creating music.

Composers sounding the same is always going to happen, it is near impossible to get a sound that doesn't sound a 'little' like something else (chances are you probably don't even know the piece exists) - too much music has been written to this date for this not to happen really.

If you can post some stuff that's completely original and doesn't have hints here and there (intentional or unintentional) of other pre-existing works then I'd be happy to listen though.


----------



## David Chappell (Oct 12, 2013)

Well, I'm gunna throw my opinion out there being that I fall under the bracket of "young composer"...

I notice that across most communities everything seems to be going downhill. For instance, in electronic music, I often see on youtube comments like "EDM is dead!" - or with gaming, for example, "Call of Duty is dead!". And it seems to be the same with the film music community - or at least from what I've seen on this forum. But I don't subscribe to the notion that just because something is old means it is inherently better. I actually _prefer_ new film music to old film music. I just think it's more fitting to the films. Not to mention the possibilities that technology has offered us. Now we have so many more musical options - and yet this is still considered to be unoriginal. Furthermore, technology has made music so much more accessible, to both listeners and composers. Nowadays, any bloke with a laptop and a few sample libraries (like me! :lol: ) can push out a [passable to the general public] orchestral track whereas back a couple hundred years only the truly prodigal, coupled with financial backing of their royal sponsors, could do such a thing. Doesn't that mean, then, by sheer power of probability, that more good music is being produced today?

Anyways, that's just my 2c.


----------



## Philip Brook (Oct 12, 2013)

Music is possibly the hardest art form to be "original" in. While themes are re-used constantly in literature (say) it's very unlikely that two authors will write almost identical paragraphs in a novel, but it is not only possible but actually very likely that two musicians will create a very similar melody completely unbeknownst to each other. Originality in the most literal sense has never existed but its absence is most evident in music imo. As more time passes and the amount of music in existence increases exponentially it just becomes more and more difficult to avoid a generic sound.

That said I personally find modern music more beautiful than any other period due to composers like Thomas Newman, Arvo Pärt etc.


----------



## tdavilio (Oct 12, 2013)

I think the late, great, studio guitarist Hugh McCracken said it best when he said, "What Whores We Are"


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

I agree with the basic point of this post at least as far as saying that, originality is the hallmark of all great music. That is, it should be the goal of a composer or artist. 

We all know that film composers are often asked to stay away from _too much_ originality (stay close to the temp!) Just as popular artists have been told to _be commercial_. In any case, whatever confines a composer finds himself in (as a pop song is a confine to be worked within) originality is what stands the test of time. Those who outright copy don't seem to have much of a shelf life since the original is almost always preferable.

Stravinsky did in fact steal in that he outright quotes Mozart or this composer or that. But all great composers have done that, even freakishly original composers like Ives. Stravinsky is so highly original that he sounds like _himself_ no matter who he may be quoting.

Perhaps one should ask, who do you sound like? - you or someone else? When I hear someone who sounds like a much inferior John Williams (not as an exercise but statement of their music), I am completely baffled as to why they're even in the game. It's contrary to the whole idea of creativity.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 12, 2013)

Gunther

Write music you enjoy writing. If the client loves it, then you make money and can feel happy, fulfilled, and feed your family.

Write music you enjoy. If no one enjoys it, or pays you for it, then blame the people who are making money and write that style of music better then you.

Write music you don't enjoy and if the client loves it, then you make money and you can feel sad, empty, unfulfilled, and feed your family.

Write music you don't enjoy and if no one enjoys it, then blame the people who write that type of music better then you.

Music is like free speech. You have the right to say/write whatever you want. You don't have the right be heard. If people like what you say, great. If not sucks to be you.

Please post some of your highly original music so we can all be amazed.


----------



## mark812 (Oct 12, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Please post some of your highly original music so we can all be amazed.



+1


----------



## KEnK (Oct 12, 2013)

Interesting read here.

Seems like many people are taking offense at the idea of being "original".
Puzzling but not surprising.

Also, Gunther's post or challenge said little about "film music",
yet as is often the case here, much of the conversation is confined to only that.
I didn't take his op to be only about film music.

Then there's the generational aspect to some comments.
Do people really think "It's all been done before"?
I think it's a matter of "the bar" having been lowered to a never seen extreme point.
(ex- Miley Cyrus and the dude who completely ripped off and is suing Marvin Gay's estate.)
An amazing development in music history.

Personally I see it this way-
The more people strive for a Generic sound, (for whatever reason)
the easier it becomes for me to stand out.

But there's also a larger dilemma at work here.

As the Generic becomes the norm, and the preferred vocabulary,
the more unlikely it is for creativity to flourish in a pop setting.
(this includes film music, all the so-called EDM sub genres, jazz etc)

The field of expression is being diminished by the expectation and insistence of the Generic as the preferred mode.

Not a good development for any Art form.

my 2¢

k


----------



## wqaxsz (Oct 12, 2013)

Wunderbravo Germancomponist, i applaud this genuine heart-cry of yours,
but
you don't talk about wolf in a sheepfold.

Good luck to you.
Regards.

Von von.


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 12, 2013)

Originality is such a vague term. I can start writing music that focuses on distorted guitars, kazoos, and reggae rhythms. Will it be original sounding? Will it be good? The answers are yes and maybe, but more than likely yes, and no.

How music sounds is the most important thing to me. I like how a lot of modern scores sound. I like how a lot of the traditional scores sound as well. Good music is good and shit is shit, regardless of the style.

If you don't like a genre of music don't listen to it. At the same time don't put forth your elitist attitude about how it sucks and is completely unoriginal. 

I really dislike the music that my wife and kids listen to. The rule is whoever drives the vehicle, decides on the music. I could sit and complain about it, but instead I choose to just deal with it. Occasionally something piques my interest and I enjoy listening to it.

