# The New Virtual Orchestra - 2011, A Very Good Year



## SF_Guy

These are great times to be a composer!

I was just thinking of all of the amazing options this year (and the last) that have been developed that really raise the bar when creating a virtual orchestra - 64 bit DAWs, SSD drives, cheaper ram, Vienna Ensemble Pro, Kontakt 4, Play Pro on the horizon and the current and upcoming libraries:

Strings
LA Scoring Strings (and II upcoming?)
Hollywood Strings
Cinematic Strings
70 DVZ Strings
Session Strings Pro
Orchestral String Runs

Brass:
CineBrass
Hollywood Brass
DVZ Brass
LA Scoring Brass (upcoming?)

Woodwinds:
Hollywoodwinds
Hollywood Woodwinds
VSL Woodwinds
Sonivox Woodwinds

Percussion:
Spitfire
TrueStrike I/II
SD2
Drums of War I/II
Tonehammer Perc.

Choir
Requiem
Liberis
Voxos

Harp:
Spitfire Harp
Cineharp
Sonivox Harp

Piano
Ivory 2
Quantum Leap Pianos
Garritan Steinway
VSL Piano

Not to mention all of the synth libraries and a few other orchestral ones I probably forgot!!! These are indeed good times! :mrgreen:


----------



## lux

I know i will not sound much popular but i think Brass are in a better shape than strings, once again.


----------



## mverta

Funny, my old college professor-turned-conductor and I were just discussing how this is about the darkest time to be a composer either of us have seen in our lifetimes. Different definition of composer, I suppose.


_Mike


----------



## SF_Guy

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> Funny, my old college professor-turned-conductor and I were just discussing how this is about the darkest time to be a composer either of us have seen in our lifetimes. Different definition of composer, I suppose.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Yes things have changed. Like all things in life, some for the good and some for the bad.


----------



## dcoscina

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> Funny, my old college professor-turned-conductor and I were just discussing how this is about the darkest time to be a composer either of us have seen in our lifetimes. Different definition of composer, I suppose.
> 
> 
> _Mike



I agree Mike. Personally, I think for me, starting with a blank canvas on DP or whatever DAW and futzing around with samples is not a good way to compose music. I'm doing more composing at the piano or on Sibelius where I can just concentrate on music, not technology. It's far too easy to be distracted by the bells and whistles. obviously my work process is different than others. I studied formally and did most of my formative years plugging away on manuscript so that's my own perspective. 

I'm still yearning for a program or partnership to come along where I can just work in a notation program *(like NOTION) and the program does all the work of assigning articulations, dynamics, instruments based on the things I put into the score. I honestly don't want to screw around with CC messages all day...

I also spoke with someone about spotting music and composing for film. We both agreed that having a monitor in front of your face with the imagery wizzing by all of the time is counter-productive for composing really solid music. Is it any wonder that old school scores sound more musical? Because after taking notes on a moviola, the composer moved away from a visual distraction and worked solely in the world of music. Anyhow, that was yesterday, I'm an old fart by today's standards but I don't find myself buying film scores as much nor listening to film scores any more. I've gone back to re-discovering Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, etc. I can learn more off of those guys....

'nuff said.


----------



## mverta

Yes, but it's rough to watch young composers getting excited because every month some company gives them shiny new streamers for their Big Wheels, when in terms of where they _could_ be going, and what they _could_ be doing musically, the skillset you used to have to have be able to consider yourself a composer was like having an all-terrain amphibious jet fighter instead. That's all. Ignorance is truly bliss.


_Mike

P.S. David, can't remember the last time I bought a filmscore soundtrack. But you know what I saw again yesterday, first time in a long time? Awakenings, score by Randy Newman. So simple, so beautiful, so much solid craft. I mean, CRAFT. Just fuckin' solid. We've lost so much power.


----------



## lux

Randy Newman has talent

you can study and get all the craft for years and not being able to deliver a great emotion like he and talented guys/girls do

its not meant to be polemical, but thats really how i see things


----------



## SF_Guy

I agree. Give me a quiet empty room, an old wooden desk, pen/paper, and my solitude. There's nothing better. 

Bach, Mozart, Brahms, Messiaen, and Puccini is what I typically listen too these days.

The programs, libraries, etc are just tools for realization (beyond the concert hall) and today the way I get paid. The tools are pretty nice these days and because of it I enjoy the production end of the job much better today than I did 15 years ago.


----------



## NYC Composer

When orchestras like the one Ormandy conducted go bankrupt, it sends a shudder. I think the improvement in samples is satisfying for composers who use them to make a living, but the live players are paying a price.


----------



## germancomponist

And the quality of compositions from many so called "modern composers" is not getting better. 

Some time ago I had discussed about this theme in a german forum. There are many people who have bought a big computer, a soundcard, a big monitor and are always buying the newest libs and call themselves "composers". When you listen to their work, it only is so so.... . They had insulted and offended me.


----------



## Pochflyboy

I think there is probably little doubt that the best music comes from writing away from the DAW. In fact my best comes when I am away from a piano or any instrument at all. Just me and paper.... Is it hard? Yes... Does it take longer? Yes.... Is it better music? Yes.... well most of the time.

Composing in a DAW is truly closer to sound design than it is to actual music composing. But many projects we get these days requires such an occurrence.

-Joe


----------



## Douglas R

The conversation seems to have veered off its intended course but that's okay–good discussion. I find myself agreeing with both "it's the best of times" and " it's the worst of times" sentiments. Like many here, I haven't purchased a new film score in some time. I even find myself not watching some films based on who scored it. Used to be the other way around.

What excites me about these products is that they allow us to realize what we hear in our heads, and work out on paper, to a much greater degree than ever before. It has been encouraging to find that many of the people developing our favorite orchestral libraries are well-versed in writing for the orchestra and have no intention of replacing live players with software. I think with continuing attention and commitment to developing our comp skills the tools will remain a means to expression and not the end of expression.


----------



## NYC Composer

Douglas R @ Fri May 20 said:


> The conversation seems to have veered off its intended course but that's okay–good discussion. I find myself agreeing with both "it's the best of times" and " it's the worst of times" sentiments. Like many here, I haven't purchased a new film score in some time. I even find myself not watching some films based on who scored it. Used to be the other way around.
> 
> What excites me about these products is that they allow us to realize what we hear in our heads, and work out on paper, to a much greater degree than ever before. It has been encouraging to find that many of the people developing our favorite orchestral libraries are well-versed in writing for the orchestra and have no intention of replacing live players with software. I think with continuing attention and commitment to developing our comp skills the tools will remain a means to expression and not the end of expression.