You can find gems in all styles of music if you are open to it. If you are a close minded individual then you will go through life being blinded by your greatness and miss out on other greatness.

Look at this thread and see the differences in influential albums that every poster has and you will see that greatness is very subjective.

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... =1#3734152

Don


----------



## guitarman1960 (Oct 12, 2013)

I guess he is always trying to be provocative on purpose, but to be fair to Gunther he does have a point about most modern film music sounding more and more the same. Even worse than that is the actual movies themselves are becoming more and more the same. Went to see Oblivion recently which itself is just a mash up of scenes and ideas from older and much better sci fi fims, and was pretty appalled by the set of trailers that ran before the movie, all of them were practically identical not onlly with the music and sound effects but also with the cgi effects and scenes and explosions, they honestly could have been all trailers from the same effing movie and you wouldn't have known otherwise.
So, the OP definately has a point, but sadly that's a much broader problem with Hollywood and Blockbusters and Action/Sci-Fi films in general and not only a music problem.
The bottom line is that when something is mega successful then everyone wants to repeat that success and sadly the easiest way to try and do that is to copy the 'magic' formula.
It happens in every genre, how many guitar players are still trying to be Jimi Hendrix, how many heavy rock bands still sound like a crap version of Led Zep or Black Sabbath, how many pop/rock bands sound like a crap version of U2, and so on and so on, to judge by those we'll still be swamped by crap versions of Hans Zimmer for another 40 years!!!!! :D
When someone like Hans or Hendrix raises the bar and creates something that is magical and people love, it's only natural that others copy. That's not a new thing and is only natural, it's when commerce more and more dictates the agenda that it starts to drive people nuts. Hats off to whoever creates the next Big Thing!


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

Darthmorphling @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Originality is such a vague term.



Not vague to me. In a lifetime of discussions with people about music no one has ever said, _What do you mean by original?_ It's a distinguishing feature in all art. You may have schools or categories of art such as classicism, romanticism, impressionism but it's those that excel (speak with a new voice not heard before) within those categories that garner the most attention and are most highly valued. 

Originality is a prime consideration in evaluating works of art and is far more objective than subjective. Beethoven on orchestration alone is in fact the originator of a new school in that era. He is also in harmony, form, pianistic writing and so one. He is in fact _original_ even if you hate his music (taste not being a factor in a scientific evaluation of the elements making up a whole.) Originality does not _guarantee_ that an effort is of any quality but is rarely missing if ever in great works of art.

Schoenberg is an original without a doubt. If he's gone in and out of fashion that doesn't change him from originating his system. He is original in other areas as well that predate that system. Same with Aaron Copeland, Debussy and countless others. Often times early on artists sound like their models as did Stravinsky and Ives but then they begin to chart new territory. The innovators or original thinkers in all areas of life have been historically highly valued. So have journeymen, artisans and craftsmen but art is a designation all it's own with different criteria - originality one them.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Oct 12, 2013)

Okay, so to Gunther and others - which composers working regularly today who you consider to be genuinely original? I'm genuinely curious to know if you can all agree on at least one name.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 12, 2013)

Dave Connor @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> (...) It's a distinguishing feature in all art. You may have schools or categories of art such as classicism, romanticism, impressionism but it's those that excel (speak with a new voice not heard before) within those categories that garner the most attention and are most highly valued.
> (...) Originality is a prime consideration in evaluating works of art (...)



I'm afraid that today, I have to disagree entirely with you, Dave. If I'm allowed to quote from something I wrote in another thread, a long time ago:

(...) *the level where the musical creativity is so poor and so banal that the idea of stealing, or being original, actually matters.* And it’s this last sentence that is key. To a truly talented, self-confident composer, being ‘original’ (in the sense of: only working with so-called ‘original’ ideas) doesn’t matter. Well, not in the sense that most people think, assume or insist that it should matter, anyway. First of all, a truly talented, self-confident composer invariably knows that his gift, his identity, his language is always original, even if he uses an unoriginal vocabularly. Him simply being him, that’s the purest, profoundest form of originality right there. And secondly: it’s only in the sum total of the music that the value or greatness of a work is defined, not in the isolated musical ingredients (some of which may or may not be entirely original). *Thirdly: orginality is, in itself, not a musical (or artistic) parameter. It is, in itself, completely devoid of any artistic value* and it’s only of interest to those who like to read footnotes in art- or music-history books.

There isn’t a single great composer that is remembered mainly because he was original. They are remembered for the simple reason that they created fabulous music. ‘Being original’ doesn’t even enter into it when history makes its verdict. And whenever it does, you’ll find that it’s always related to second-rate figures who need something as trivial as ‘originality’ to substantiate some claim to fame.
If Picasso had only been an ‘original’ and nothing else, his name would never have appeared on the list of greatest artists of all time. If Beethoven, Debussy or Prokofiev didn’t have anything to offer beyond ‘original ideas’, they’d all be minor, probably forgotten figures in the history of music. Thelonious Monk, a famous ‘original’, hasn’t earned his place in the history books because he was an original, but because he created music of lasting beauty with that remarkable talent of his. There must have been hundreds of other musicians with a similar innovative approach to music as he had, but for some reason unable to turn their 'vision' into something of enduring quality. Their names will never be known.

Being ‘original’ may give you a few years of fame, sure, maybe a few decades even (especially in superficial times such as the one we’re currently living in), but if there’s nothing of lasting substance underneath the originality, oblivion inevitably awaits you.
Anyone worth remembering, is someone who had ‘something lasting’ to say, but whether that ‘something lasting’ happened to be formulated in an original way or not, is entirely unimportant and irrelevant.

Even if bits of, say, ‘Star Wars’ are derived from ‘The Sacre’, even if bits from ‘E.T.’ are clearly sourced from Hanson’s 3rd symphony, that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that the music in which these bits are integrated, is clearly and unmistakeably ‘Williams music’. In other words: it’s not the Hanson- or Stravinsky-echoes which define (the quality of) the music of ‘E.T.’ or ‘Star Wars’, it’s how Williams turns these elements into ‘Williams music’ that matters. It’s the presence of Williams in this music that gives it its lasting quality and appeal, not the presence of any other composer. (...)


The follow-up can be found here: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... 49#3608549
_


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Okay, so to Gunther and others - which composers working regularly today who you consider to be genuinely original? I'm genuinely curious to know if you can all agree on at least one name.



Dave Porter.


----------



## Lex (Oct 12, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Okay, so to Gunther and others - which composers working regularly today who you consider to be genuinely original? I'm genuinely curious to know if you can all agree on at least one name.



Michael Giacchino, Hans Zimmer, James newton Howard, Howard Shore, Cliff Martinez, Johnny Greenwood, Clint Mansell, Alexandre Desplat, Danny Elfman, John Powell, Bear McCreary, Thomas Bergersen......and many many more...

alex


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

Piet, I tried to address your subtleties in brief when I used works like _excel_ which assumes the elements of quality you mention are in abundance. In reading your observations I see semantic differences for the most part. When I say a composer has _original_ attributes in his music, that may be the very thing you're talking about as the force of a self confident personality. Suffice to say that the list of generally agreed upon great composers is to me a list of artists that all brought something _original_ to the process. That list is not a list of copycats I think you will agree (no matter how much they did copy their heroes.) Could anyone write a list of _unoriginal copycats?_

In any case, if you listed five completely unoriginal composers from Western Art Music (Classical) I would be very curious to see that.

EDIT: In re-reading your post Piet I see that you completely missed what I was saying. But surely you did see that I said originality was an _element_ that _rarely if ever_ was missing from great art. Please though, list five famous composers who are wholly lacking in originality and that will clear things up for further discussion.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 12, 2013)

_Completely unoriginal?_ Crikey, quelle question! Well, depending on how one defines ‘original’ (and its opposite) and depending on which elements are allowed to be taken into account, that answer could be anything from zero to several hundreds, couldn’t it?

Was Elgar an innovator? I don’t think so. Unless you consider the Englishification of Wagner a bold act of musical innovation. And yet, Elgar’s music and the quality of his ideas is singularly and recognizably Elgarian, and as such ‘original’, I suppose. So where does that leave us? I don’t know. (And I don’t really care, to be honest.) 
Did Schubert discover a lot of new musical territory? Again, not really. But calling him an unoriginal simply feels completely wrong to me, because his musical ideas are of such unique quality that, in light of that uniqueness, the determination whether he is original or not, is nothing more than a petty, trivial and rather indecent excercise, I feel.
Respighi? I don’t think the man composed a single original bar of music, but still: put all those unoriginal bars together and you have a piece of original Respighi music, don’t you?
Grieg? Original? Not really, I would think. Although I will accept that, from a Norvegian perspective, that might be the wrong answer. Either way, the originality of Grieg has little to do with anything stylistically innovative but everything with the fact that the quality and identity of his musical imagination is entirely his and no one else’s.
Mendelssohn? Despite already writing miraculously beautiful and timeless music at the mere age of 17, he is not really known for his forward-moving originality, is he? But do we gain a better understanding of this remarkable musician by establishing the level (or absence) of originality in his work? I don’t think we do.

Fuchs, Alkan, Berwald, Gounod, Czerny, Cherubini, Spohr, Hummel, and all those others who crowd the B- and C-teams? Originals or unoriginals? Again, from one angle: definitely the latter, but from another: very much the former, because, in the end, their music is theirs and no one else's, even if it doesn’t contain a single truly pioneering idea.

I consider John Williams one of music’s great originals, despite the fact that his language is often as conservative and backwards-looking as can be. Only to say that my view on the matter has nothing to do with the stylistic, formal or technical aspects of his work, but everything with the sublime quality of his inspiration and the unique scale and depth of his talent. The originality of Williams is indeed completely non-existent on any timeline that displays the history of music, we all know that, but it is very much existent ― breathtakingly so, I’d say ― when considering the musically gifted individual.

When discussing composers of distinction, even the lesser ones, you don’t measure their ‘originality’ (or lack thereof), I feel. That is such a shallow and unmusical approach, and like I said elsewhere, only of historical interest. No composer of depth and substance is ever defined by so superficial and meaningless an observation as whether he (or she) was or is original or not.
To me the originality of all great composers lies first and foremost in the quality of their music, and much less in the fact whether this music (and the ideas on which it is built) has broken new ground or not. 
I don't revere Stravinsky because he did something new, I revere Stravinsky because he did something good.

Or, put differently: great music always transcends the banality of ‘being original or not’. And identity-defining quality is always original, no matter how old-fashioned it may be from a stylistic, technical or historical point of view. I believe I kept my best example to end with: Johann Sebastian Bach, the very personification of ‘originality through quality’ rather than ‘originality through revolution’.

EDIT:


Dave Connor @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> EDIT: In re-reading your post Piet I see that you completely missed what I was saying.


I don't think I did, Dave. I re-read your post again, with utmost attention, and nothing new was revealed to me which I didn't pick up on the first time around. And I believe I addressed, approvingly or disapprovingly, every single issue you raised in the paragraphs above.

_


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

re-peat @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> Was Elgar an innovator? I don’t think so. Unless you consider the Englishification of Wagner a bold act of musical innovation. And yet, Elgar’s music and the quality of his ideas is singularly and recognizably Elgarian, and as such ‘original’, I suppose...
> Did Schubert discover a lot of new musical territory? Again, not really. But calling him an unoriginal simply feels completely wrong to me...