I agree with most of this, but as to "intention", I think don't think that matters much. The end result is that less live musicians will get work. In the area of the industry I've spent the most time in, that's what happened.

The intent of business is generally to make money. The by-products are what they are.


----------



## Pochflyboy

I'm a young composer but there is one thing I have experienced time and time again... if there is room in the budget for live than live is recorded. If not than it is not... this has been true for MANY years now.

I think with the development of new libraries coming more into play we will find more and more companies are recording as CineSamples did with CB and do it under the AFM.

There are more composers now than every before but there is also a need for music more than ever before. This is true for musicians too. Its competitive to say the least but that has always been true for instrumental performance.

-Joe


----------



## NYC Composer

Pochflyboy @ Fri May 20 said:


> I'm a young composer but there is one thing I have experienced time and time again... if there is room in the budget for live than live is recorded. If not than it is not... this has been true for MANY years now.
> 
> I think with the development of new libraries coming more into play we will find more and more companies are recording as CineSamples did with CB and do it under the AFM.
> 
> There are more composers now than every before but there is also a need for music more than ever before. This is true for musicians too. Its competitive to say the least but that has always been true for instrumental performance.
> 
> -Joe



I'm not trying to be argumentative, but okay, let's accept your premise. Do you think the advent of better and better sample libraries will increase the amount of budgets that are big enough for live musicians?


----------



## mverta

It's a mostly bullshit premise. Covered it in one of my podcasts; and I've been on the receiving and producing end of projects from $6 to $6 million. 

The money's there. They find it for the people/things that won't accept less. Period. That music is relegated to the back burner is partially their fault, and partially our fault for not offering work whose value we can state confidently is worth the price, and in solidarity, refuse to work for less. They magically find 10x the money for a visual effects shot than they will for a score, when the vfx shot is usually superfluous, and doesn't further the drama/emotion the way the music does. This is why I opened a visual effects house and reallocated all that "money they didn't have" to where it belonged.


_Mike


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> It's a mostly [email protected]#t premise. Covered it in one of my podcasts; and I've been on the receiving and producing end of projects from $6 to $6 million.
> 
> The money's there. They find it for the people/things that won't accept less. Period. That music is relegated to the back burner is partially their fault, and partially our fault for not offering work whose value we can state confidently is worth the price, and in solidarity, refuse to work for less. They magically find 10x the money for a visual effects shot than they will for a score, when the vfx shot is usually superfluous, and doesn't further the drama/emotion the way the music does. This is why I opened a visual effects house and reallocated all that "money they didn't have" to where it belonged.
> 
> 
> _Mike



I think if you have the credits and the financial stability to stick by your guns and say you wont get out of bed for them until they spend the money then I am envious.


----------



## mverta

I was walking away from paychecks when dinner was Heinz Ketchup. I'm a lot of things, but I'm not a hypocrite. I called bullshit on the whole "how composers are treated" a long time ago, and did what I had to to get out of the vicious circle.

My recommendation on Getting Paid.


_Mike


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Getting back to topic, I'm totally jazzed with all the amazing tools I have to work with now. In my experience, I've never had as many high-quality sample libraries as I do today, and they greatly inspire me.


----------



## Daniel James

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri May 20 said:


> Getting back to topic, I'm totally jazzed with all the amazing tools I have to work with now. In my experience, I've never had as many high-quality sample libraries as I do today, and they greatly inspire me.



I am totally with you on this Ned. Not just tools that sound better than they ever have, but tools that make my job as a composer alot more comfortable and fun.

Dan


----------



## noiseboyuk

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri May 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to topic, I'm totally jazzed with all the amazing tools I have to work with now. In my experience, I've never had as many high-quality sample libraries as I do today, and they greatly inspire me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am totally with you on this Ned. Not just tools that sound better than they ever have, but tools that make my job as a composer alot more comfortable and fun.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...


+1.

John Powell writes at his DAW. He seems to do ok, composition-wise.


----------



## Daniel James

noiseboyuk @ Fri May 20 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri May 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to topic, I'm totally jazzed with all the amazing tools I have to work with now. In my experience, I've never had as many high-quality sample libraries as I do today, and they greatly inspire me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am totally with you on this Ned. Not just tools that sound better than they ever have, but tools that make my job as a composer alot more comfortable and fun.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> +1.
> 
> John Powell writes at his DAW. He seems to do ok, composition-wise.
Click to expand...


Agreed, sample based composers are no less a composer than a pen and paper guy. A good composer is a good composer regardless of what he uses.

Dan


----------



## mverta

I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.

_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike



What do you mean by this? They cant create a comparable end result? 

I really hope that isnt the case.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

There's always new, incredible talent arriving on the scene, using all kinds of tools, not just traditional ones. BIG UP to TRENT, BT, CHEMICAL BROS and DAFT PUNK!!!!!!

_-) _-) _-) _-) _-) 

/\~O /\~O /\~O 
=o =o =o =o =o


----------



## NYC Composer

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike



So you've donated your sample library and templates to some needy post-USC student? :wink:


----------



## Daniel James

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri May 20 said:


> There's always new, incredible talent arriving on the scene, using all kinds of tools, not just traditional ones. BIG UP to TRENT, BT, CHEMICAL BROS and DAFT PUNK!!!!!!
> 
> _-) _-) _-) _-) _-)
> 
> /\~O /\~O /\~O
> =o =o =o =o =o



Haha yeah, just because it isnt music in the conventional form doesnt make it any less creative or musical....I could say Goldsmith couldnt wipe Skrillex's ass when it comes to chops, its not as easy as you may think...besides who gets to define what a good musical chop is anyways xD. 

Isn't the term for this 'Elitist' (genuine question)

Dan


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> I was walking away from paychecks when dinner was Heinz Ketchup. I'm a lot of things, but I'm not a hypocrite. I called [email protected]#t on the whole "how composers are treated" a long time ago, and did what I had to to get out of the vicious circle.
> 
> My recommendation on Getting Paid.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Mike, do you vary your rates depending on who is it for? Is it a big company, a small company? a commercial? Home movie? Or do you have specific fees no matter what? Say someone wants to use one of your (already composed) pieces, how do you go about it? This happens to me from time to time and it's always difficult to decide on a fee.