Me too.

So you do understand my point it seems. (I also agree with you right down to Mendelssohn.)

Remember the context of my remarks is answering the implied criticism of music not only lacking in originality but also a phenomenon where the goal is to only do what others are doing. This becomes an aural antagonism to the initiated at the very least. My point is I completely understand this antagonism and share it. 

What I enjoy about the great composers is how much they were influenced by their heroes but wanted to have their own voice in expressing it. This thread seems to point out the lack of that vital part of the process. For lack of a better word, I'm calling it a lack of originality. Anyone can quibble over that terminology but it won't improve the cookie cutter music at issue here. (I did not criticize this process as an exercise but as troublesome in the individual creative process.)


----------



## Darthmorphling (Oct 12, 2013)

Can a composer still be original using the same orchestral instruments used in the last couple of centuries? I believe so. So does that mean a composer is not capable of being original while using Omnisphere, taikos, choirs, and orchestral instruments? Of course they can.

Yet there are many here who decry the use of these things in compositions. Gunther is one of the most vocal. At the end of the day you write the music that you enjoy writing. If you hate compressed drums and ostinatos, then by all means do not use them. Instead of entering every members composition thread, with epic, or modern, in the title, and asking, "what does it mean to be Epic and modern?" try giving constructive criticism as to how their composition can be improved.

Instead of complaining when someone says they used Action Strings in their track just comment on the track and not complain about using loops.

Apparently we all need to be able to program synth sounds in Kontakt with flatulents before he takes people's music seriously.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 12, 2013)

I can see why people are not entirely sympathetic to certain aspects of Gunther's admonitions. For example the sample library issue. I use popular orchestral libraries for their quality and because creating my own is out of the question practically. Assuming it's a decent enough substitute to illustrate one's musical intentions it is those very intentions I've been talking about.

As far as synth programing I can understand someone tiring of the same sounds and as HZ suggested, we should all learn how to program our own sounds. Here is where I personally am in a grey area but I will never set out for it to sound like someone other than me wrote the music. I may use a similar sound-set (as an orchestra is exactly that) but I will make a point of avoiding being a carbon copy.

Musicians of course get asked to mimic or knock-off things exactly which often falls under the _work_ umbrella. Avoiding starvation is always ok so that's a separate issue. My remarks have been about artistic goals where there is at least some liberty to speak with your own voice.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 13, 2013)

Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> So you do understand my point it seems.


Let's maybe not get _too_ patronizing, Dave. You're not talking to one of your pupils here.


----------



## lux (Oct 13, 2013)

re-peat @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> (...) *the level where the musical creativity is so poor and so banal that the idea of stealing, or being original, actually matters.* And it’s this last sentence that is key. To a truly talented, self-confident composer, being ‘original’ (in the sense of: only working with so-called ‘original’ ideas) doesn’t matter. Well, not in the sense that most people think, assume or insist that it should matter, anyway. First of all, a truly talented, self-confident composer invariably knows that his gift, his identity, his language is always original, even if he uses an unoriginal vocabularly. Him simply being him, that’s the purest, profoundest form of originality right there.



That pretty much resumes my opinion on the matter as well.

Maybe the right word on this topic isn't "unoriginal" but "lazy". Lazyness in musc is probably a more buggy attitude, at least to me.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 13, 2013)

Dave Connor @ Sat Oct 12 said:


> I can see why people are not entirely sympathetic to certain aspects of Gunther's admonitions.



Actually, I also thought, Gunthers point is not all wrong, but the way he states it seems to imply that he is the one who knows to make good original music and he needs to tell all others because they don't. The imperative form in his post suggests this (at least for me). If you want to avoid sounding like a teacher you should put it in 3rd person. Rather than saying "Build your own presets (you untalented copycat noobs)!" its more neutral to say "Wouldn't it be better if more people built their own presets?"


----------



## bbunker (Oct 13, 2013)

[edited]


----------



## TSU (Oct 13, 2013)

It was just a desperate call to people to be more original and to seek their own voice. Nothing more nothing less. I can't see any complexity here.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Oct 13, 2013)

TSU @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> It was just a desperate call to people to be more original and to seek their own voice. Nothing more nothing less. I can't see any complexity here.



It's just, ironically, a lazy taunt imo.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 13, 2013)

Piet! You are such a joy to read, a bright light in the cave, when you refrain from attacking members. And thank you for the clarification of the 'greats steal' quote.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So you do understand my point it seems.
> ...



We ALL could learn from Dave. He is masterful.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think Gunther meant _compositional_ originality as much as he meant _sonic_ originality. 

AFAIR, he is not a big fan of the big loud trailer style of sound, what I call Zimmer-lite, and because perhaps from the demands of the marketplace; or the taste of those doing it; or the fact that _realtively_ it is easier to do if not well acceptanly compared to more subtle music if you have the right libraries, there is a flood of that sound.