----------



## vasio

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike



Wow so awesome and so generous of you. Cool that you quote a untouchable composer. I don't know of many guys doing live that can touch him either much less via samples. Are you suggesting that you could? 

I've heard your stuff Mike and its good - but not great - so I'm uncertain what makes you someone I need to look up to on such matters. But let me be clear: until you can wipe Thomas Bergersen's ass with your own mockups and scores, I'll seek my consult elsewhere as I'm admittedly still learning - but thanks anyway for your heads up.


----------



## Guy Bacos

vasio @ Fri May 20 said:


> mverta @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow so awesome and so generous of you. Cool that you quote a untouchable composer. I don't know of many guys doing live that can touch him either much less via samples. Are you suggesting that you could?
> 
> I've heard your stuff Mike and its good - but not great - so I'm uncertain what makes you someone I need to look up to on such matters. But let me be clear: until you can wipe Thomas Bergersen's ass with your own mockups and scores, I'll seek my consult elsewhere as I'm admittedly still learning - but thanks anyway for your heads up.
Click to expand...


Interesting, someone's 1st post. Not sure if it's the best way to enter a forum.... Pretty cheap comment!


----------



## dcoscina

vasio, I'm sure you're someone else that's been on here for a while but decided to address Mike's post anonymously so not sure how credible you are but I don't think Thomas J is the be-all and end-all of music composition. He's very very good mind you and I don't want to slag him to support another perspective since that's just not fair. 

I think Mike is just illustrating a point. I will counter that and say that Goldsmith himself didn't write at the level he was in the '70s when he reach the mid to late '90s. He streamlined his style and I do think partly because he too had moved to composing on computers. Williams is one of the last bastions of orchestral film composer who actually writes completely away from technology and I will paraphrase Mike here- show me a more competent composer at the moment. Sorry but I don't hear it even though I enjoy and respect Powell, Shore, Giacchino, etc. etc.


----------



## dcoscina

Guy Bacos @ Fri May 20 said:


> .... Pretty cheap comment!



That's because he or she is clearly someone whose been here awhile and doesn't have the balls to post this comment to Mike as themselves. That would be my guess anyhow. The mere fact they cite Thomas Bergerson as testimony to this.


----------



## dcoscina

Sort of back on topic though, I got Trilian today and it's a very musical library. Obviously not orchestral but it makes me want to get back to my jazz roots. 

I think if Eric Persing ever chose to do an orchestral library it would be terrific.


----------



## mikebarry

HTTYD is up to par with most Goldsmith works - done via samples. Gladiator is up to par with any goldsmith score - done with samples.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Just by curiosity, may I ask what's this Gladiator?


----------



## Daniel James

mikebarry @ Fri May 20 said:


> HTTYD is up to par with most Goldsmith works - done via samples. Gladiator is up to par with any goldsmith score - done with samples.



I must agree with this.


----------



## Ashermusic

Sorry but Goldsmith could have broken bottles against trash cans and made better music than practically anyone here could with the best sample libraries because he was so talented, experienced and well trained. Had he been forced to use samples mostly I do not doubt he would have done so better than anyone here in time.


----------



## dcoscina

mikebarry @ Fri May 20 said:


> HTTYD is up to par with most Goldsmith works - done via samples. Gladiator is up to par with any goldsmith score - done with samples.



Sorry Mike, I must heartily disagree. HTTYD is a wonderful score, one of the best I have heard in the last decade because its architecture is solid. Powell really impressed me with it for sure. Almost some Korngoldian moments there in places. But it's not on the same level as Star Trek the Motion Picture, Alien, Papillon, Islands in the Stream, Planet of the Apes, The Omen, First Blood (the first one- not the crappy spin offs), and I could name another dozen. Goldsmith was an innovator, something very rare in film. I would cite maybe Herrmann as the only other true unique sound- a lot of guys were amazing technicians but Goldsmith had a way of thinking his way through a film score, getting inside of it, chewed on it, and put music that touched upon all aspects of the movie. As much as I feel Williams is still probably one of the most gifted melodicists and skilled composers, Goldsmith still edged him out in terms of pure innovation. I have not heard this from Powell nor Zimmer. Not in the realm of pure music at least. Technology wise, both have done some very admirable work.


----------



## mikebarry

/pissing contest


----------



## Ashermusic

dcoscina @ Fri May 20 said:


> mikebarry @ Fri May 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HTTYD is up to par with most Goldsmith works - done via samples. Gladiator is up to par with any goldsmith score - done with samples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Mike, I must heartily disagree. HTTYD is a wonderful score, one of the best I have heard in the last decade because its architecture is solid. Powell really impressed me with it for sure. Almost some Korngoldian moments there in places. But it's not on the same level as Star Trek the Motion Picture, Alien, Papillon, Islands in the Stream, Planet of the Apes, The Omen, First Blood (the first one- not the crappy spin offs), and I could name another dozen. Goldsmith was an innovator, something very rare in film. I would cite maybe Herrmann as the only other true unique sound- a lot of guys were amazing technicians but Goldsmith had a way of thinking his way through a film score, getting inside of it, chewed on it, and put music that touched upon all aspects of the movie. As much as I feel Williams is still probably one of the most gifted melodicists and skilled composers, Goldsmith still edged him out in terms of pure innovation. I have not heard this from Powell nor Zimmer. Not in the realm of pure music at least. Technology wise, both have done some very admirable work.
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## rgames

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike



And Brahms didn't want to write for that new-fangled valve horn. REAL horn players don't need that new technology. Do you still request the natural horn when working with live musicians?

Technology works its way into every facet of human existence, including music. 

They're just tools. The music transcends the tools.

There's plenty of crap written on staff paper and played by live musicians. 

rgames


----------



## dcoscina

mikebarry @ Fri May 20 said:


> /pissing contest



Mike I'm not trying to start a fight here, and I tried to explain that I think HTTYD is a marvellous score, very atypical of the writing we often hear of late these days. It's exceptional. I think Powell is one of the best at the moment. But until he's amassed a canon that stretches 4 decades and is widely lauded and studied in music classes in university, I withhold putting him on the same pedestal as Goldsmith.

EDIT- Love your work with CineSamples and your jazz YouTube vid. Clearly you know your stuff.


----------



## choc0thrax

HTTYD > Anything by Goldsmith.


----------



## dcoscina

Because you're not biased at all choco...no sir.


----------



## dcoscina

rgames @ Fri May 20 said:


> mverta @ Fri May 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've yet to hear the sample-based composer worthy of wiping Goldsmith's ass, chops-wise, but I'll keep an ear out.
> 
> _Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brahms didn't want to write for that new-fangled valve horn. REAL horn players don't need that new technology. Do you still request the natural horn when working with live musicians?
> 
> Technology works its way into every facet of human existence, including music.
> 
> They're just tools. The music transcends the tools.
> 
> There's plenty of crap written on staff paper and played by live musicians.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


There's a lot more crap written on synths and samples- trust me. Just visit YouTube.


----------



## vasio

choc0thrax @ Sat May 21 said:


> HTTYD > Anything by Goldsmith.



+1 o 

o[])


----------



## rgames

dcoscina @ Fri May 20 said:


> There's a lot more crap written on synths and samples- trust me. Just visit YouTube.



Of course that's true. I'm making the point that composers who avoid samples are not necessarily better composers.

Lots of people write crap using samples.

Lots of people also write crap using pencil and paper.

Again, the music transcends the tools.

rgames


----------



## mverta

A friend and I were just talking about this yesterday, about the enormous gulf between work today, and great works of yesterday (We were specifically talking about just how amazing Daphnis is, Pines of Rome, a few others...), and how it seems the younger set can't tell the difference. It's bizarre. I mean, both he and I are competent composers, and yet we feel like our work truly can't even begin to be compared to such masterworks. Not in the same league by any standard.

And yet you've got this whole generation coming up who seemingly can't tell how average their contemporaries truly are. Now, we figure at least SOME of that HAS to be because they don't know the repertoire. Literally don't know what they're missing/have nothing to compare to. I mean, that MUST be it, right? I mean, if you can stand the sound of an orchestra at all, then you can easily stomach orchestral music that isn't literally film music, and then there's a treasure trove of works which you can immediately tell led to certain composers' sounds, and there's all this serious, serious shit there. Mind-blowingly good stuff. To say nothing of how dismissive the whole thing is. Like great orchestral music is something you can just waltz into. Like there's some sort of shortcut for literally decades of study, which is what it takes, MINIMUM, to speak even competently. It's like a dude buys a knife, thinks he's a surgeon. It's ridiculous. And all his friends, who just upgraded to Switchblade v2.3 are ready to be Chiefs of Surgery. It's insulting to the craft, minimizing in general, and what we've got is a mile-high thick fog of completely disposable, forgettable music that all sounds alike. Loud, kinda. With drums. And totally generic orchestral parts. "Brass." And "Strings." 


And they worship Hans Zimmer as the God of Sample-Based Music like Hans was invented along with the DAW, when the truth is, Hans was doing his thing way before then, and his inspirations were Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart ('swhat he told me, anyway). Hans was a composer who DECIDED to move the direction he's gone, and the massive army of Zimmer-wannabes out there think imitating his patches and figures - without recognizing how long a path he walked to get to where he is - makes them contemporaries. Like all it really is some "orchestra" parts plus sound-design-y synth.


'Cause that's what filmscores are now, right? Half orchestra, half synth. Only the set has no idea what to do with the orchestra part, so they focus on the synth part. More drum samples, more pads and sound design. More buttons to press, knobs to turn. That they can handle. The orchestra? Brass chords. String lines. Wow! You don't say. No real melodic chops; no real counterpoint chops, no real orchestrational chops. But "composers," to a one. Yeah. The few times Hans has told me about a score he was working on, told me about his process, and shared what he was thinking, I heard the familiar strains of an actual musician, working it out. He's notoriously self-effacing about his craft, but it's not true. He knows the repertoire, he knows the works of the greats. No matter what you think of his approach today, dude's legit. Any of you who want to be like Zimmer should get your ass to listening to the masterworks, stat. You'll have an actual perspective on where things are today, and find a shit-ton of inspiration. Like a 2-for-1 kinda deal.


You know, this just isn't old-fart talk. This isn't about digging in one's heels and fighting the future or hatin' on technology. I've got my VI template running like anyone else, and I'm an upgrade whore. Will I be buying Cinesamples Brass? F-yeah, are you kidding? But don't give me the bullcrap about how people who "can't," do the same quality work as people who "can." 'Cause it ain't true. And there's only one path to the "can," in this case, and that's a shit-ton of study. And years.  And that's it. 

I'm no Goldsmith, and I'm no Williams. Hell, maybe I'm nobody. But as dogshit as I think my own work is compared to Ravel's, at least I'm in the trenches slogging it out, trying with every fiber of my being every day of my life. And to say that someone can have any hope of producing great stuff without even THAT, is just insulting. And isn't fooling history. Goldsmith et. al. trained forEVER, tutored by and studying with greats 1-on-1. We may not have that opportunity, but we can try. But dismissing all that and deciding to just re-set the bar - the impossibly low bar - isn't helping ourselves, our music, the craft, our clients, nobody. Nobody.


You can read this one of two ways: I'm just hating on the younger set. Or you can read it for what it is: I'm not going to pretend it's all good in the hood when it ain't. I'm going to continue to say, "Get real, so you can get better!" You gotta know where you're going to know where you are. Elevate; rise; increase your power; increase your contribution; further the craft; make more money! Mine is a message of encouragement - avoid accepting a lower standard and aim higher. Higher than Williams, higher than Ravel if you can. Music can change the world. You may fail; I may fail. But what, in the end, are we in this for, if not to go out carrying our shields, or on them?