Hence his call to arms. But my analysis could be wrong.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 13, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So you do understand my point it seems.
> ...



so if the question is originality,then to me i begs the question-

how do you set about scoring a film?

so for me,even if there is temp thrown in,I do my best to engage the director.We'll talk story,script,character arcs,basic tone and what the music needs to bring to the table.Usually,after a few indepth talk sessions,the temp music starts to look a little flacid and like a crude attempt to explain the needs music wise.at that point I reference characters motivations and plot points.No where in all this do I talk about the mechanics of music,and certainly not anything specific.I find all this effort opens the door to experimentation,and more importantly,it opens the eyes of the others to see possibilities.I don't ever think about other music,and I don't like to quote anyone.Of course this leaves the problem that you need to build up motifs up from scratch,and you need to fight off your natural tendencies to tread where you did before.
So all this leads me to the fact that I start to think about the structures and orchestrations and devices that can create small starting points to get cues to have "lift-off".In all this,why is there a need to copy from others?
I always explain the music in terms of what it tries to bring to the story and specific scenes as well.I find directors really respond positively to those who can talk "story".In fact it seems to be the only way I know how to get their confidence.All this before any real music is put in front of them.I guess context is everything.
There is always the danger of subconsciously quoting sources you've heard,but aren't consciously aware of,but I'll be one to say I'm ok with that for the most part.
Aren't we all ignoring the fact that music is a language,and it seems to me,that it follows the fashion of the day.I sometimes can't follow those who speak "ebonics",but it is a form of english as far as I can tell.Seems to me being worried about quoting things from the past is ignoring that music is evolving,and I find it fascinating to see what film music CAN bring to the film experience.
not expecting anyone to really care about my process,btw
-david


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

IMHO, originality is almost an essential goal for a concert hall composer. For a film composer, it is a luxury that is only afforded when the film and the director allow for it.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> IMHO, originality is almost an essential goal for a concert hall composer. For a film composer, it is a luxury that is only afforded when the film and the director allow for it.



I hear ya,but I mention it cause having observed a number of composers while in the thick of it,quite a few do fall to quoting and actively looking for sources to rip off as a starting point.In fact,had one gig ,where I was helping out,and the lead guy always instructed to "go find something" and rip it off,but change it just enough not to get sued.He had it down to a science.Just hated that gig personally.Was happy to be done with that.
I have never had a gig where I could not bring new ideas to the table.I think saying you can't be original in film music is a bit of a cop out.
But again,not sure I'll convince anyone to see it my way.
I just think that there is always the choice to be different,and in fact,I think the greats even today have their ears to the ground when they do hear something new.You just have to practice not dismissing something that sounds new right away.This is something I regret I used to do consistently growing up.(mainly because I lacked self confidence).I still lack confidence at times,but I find really new ideas excite me more ,and i get bored very quickly with the current popular devices(such as string pic ostis and close voiced low brass) .
Hans Zimmer pointed out a John Cleese video where he talked about the creative process.Basically it helped me understand the idea that being uncomfortable while trying to find a creative solution was ok,in fact it was ok to wrestle with a creative dilemma for weeks at a time if need be.The longer you think about a creative dilemma,the more creative the solution is.So long as you are ok with the discomfort of not having a solution.So even in film music where the time is not on your side,you can still manage to try and input new ideas.I find without that aspect,there is little that is interesting about scoring if just the old same old is what you hash out again and again.
I want my ass kicked by the other creatives.Sometimes I feel like I'm a total lunkhead.Love those situations,cause that's when i feel my reach expands.I hate nothing more than to look back on a gig I did and listen to what I brought to the project if I did not bring something new to the table.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> For a film composer, it is a luxury that is only afforded when the film and the director allow for it.


I never have understood that line of thinking, Jay. I’m of the opinion that, when writing music for films or tv, you can be as original and creative as you yourself want to be. I think it’s actually rather pathetic when composers are blaming their mediocre, lazy or insignificant output on the director, the producer or the industry. 

Even within the boundaries of the strictest briefing, even when obeying the most rigorous set of instructions, you can still make your mark. But you have to want to. Even in the simplest of jobs there are still dozens and dozens of musical and creative decisions to be made, and they’re all yours. Every second of music that needs to be made is an opportunity. You only have to seize it.
I’m not saying every opportunity will offer equal artistic satisfaction, but in the end, it is only you yourself who stands in the way of making sure that you can look back on a job well done, a piece of work that you can sign off with honest pride and genuine satisfaction.

Ask any composer from the entire history of music: Di Lassus, Machaut, Palestrina, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven …, right up to anyone since that you care to mention, including any film composer worth remembering. They all have delivered great, enduring work even when complying with the most rigid structures, strict rulings, strong stylistic conventions or whatever other set of limitations that was imposed on them. Every piece of church music, every piece of ballet music, every opera … they’re all works where the composer had to mould his instincts, creativity and personality in order to deliver something which functions in accordance with very specfic demands, expectations, conventions and, of course, the concept of the piece itself.

The biggest problem here, still in my opinion, is not Evil Producers or Dictatorial Directors, no, it’s lazy, complacent, cowardly, cry-baby pseudo-composers who lack the courage to take their responsibility.

All those composers we admire, Jay, all the ones we love to refer to as shining examples of the Art & Craft Of Composing Music For Films And Television, they all had (or have) to fight for their bit of freedom, they all had to mark their territory with the urine of their self-respect. And they did. Cause it mattered to them. And that’s the sign of greatness right there: when your art really matters to you, when it matters enough to keep it alive even within the most narrowing of limitations.

Bach, to go back in time a bit again, had to fight for his bit of artistic freedom too. And those weren’t minor confrontations. Those were life-threatening conflicts and horrible humilations he had to endure, just so that he could be Johann Sebastian Bach, and not some third-rate dripping nitwit who always keeps whining and complaining that he can’t be original because he isn’t allowed to. 
If Bach had thought along the lines of what you’re suggesting, Jay, we’d never have heard of the poor bastard. And the same goes for Hermann, Williams, Goldsmith, Fielding and legions of other composers who emerged gloriously out of the swamp of suffocating deadlines, unimaginative producers and terrorizing directors.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

The fact that you don't understand that it is not always possible is what makes you unsuited to be a professional film composer (And that is not an insult. Stravinsky was not well suited to being a professional film composer.). 