/crowd roars


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> A friend and I were just talking about this yesterday, about the enormous gulf between work today, and great works of yesterday (We were specifically talking about just how amazing Daphnis is, Pines of Rome, a few others...), and how it seems the younger set can't tell the difference. It's bizarre. I mean, both he and I are competent composers, and yet we feel like our work truly can't even begin to be compared to such masterworks. Not in the same league by any standard.
> 
> And yet you've got this whole generation coming up who seemingly can't tell how average their contemporaries truly are. Now, we figure at least SOME of that HAS to be because they don't know the repertoire. Literally don't know what they're missing/have nothing to compare to. I mean, that MUST be it, right? I mean, if you can stand the sound of an orchestra at all, then you can easily stomach orchestral music that isn't literally film music, and then there's a treasure trove of works which you can immediately tell led to certain composers' sounds, and there's all this serious, serious [email protected]#t there. Mind-blowingly good stuff. To say nothing of how dismissive the whole thing is. Like great orchestral music is something you can just waltz into. Like there's some sort of shortcut for literally decades of study, which is what it takes, MINIMUM, to speak even competently. It's like a dude buys a knife, thinks he's a surgeon. It's ridiculous. And all his friends, who just upgraded to Switchblade v2.3 are ready to be Chiefs of Surgery. It's insulting to the craft, minimizing in general, and what we've got is a mile-high thick fog of completely disposable, forgettable music that all sounds alike. Loud, kinda. With drums. And totally generic orchestral parts. "Brass." And "Strings."
> 
> 
> And they worship Hans Zimmer as the God of Sample-Based Music like Hans was invented along with the DAW, when the truth is, Hans was doing his thing way before then, and his inspirations were Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart ('swhat he told me, anyway). Hans was a composer who DECIDED to move the direction he's gone, and the massive army of Zimmer-wannabes out there think imitating his patches and figures - without recognizing how long a path he walked to get to where he is - makes them contemporaries. Like all it really is some "orchestra" parts plus sound-design-y synth.
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what filmscores are now, right? Half orchestra, half synth. Only the set has no idea what to do with the orchestra part, so they focus on the synth part. More drum samples, more pads and sound design. More buttons to press, knobs to turn. That they can handle. The orchestra? Brass chords. String lines. Wow! You don't say. No real melodic chops; no real counterpoint chops, no real orchestrational chops. But "composers," to a one. Yeah. The few times Hans has told me about a score he was working on, told me about his process, and shared what he was thinking, I heard the familiar strains of an actual musician, working it out. He's notoriously self-effacing about his craft, but it's not true. He knows the repertoire, he knows the works of the greats. No matter what you think of his approach today, dude's legit. Any of you who want to be like Zimmer should get your ass to listening to the masterworks, stat. You'll have an actual perspective on where things are today, and find a [email protected]#t-ton of inspiration. Like a 2-for-1 kinda deal.
> 
> 
> You know, this just isn't old-fart talk. This isn't about digging in one's heels and fighting the future or hatin' on technology. I've got my VI template running like anyone else, and I'm an upgrade whore. Will I be buying Cinesamples Brass? F-yeah, are you kidding? But don't give me the bullcrap about how people who "can't," do the same quality work as people who "can." 'Cause it ain't true. And there's only one path to the "can," in this case, and that's a [email protected]#t-ton of study. And years. And that's it.
> 
> I'm no Goldsmith, and I'm no Williams. Hell, maybe I'm nobody. But as dogshit as I think my own work is compared to Ravel's, at least I'm in the trenches slogging it out, trying with every fiber of my being every day of my life. And to say that someone can have any hope of producing great stuff without even THAT, is just insulting. And isn't fooling history. Goldsmith et. al. trained forEVER, tutored by and studying with greats 1-on-1. We may not have that opportunity, but we can try. But dismissing all that and deciding to just re-set the bar - the impossibly low bar - isn't helping ourselves, our music, the craft, our clients, nobody. Nobody.
> 
> 
> You can read this one of two ways: I'm just hating on the younger set. Or you can read it for what it is: I'm not going to pretend it's all good in the hood when it ain't. I'm going to continue to say, "Get real, so you can get better!" You gotta know where you're going to know where you are. Elevate; rise; increase your power; increase your contribution; further the craft; make more money! Mine is a message of encouragement - avoid accepting a lower standard and aim higher. Higher than Williams, higher than Ravel if you can. Music can change the world. You may fail; I may fail. But what, in the end, are we in this for, if not to go out carrying our shields, or on them?
> 
> 
> /crowd roars
> 
> 
> _Mike



Again, yep.

Talent = good.

Talent + much study = better.

Talent + much study plus years of experience =best.

That was the Goldsmith path and whether with real orchestra or samples and synrths, the formulae are still correct.


----------



## dcoscina

I agree Mike with our sentiments about wanting to get better. We rarely see this ideology anymore. And you see how little backbone people have when criticized even if it's constructive criticism. 

I think there are many very skilled composers on this forum. Very knowledgeable too. I too wonder where the disconnect is as far as objectivity though. Is it that most are just too pragmatic to get into the whole aesthetic of composition? It's possible and understandable. Many guys here make their living doing music.


----------



## nikolas

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Again, yep.
> 
> Talent = good.
> 
> Talent + much study = better.
> 
> Talent + much study plus years of experience =best.
> 
> That was the Goldsmith path and whether with real orchestra or samples and synrths, the formulae are still correct.


Excellent and I also agree. If we were talking about career, I would also add comunication skills and luck, but this is not what we're talking about.

What I'm failing to see in this two page thread (already?) and in this post is the connection with samples. Nothing in the above post indicates anything wrong with any tool really. For all we care Aphex twin could have all the above and 'be the best' (even if we're crossing the genre barrier here).

I'd say that these, indeed, are great times to be a composer. Or the worst times. For the same reason: No longer the composer has a need for performers to perform their work. From one point of view this has led to so much music and experimentation, but on the other hand this has led to... autism in the end (I write with my samples, alone in my room and don't care to get talking with anyone).

I don't actually care to compare any composer of the past with a new composer. It's a different time and perhaps the lack of 'technical brightness' is part of the equation of living in today (where everything appears to be shit and every man's for their own). (I don't mean that in a more general idea and VI is the evidence of musicians helping musicians).


----------



## Ah_dziz

When reading these forums I find lot's of film and media composers take themselves way too seriously. Until you are a first call guy or you decide to work with well funded indie productions that will truly let you go your own way, you are simply hired to add musical icing to the mediocre cake that is 90%of the films and TV shows produced these days. I've heard some absolutely stunning music over some of the worst garbage ever committed to screen and it wasn't able to save it and I've also noticed a good portion of my favorite movies/ productions have music bordering on comical in it's terribleness. I actually understand why music is considered to be an afterthought in most productions. Lots of the viewing public don't know or care about the difference. A truly great film with a score composed by any competent composer and produced to a reasonably high standard (which is achievable with nearly any budget these days in a home studio) will IMHO still be a great film. I honestly believe that Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been just as successful with much poorer scores because the movies were that good. 

I do hire live musicians whenever possible and I spend way more time than is necessary on writing for many of my projects but it is purely out of personal pride in what I do rather than an overinflated sense of the impact of well written music in media production. My goal is always to outshine the rest of the production with my music's quality.