And Bach did not have to deal with dialog aand fx and picture considerations. It's a different gig.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 13, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > For a film composer, it is a luxury that is only afforded when the film and the director allow for it.
> ...



yup

you gotta be in the chair to fully realize what is written here.We all have choices.

well said sir.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 13, 2013)

Or you guys could just write music for yourselves and do a mindless day job. That's what Charlie Ive's did and ended up writing music HE wanted to write. That's what I've largely done but I'll add that it's probably a good thing since the style or styles I like to write in seem to garner very little attention or interest. 

It's all good and well to have high creative principles but I have to agree with Jay that you can starve on your principles. Gotta go with what's popular and today that does seem to cater to the lowest common denominator though it's not a reflection of the composer's abilities half the time.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2013)

Being original is not the same as ignoring everything that came before and thinking you can figure it out entirely on your own.

That's called conceit.

rgames


----------



## sluggo (Oct 13, 2013)

"Charlie Ives". 
Lolz


----------



## Guy Rowland (Oct 13, 2013)

I wonder what we all do? Really? We read threads imploring us to aspire to Stravinsky, when some of the luckier ones are probably writing beds for Homes Under The Hammer. Hans Zimmer hates being reminded of Going For Gold, the euro game show that a whole generation here can still sing 25 years later. Was it a brilliantly original piece of music? Forgive hz but no - it was pretty corny. However it was catchy as hell, and an entire generation here can still sing it and fitted the show like a glove. He did the gig well - and doubtless on time and with his charm and grace - and moved on. 

And that, it seems, is the key to it. Many here aren't anywhere near the dizzy heights of Going For Gold. So here's my take on it - just do your job - at whatever humble level you are - well. Putting forward a daring, original hybrid of Shostakovich and the Aphex Twins probably won't go down well with the producers of 15 and Pregnant who need to churn out 5 episodes a week. John Powell speaks convincingly about the need to master every type of music out there as you learn your craft - try and fail and try again. The need to write to genre is HUGELY under-appreciated and under-discussed at VI-C. Just as many writers and filmmakers need to write and direct to genre (and yes, then tweak or subvert conventiions) to find their audience, so do we composers. And that probably means trying to understand Trap as much as Baroque.

Writing 10 minutes a day won't give you opportunities to reflect for 6 weeks on a thorny problem of integrating a character's inner motivation with a subtle ecological motif and kick ass big lasers. It's heads down and write. Do the gig, deliver on time, don't be an ass and it will probably lead to others. If you're lucky you'll start getting more opportunities to stretch your creative muscles. And as John Powell says, the more styles, the more genres you've had a crack at, the better you'll be at getting through that process and the more resources on which you can draw.

And then there's your voice. Which, probably, you'll have been starting to notice just beginning to thread through all those tacky shows.

Then there's the poor souls who have to write to strict brief pitching ads in impossible deadlines and endless revisions from "creatives" who all disagree with each other. Originality is positively a hindrance in most cases. Understanding a brief, a flair for production and melody and - most of all - endless egoless patience are all assets.

With luck, you'll start to develop relationships with a few of the good ones. And have some fun, finally. And if you're smart enough to recognise that at any level of the industry without necessarily always be looking for bigger and bigger - and quite probably less satisfying and more stressful - gigs, then so much the better. Find your niche.

So where does this leave Gunther's fictional Modern Composer? If she's on 10 minutes a day, then she won't be programming all her sounds from scratch that's for sure. She'll probably have got Matt's excellent Horizon series for Omnisphere and mumble a rushed "yes, thank you" as she sets off the 4 beat count-in to the next 8 bars. She might have Action Strings to nail a good ostinato for another proscriptive but potentially lucrative trailer pitch. And there'll be a storytelling moment where she can hear the sound in her head and none of the patches quite get it - then she'll find an understanding of synthesis useful and indulge in the luxury of 20 minutes to try and get it herself.

So I say - leave the modern composers alone. Let them find their own stumbling way through trial and error through the productions too embarrassing to put on the CV. Let them discover if they are sound designers or storytellers - or the geniuses like Dave Porter who are both. And give 'em a break - life is tough at the bottom.


----------



## Stiltzkin (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> The fact that you don't understand that it is not always possible is what makes you unsuited to be a professional film composer. And Bach did not have to deal with dialog aand fx and picture considerations. It's a different gig.



That was literally the most uninspiring thing I have ever read.

Do you honestly believe you can't make a personal mark on anything you write just because you have to deal with dialog/fx and picture?

That's quite a sad thing for you to believe really... It sounds like you have no passion - I feel sorry for whatever happened to make you this cynical.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

Stiltzkin @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you don't understand that it is not always possible is what makes you unsuited to be a professional film composer. And Bach did not have to deal with dialog aand fx and picture considerations. It's a different gig.
> ...



You can on SOME films, you cannot on others. If you have a film that i.e is wall to wall dialog, you have to be very careful not to interfere with it or your score will either get thrown out or mixed so low no one can hear it.

It is not lack of passion, it is understanding the job:

1. Enhance the film.

2. Please the director/producer.

3. Please yourself.

7056. Impress other composers with how original and brilliant you are.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> ...



BTW, does no one agree with me about what Gunther was really talking about?


----------



## KingIdiot (Oct 13, 2013)

I truly doubt this is the case with all composers. It's probably the small group here that talk and post and want to learn again. Though I'm sure sometimes, fear of losing the gig outweighs the confidence in your "own art"

I think that last part is validated int he constant want for the next big thing in libraries to realize the work that people don't have time to invest in. It's a business, it's deadlines, some people work best and have built up the chops to realize comparable material that other people (directors producers) have referenced. It might be part of the market, it might be a part of the industry that is just for current trends in that new technology and budget constraints offer and exacerbate this. It's usually how it goes when money is the focus, art and experimentalism takes a second tier. IT doesn't mean there aren't opportunities for that, and that it can't be explored, nor that sometimes it will be nurtured.

The idea that it's somehow the composers's fault for the sign of the popular style is at once spot on, but it's a matter of point of view that makes it a bit conceited or condescending if you look down upon it, like how some of it comes across here.

art is sometimes fashionable art. That's how the culture goes sometimes.

It doesn't mean people should blame the industry for not being able to take risks. Risk taking IS jsut what it is: risk taking, which means you sometimes reach out beyond what you're asked for or outside of the safe zone. It might not be accepted, it might lose you the gig. It's not someone else's fault that you didn't take the risk. It's a whole slew of circumstances that overloads the fear. Yes sometimes you're just in a position to afford that luxury. Or maybe that's just it. It just seems like a luxury because it's never taken.


blah blah blah, bias, blah blah blah, hyperbole, blah blah blah.

bitching about a specific group not "making their own" as if it's their fault put too much burden and projection. Things will change, people will always copy because that's just how the entertainment medium goes, and people want food on the table.

I write a ton of self absorbed navel gazing songwriting stuff that I barely share. but once every few months at an open mic It's passionate as hell, and it makes me feel like a tortured artist. It's not gonna make me any money except maybe some swooning form people who've had too much to drink, but you can bet I'd be writing tons of songs for popstars if I had the chance and wasn't too self deprecating to write pop.

Most people people like what they like, and create what they do, for different reasons, not for some grand, and conscious larger state of culture. That should be ok. That should be the soul of expression anyway. Whatever floats their boat. If it's validation then so be it.

BTW, Like me please. o-[][]-o


----------



## Stiltzkin (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> Stiltzkin @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> ...



Unless said producer or director is specifically telling you what chords and melody to write there's no reason you can't spin your web on any composition. You might have to modify things here and there, but in the end it is still "you" doing something in a certain way. Even if it's not you writing for something you wouldn't normally write for, it is still the composer that you are, writing for the subject that you are writing for in the situation at that point in time. 

I really fail to see how character can't be implimented into everything you do, however subtle.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

I didn't say you couldn't. Every composer will indeed impart his/her own personality because it is impossible to write music without doing so. It was the "originality" issue that is not always possible. 
But I still believe we are not discussing Gunther's real point and I don't understand why, unless none of you agree with me that that is what HE was talking about.


----------



## muk (Oct 13, 2013)

Mozart copied about each and every style available to him as a young composer. Schubert literally recomposed certain pieces. Listen to the second movement of his piano sonata D 566:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vARJz0R2QN0

Now compare this to the second movement of Beethoven's piano sonata op. 90. It has the same form, structure, accompaniment, sentiment... It's a very beautiful copy.

Finding your own voice needs time, and a lot of experimenting. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with emulating different styles, it may even be necessary to find your own. Over time, your own voice will begin to shine through in everything you do.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 13, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > So you do understand my point it seems.
> ...



I did not mean to be patronizing at all and I mean that. You seemed to agree almost fully on my original point after I tried to demonstrate it more clearly. Also I hope you noticed that I agreed with you in the main and considered semantics separating us more than anything. You produced a far more nuanced and complete survey on the subject as well which I thoroughly enjoyed. So I am not out to instruct you or anyone. I just didn't think the element of originality could be absent from the great practitioners of composition since in many ways {to me} it's a defining characteristic rather than ancillary.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> BTW, does no one agree with me about what Gunther was really talking about?



Yes Jay and i tried to address the sonic issue in a brief post. He did also talk about the content of the music as well.

Concerning your and Piet's comments on what can be done within the context of serving a director's vision I understand both points. As you say, someone else is at the helm and depending on who, can severely limit ones ability to be bold in implementing their own instincts. Every film composer in town practically has dealt with that and they all talk and complain about it, so it's real. Piet's point that one should be able to be creative within the strictest constraints is also valid and hopefully the approach taken in such a situation.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, does no one agree with me about what Gunther was really talking about?
> ...



Understood. My point is that sometimes trying to be too creative when the picture needs something less or more straight down the pike, you cannot do so without possibly hurting the picture rather than helping it. Do you not agree?


----------



## olajideparis (Oct 13, 2013)

Do what you need to do to get the job done, make the client happy and get paid. Anything beyond that is just for your ego. Clients don't give a shit what tools you used or didn't use to get the job done, who you sound like or don't sound like. At the end of the day you've either given them something that works (and doesn't get them into legal trouble) or it's back to the drawing board. End of story.


----------



## Musicologo (Oct 13, 2013)

Why does one write music anyway? 
Ego? Client? Money? For the sake of art? To grab a place in history? 

You answer that one, the rest comes from there. Probably a mix of a bunch of those things, and the results are also a mix of a bunch of those things.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 13, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> Understood. My point is that sometimes trying to be too creative when the picture needs something less or more straight down the pike, you cannot do so without possibly hurting the picture rather than helping it. Do you not agree?


Yes I agree. An age old problem. _Creative_ in the sense of imposing a musical statement that is inappropriate to the context (visual/emotional in film) is what you mean no doubt. If the solution was to write four notes rather than forty than one should be as creative as possible with those four notes I think is what others are saying. I'm sure you agree with that as well.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 13, 2013)

Dave Connor @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Understood. My point is that sometimes trying to be too creative when the picture needs something less or more straight down the pike, you cannot do so without possibly hurting the picture rather than helping it. Do you not agree?
> ...



Yes.


----------



## re-peat (Oct 14, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> The fact that you don't understand that it is not always possible is what makes you unsuited to be a professional film composer.