----------



## vasio

I agreed with most your post until you mentioned that music didn't really matter in Star Wars and Raiders. It did matter. George Lucas admitted that as well especially with SW. Many composers became composers because of SW. Thing is, if Hollywood wants John Williams that's who they hire: they want the innovator himself and not another clone. Hollywood movies are handled by the same 10-12 composers (if that) and the rest help out when possible. Regarding young talent, I think innovation is what's lacking with today's composer. Composers need to speak with their own voice rather than try to copy another's however grand - including Goldsmith's. That was his voice; young people need to discover their own and make their statement. Only a handful seem to really put it out there; most are either mired in director politics or simply try to emulate what's already been done.


----------



## Ah_dziz

vasio @ Sat May 21 said:


> I agreed with most your post until you mentioned that music didn't really matter in Star Wars and Raiders. It did matter. George Lucas admitted that as well especially with SW.



I'm not saying that the music didn't matter. I just think it could have been far worse before it was able to have a negative impact on the viewing experience of the vast majority of those who watched it. The films would have been less good and would have been _way_ less good to you and I who both write music, and (at least in my case what with my olderness) have been into music since we saw those movies, but there is a very wide field of quality between a score that is truly amazing and one that ruins a movie or even brings a movie down to an extent that will affect the average viewer's enjoyment of the overall film. 

A couple of the greatest movies ever made would still be among the greatest with scores that didn't noticeably bring the movie down for the average viewer. Which in my opinion has to be a pretty bad score. That's all I'm saying. As far as I'm concerned if you want people to judge your music alone then write music for release as music on it's own, or for performance by a live group of musicians in a concert setting.  

Anyways, I am very excited about the quality of music Iam able to produce completely on my own be it orchestral, jazz, funk, world, rock, or electronic. I can't imagine how people can think that better sample based instruments are bad for music on the whole. o-[][]-o


----------



## NYC Composer

I love it when Mike puts on his Advocate For Excellence hat. I swear, it makes me want to slap my own face for lack of effort, then call my mom demanding to know why she wasn't more tiger-ish.

Damn that marijuana and Jack Daniels. Anyway:

This discussion reminds me of the ones I've had with jazz purists, metal purists, classical purists, yawn. Samples are tools of creative expression, like violins or paintbrushes or dance stages or clay. The raw material is there to be shaped. Talent is the engine that makes the train go. 

Good samples are generally more helpful than less good samples. I like that we seem to be in a sample development renaissance, just as the OP is. The part about being a great time to be a composer, well, that's where everyone seems to separate here. I don't think so....but I think there are people making good, sometimes great music in lots of musical arenas. Th fact that current film music is somewhat less classically oriented-so what? The times are reflected in the art. Goldsmiths and Williams's and Herrmanns don't come by so very often, so what? There will be more....but they'll be different, rooted in different traditions, harking back to some extent, looking forward to some extent.

I think the pursuit and ultimately the achievement of excellence are highly subjective. Sorta like art.


----------



## noiseboyuk

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> I think the pursuit and ultimately the achievement of excellence are highly subjective. Sorta like art.



Can't think of a better quote from this thread.

I can see this is going the way of the film music vs classical thread. I'm still sore about that - a thread I started to discuss the ways in which the two were similar and different. It wound up spawning two sub-threads and the whole lot got shut down under the thread of legal action. It's almost a comedy sketch. Give this thread another page and we'll be discussing Ravel vs Beethoven. Another 10 pages - God help us - and in accordance with Godwin's Law, the name of Adolf Hitler will be invoked ("as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)")

It seems we can't discuss this stuff without it turning into a giant pissing contest, as Mr Barry suggests. I'm currently (again) obsessed with Star Wars. Just the first movie - none of the other soundtracks move me or fascinate me in anything like the same way. It lives in a bubble of brilliance for me, I find its combination of complexity and simplicity unique, and it obviously combines with something ridiculously primal in me that puts me back to be being 10 years old having their entire world blown apart and I have to try to stop blubbing whenever I near the end of The Battle Of Yavin. It's my Rosebud. The thought that I could rival anything like this is several stages beyond absurd. I've also had obsessive phases with HTTYD, and it's different. Although I'm not worthy to tie John Powell's musical shoelaces, it feels closer to something I could aspire to (and fail to hit, of course).

But I keep thinking - is the complexity / innovation relevant? The only thing that ultimately matters is that a score supports a story. Both Dragon and Star Wars do so par excellance, and both have two things in common - they are both excellent films, and their scores can both evoke the spirit of the film completely and make this extraordinary emotional connection. As to how simple / complex / innovative it is... who cares? Powell vs Goldsmith seems a silly debate - both are masters of their craft and we're firmly into the realms of subjectivity (incidentally, listen to Powell's "Prayers" from United 93 for a sublime, haunting and innovative cue where he takes the vocalisations of his own son's improvisations and turns it into something remarkable... that's genius right there).

That should be our aim, imho. We need to focus on craft as a means to an end - the end being storytellers who can use all the tools at our disposal, be they complex or very simple, innovative or traditional. Story is king. And our virtual instruments help more of us, on limited budgets in different mediums, tell stories better.


----------



## ysnyvz

hollywood composers make mostly classical-oriented scores,but filmscore can be very different than classical music.For example a Turkish or Arabian composer can score with maqams and record with live symphony orchestra but even J.Willams can't do that.


----------



## Ed

dcoscina @ Fri May 20 said:


> There's a lot more crap written on synths and samples- trust me. Just visit YouTube.



Well duh, Im not sure how that means anything.


----------



## Ed

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> This discussion reminds me of the ones I've had with jazz purists, metal purists, classical purists, yawn. .



QFT... :arrow:


----------



## hbuus

Amazing how OT people in this thread have become.

The thread starter says there is a lot of new possibilities for computer based composers with all these new libraries coming out, as well as with technological advances.

I fail to see how anyone can disagree with this.

Henrik


----------



## lux

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Samples are tools of creative expression, like violins or paintbrushes or dance stages or clay. The raw material is there to be shaped. Talent is the engine that makes the train go.



pretty much so, i agree.

However we cannot forget a difference imo.

Once there were real stuff. You had to meet a real orchestra and have it sound good. If you entered that room with some shit written on a staff nothing would have sounded good, even with the best effort. You needed to know how to make it sound really good. And it wasnt easy at all. Not to say what you need to have it sounding "great".

Today lot of stuff gets delivered in a pretty raw (see one key pressed and recorded) form due to the tools available. The results are usable enough so theyre likely to be accepted. And in a certain percentage of cases they ARE accepted, as a matter of fact.

So probably the right effort could be trying to evocate and give attention to the most creative and artistically valid usages of those tools and pointing all the lazy usages as "uncool" enough.

But that starts from the musicians ground. The interesting Pocast by Mike (which i understood almost entirely...thanks Mike for the detailed spelling) puts some attention on the fact that we cannot rely on the buyers attitudes to require a better overall attention, quality and artistical value (not difficulty, just value) but it needs to be fixed here, among us little players probably.


----------



## Ed

To address the thread topic quickly I think what Mike says about the worst time for music is very much debatable, ie. it is in some ways but not in others, it is for some people and not for other people. But what is not debatable is that if you look on a microscale (specifics) it is clearly the best time for music. Hell, its the best time to be alive, we have never had as much prosperity and health. Even just 50 years ago and people would have died for things that are easily preventable today. Wars, famines and earthquakes have always happened its just with the internet we get to see more of it. We wouldn't know half of the stuff that goes on now without the internet and video camera phones. 

But back to the topic after that brief digression.... I think Mike said that maybe he is using the word "composer" in a different way. Yes... I think he is, the idea that you're not really a composer unless you're making orchestral music is a definition that he will probably deny yet is quite obvious throughout his posts. I just don't think of music that way and I think various other people don't think of it that way. However I do think of traditional orchestral composers as "proper composers" so the craft is not lost on me. 

I didn't get into this to be a "composer", I got into music because of film rather than because of music. The music in the film inspired me. I enjoy it outside the film of course, but the magical sometimes for me even spiritual (in feeling) connection of great music and great picture just does something for me. Adding music to a picture that works is a buzz, no matter what kind of music that is, even if its just sound design. I watched Danny Boyle's Sunshine a few days ago and it was masterfully done, such a beautifully shot film and the music was fantastic and really made it as good as it could be. But according to some in this thread that doesn't count as good music or good film music because its not orchestral no matter how well done it is. I'm sure some people will nit pick my wording, but everyone else will know what I'm talking about.

That said Mike I *really *enjoyed your Money podcast, lots to think about.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Glad I retired from these endless arguments.


----------



## germancomponist

A good read here. Especially Mike Vertas posts!


----------



## schatzus

> The thread starter says there is a lot of new possibilities for computer based composers with all these new libraries coming out, as well as with technological advances.
> 
> I fail to see how anyone can disagree with this.



I think that is the basis of the way this thread is going, some obviously disagree.

I don't, but some.



> A good read here. Especially Mike Vertas posts!



I definitely agree with this! Just _try _to find a bad Mike Verta post... you can't.


----------



## mverta

noiseboyuk @ Sat May 21 said:


> I'm currently (again) obsessed with Star Wars. It lives in a bubble of brilliance for me...



Star Wars is why I became a composer. I was 5 years old, and had never heard the sound of an orchestra before. I literally came out of the theater wanting to write music for a living, and have been at it every day of my life since.

That wholly transformative power of music - even the potential of it - is part of why I feel so passionately about educating ourselves to mastery. It always strikes me as tragic when people argue against empowerment for themselves. My original reply to this thread was rooted in the fact that so many young "composers" think more samples means better music, when the truth is samples and technology have mostly displaced quality, not improved it. Yes, they're tools in the hands of masters. But they've become placeholders in their own right, and that the average level of skill in film music today has plummeted is a matter of musicological fact, and not subject to debate. 

Oh, and Ed: I began my career as a jazz Big Band composer, did Jazz albums and was a (mostly) Jazz session player. How you could ever have gotten from my posts that I think orchestral music is the only valid style to define oneself as a composer through is totally beyond me. If you want to be a Big Band writer, I have a host of names I'd be recommending equally as strongly, for exactly the same reasons. Mine isn't an argument about specific people, it's about the long, hard-earned road to mastery and the potential to change lives that comes with it; as my life was changed. 



_Mike


----------



## Tino Danielzik

I'm with you Mike, just because I have a better car doesn't mean I am good driver. And of course most of the good old times composers are excellent artists. Things change. A good education and a lot of experience are irreplaceable, but today it's not a must have anymore. VI's today means to me, the better the samples the easier for me to practice my writing skills.


----------



## Daniel James

...Actually scratch that. This is not a debate anymore. Like MikeB said its a pissing contest xD

Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.

Dan


----------



## Pochflyboy

NYC Composer @ Fri May 20 said:


> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but okay, let's accept your premise. Do you think the advent of better and better sample libraries will increase the amount of budgets that are big enough for live musicians?



Of course not and thats not really what I was saying. What I am trying to get at is that there are more music jobs out there than ever before. Naturally that will mean there are more for live musicians. This also means that there are more for purely sampled works also.


----------



## kitekrazy

Pochflyboy @ Fri May 20 said:


> I think there is probably little doubt that the best music comes from writing away from the DAW. In fact my best comes when I am away from a piano or any instrument at all. Just me and paper.... Is it hard? Yes... Does it take longer? Yes.... Is it better music? Yes.... well most of the time.
> 
> Composing in a DAW is truly closer to sound design than it is to actual music composing. But many projects we get these days requires such an occurrence.
> 
> -Joe



I have a theory that the most productive people seem to do better with fewer tools than those who have everything. I think that exist in every genre. I get amazed how some guys create nice stuff on a laptop using Reason, Pro Tools and a couple synths.
In dance genres the word composer is not used, but they are called producers. I imagine younger composers are more of a producer.
Having more tools can cause confusion instead of creativity.

I can't see any year being good for virtual orchestras if they are beyond the price of the hobbyist. It's always going to be a limited market. Look at all of the promos EW keeps running. They are tapping into the hobbyist market.


----------



## Tino Danielzik

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.
> 
> Dan



+1


----------



## Pochflyboy

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> My original reply to this thread was rooted in the fact that so many young "composers" think more samples means better music, when the truth is samples and technology have mostly displaced quality, not improved it. Yes, they're tools in the hands of masters. But they've become placeholders in their own right, and that the average level of skill in film music today has plummeted is a matter of musicological fact, and not subject to debate.


 
o-[][]-o

Completely agree. I think a lot of film composers just create a soundscape. I know I have had jobs that are simply this. Textures are not always music and music is not always textures. But man when it is combined then you really have something.