See, *Ned*? That’s how these unpleasant episodes often start. There I was, peacefully minding my own, gently and calmly producing line after line of text that is a joy to read (and, I hope, not entirely devoid of interest to the fellow members and passing public as well), and then suddenly, out of nowhere and for no apparent reason, some pompous self-appointed schoolmaster with a completely misguided sense of superiority steps in, and feels he needs to make a derogatory and demeaning personal remark based on what he presumes to know about my career, qualifications and capabilities. He doesn’t know jack shit of course, but that has never stopped him before, so why should it now. And while he’s at it, he also presumes to know why Stravinsky’s body of work doesn’t include too many film scores. 
In olden days, as you no doubt remember, I would not have hesitated to retort with a phrase or two of razor-sharp nastyness ― mercilessly reducing the miscreant to a miserable heap of nothingness (invariably the signal for the moderators to mount an intervention, thereby also providing great entertainment for the bystanders) ― but I’ve mended my ways, Ned, I’ve mended my ways. (Good times though, weren’t they?)

*Jay, dear Jay,*

The fact that you *think* you understand, and fully resign to that delusion, makes you even far less suited for the job than you consider me to be, if I may say so. I mean, if I were a director or a producer, I would never want to work with a composer who lets his level of commitment and creativity depend on your pre-formatted, unimaginative and lazy assumptions and views on what the job entails. I would look for a composer who’s at the very least eager and hungry, someone with the heady zest to surprise me, to raise things to another level within the framework of what I have envisaged for the project. Someone, in short, who begins to give where I and the rest of the crew have to stop giving.
Not some tired, burnt-out ‘professional’ who’s seen it all and thinks he knows it all, and only has the motivation left to provide little else than safe, predictable passe-partout solutions lazily assuming “that’s all he’s allowed to do”. 

And please stop making all these obvious, self-evident statements about ‘serving the picture’ as if they were eye-opening insights or bits of hard-won exclusive knowledge one can only arrive at after years of arduous experience, and then sharing all that simplistic nonsense here in the most conceited manner as if the rest of us don’t know the first thing about film scoring.
Of course one has to serve the picture, jeezes, everybody knows that. And if serving the picture can be better accomplished with three notes than with three hundred, then three it has to be. What's the problem? That’s child’s play. First-grade stuff. That is something even an absolute beginner with a bit of flair for putting music under a scene knows instinctively. 
What I’m talking about is: do you serve the picture in my imaginative, creative way, or do you serve it in your obedient, bland and cliché-infested way? 
Anyway, you know best of course. After all, you are the illustrious, eminently suited professional, aren’t you?

Talking of suitability, I wasn’t aware that I hadn't any, I must say. The clients I work for will be rather surprised too when they hear of it. As will my accountant. Maybe all of us are wrong, but the ever-growing pile of invoices which I’ve sent out over the past decade or so (another one goes out the door next week) certainly seem to indicate differently. They even give reason to believe, as do several other elements which modesty stops me from boasting about, that I may actually be quite good at my job. Only saying, if you ever wanna compare achievements in this particular line of work with me, be my guest.

And as for Bach, I’m pretty sure he would fallen to his knees and thanked God in heaven ― and thrown in a quickly written, but as ever mind-blowing, cantata to boot ― if all he ever had to deal with were sound fx, dialogue and picture considerations. The man wouldn’t have believed his good fortunes if, one day, the council would have come up to him to tell him that that was the extent of what he was up against.
But I’ll grant you one point: it is not the same gig. Indeed, it isn’t. Bach’s was a million times more demanding, difficult and life-sapping than that of all you wussy picture-serving film composers put together.

_


----------



## jensos (Oct 14, 2013)

“All the good music has already been written by people with wigs and stuff.”
― Frank Zappa


----------



## Lex (Oct 14, 2013)

olajideparis @ Mon Oct 14 said:


> Do what you need to do to get the job done, make the client happy and get paid. Anything beyond that is just for your ego. Clients don't give a [email protected]#t what tools you used or didn't use to get the job done, who you sound like or don't sound like. At the end of the day you've either given them something that works (and doesn't get them into legal trouble) or it's back to the drawing board. End of story.



Not all "clients" are like this. A lot are interested in your creativity, ideas and unique ways, provided you have any to begin with.

I mean, there are prostitutes that are passionate about what they do, that make a whole new fantasy world for the "client", that take pride in their uniqueness and creativity. They become famous quick and are able to charge more then most.

Then there is what you describe, which is sucking diiick next to a dumpster in a back alley for 5$ a pop.



alex


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna (Oct 14, 2013)

re-peat @ Mon 14 Oct said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you don't understand that it is not always possible is what makes you unsuited to be a professional film composer.
> ...



Wow


----------



## Stiltzkin (Oct 14, 2013)

Lex @ Mon Oct 14 said:


> olajideparis @ Mon Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Do what you need to do to get the job done, make the client happy and get paid. Anything beyond that is just for your ego. Clients don't give a [email protected]#t what tools you used or didn't use to get the job done, who you sound like or don't sound like. At the end of the day you've either given them something that works (and doesn't get them into legal trouble) or it's back to the drawing board. End of story.
> ...



That was glorious haha


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 14, 2013)

re-peat @ Sun Oct 13 said:


> _



Piet, I _truly_ wasn't trying to insult you, I put you in the same paragraph as Stravinsky, so that ought to be clear. So if you read it as insulting or condescension, I sincerely apologize. I don't feel superior to you in any area, only a different temperament. Film composing for a career is as much about temperament as music. Just my totally worthless opinion of course 

Robert Kraft and several others wrote about why Stravinsky disdained film composing, so I don't have to speculate that he wasn't suited. It is well documented historical fact.

And many of your characterizations of me as a composer and as a person while perhaps a little unkindly stated, are quite fair and perceptive.


----------