I think Powell probably does so well on his "sample based" music because he thinks it out first. Too often I find composers now just playing in lines under different patches until something works. Sure perseverance with samples will eventually make something but it will never be your best. I am sure before Powell writes any line to any instrument there has been sufficient thought behind it. Music with its form as his has does not just happen...

-Joe


----------



## kitekrazy

vasio @ Sat May 21 said:


> I agreed with most your post until you mentioned that music didn't really matter in Star Wars and Raiders. It did matter. George Lucas admitted that as well especially with SW. Many composers became composers because of SW. Thing is, if Hollywood wants John Williams that's who they hire: they want the innovator himself and not another clone. Hollywood movies are handled by the same 10-12 composers (if that) and the rest help out when possible. Regarding young talent, I think innovation is what's lacking with today's composer. Composers need to speak with their own voice rather than try to copy another's however grand - including Goldsmith's. That was his voice; young people need to discover their own and make their statement. Only a handful seem to really put it out there; most are either mired in director politics or simply try to emulate what's already been done.



I think that is very hard to do in a culture where music is put out like an assembly line. It's almost impossible to be original. That exists in every genre.


----------



## Ashermusic

Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:


> A good education and a lot of experience are irreplaceable, but today it's not a must have anymore.



It is not a must have to get work. It IS a must have to become really good. Mike is exhorting people to strive for the latter and not just the former.

Kudos Mike, keep fighting the good fight.


----------



## Andrew Christie

deleted - watched this turn into another classical music vs the world thread. Sorry folks not my kind of discussion haha


----------



## Guy Bacos

Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
Click to expand...


And maybe Lady Gaga is more talented than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together. Thanks for straighten me out.


----------



## rgames

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good education and a lot of experience are irreplaceable, but today it's not a must have anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a must have to get work. It IS a must have to become really good. Mike is exhorting people to strive for the latter and not just the former.
> 
> Kudos Mike, keep fighting the good fight.
Click to expand...


Yes, fight the good fight. But I take exception that *formal* education is the route to success. Much of the really bad music seems to be coming from those who have the most music education. I buy a lot of CD's of new concert music and most of it is crap. So this notion that educated composers who don't use samples are better than other composers is baloney.

Yes, there is more crap in the sample-based world but that's just because there are more people doing it.

Samples have done to film music exactly what digital cameras did to portrait photography: anybody can do it now. Audiences aren't demanding high-quality soundtracks - they don't care. Just like people don't care about innovative lighting to bring artistic interest to a portrait. Throw up a background, set up a couple soft boxes, and shoot. If it's in focus, that's good enough for 95% of people.

Same thing with film music.

Composers are writing crap not because of samples but because people aren't demanding more. Samples are an effect, not a cause.

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic

rgames @ Sat May 21 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good education and a lot of experience are irreplaceable, but today it's not a must have anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a must have to get work. It IS a must have to become really good. Mike is exhorting people to strive for the latter and not just the former.
> 
> Kudos Mike, keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, fight the good fight. But I take exception that *formal* education is the route to success. Much of the really bad music seems to be coming from those who have the most music education. I buy a lot of CD's of new concert music and most of it is crap. So this notion that educated composers who don't use samples are better than other composers is baloney.
> 
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


Usually when I read this kind of comment, it comes from someone without a "formal" education.  

In the past and still today, most of the GREAT film composers, not just the successful ones, have had one. It is not a coincidence.


----------



## Daniel James

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:


> Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And maybe Lady Gaga is more talented than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together. Thanks for straighten me out.
Click to expand...


Guy why the sudden need to be facetious? 

Lady Gaga is more talented at doing Lady Gaga music than "Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together" would ever be. 

Even if you dont like it and don't consider it up to your high standards, it is still music regardless...music which millions seem to enjoy.

Lady Gaga couldnt do Bach....Bach couldnt do Lady Gaga....both are music...both are good at doing their own music. Like it or not, which is better comes down to personal taste.

Dan


----------



## Danny_Owen

If the guys of yesteryear did something for the club..: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0tgheca ... re=related


----------



## mverta

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Usually when I read this kind of comment, it comes form someone without a "formal" education.
> 
> In the past and still today, most of the GREAT film composers, not just the successful ones, have had one. It is not a coincidence.



No, it's not just a coincidence. And you can get that "formal" education anyway you want. Personally, I was self-taught until I began working professionally in my teens, and then when I got to college, I dropped out after a year because it was retarded, and studied with my favorite professor privately. Still in all, I've gotten the deepest and most useful education by studying, and doing, on my own. But that curriculum was likely more thorough and diverse than within the walls of any institution, and motivated purely by desire to be better, not to get a grade or degree or whatever. 

And let's stop calling Zimmer and Powell sample-based composers. They're not, and that's both minimizing and wishful thinking, buckaroos. Zimmer knows the repertoire, was writing before it was all DAWs, and Powell could write well if you took away all his glowing rectangles. 


Oh, and the idea that the public at large has such mind-numblingly low expectations, and this is the reason samples and music have to then sink to whatever low is being asked of them is an argument so indefensible I'm not going to bother destroying it. 


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And maybe Lady Gaga is more talented than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together. Thanks for straighten me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy why the sudden need to be facetious?
> 
> Lady Gaga is more talented at doing Lady Gaga music than "Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together" would ever be.
> 
> Even if you dont like it and don't consider it up to your high standards, it is still music regardless...music which millions seem to enjoy.
> 
> Lady Gaga couldnt do Bach....Bach couldnt do Lady Gaga....both are music...both are good at doing their own music. Like it or not, which is better comes down to personal taste.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...


I like Lady Gaga actually but to say that her music is as good as Bach or Mozart is frankly silly IMHO. I doubt she would say it was if you asked her as she is a pretty good musician.

it isn't all just taste, there are some empirical standards for greatness.


----------



## mverta

Ultimately, history decides what was worth remembering. My 8 month-old son's toys play Bach. His 8-month old son's toys won't be playing Lady Gaga. I dig one of Gaga's Madonna-wannabe tracks as much as anyone, but great music they ain't. Not supposed to be, either. So since I doubt she has any illusions about that, probably neither should we 

_Mike


----------



## rgames

EastWest Lurker @ Sat May 21 said:


> Anyway, contemporary concert music is not what we are talking about here but film music and most of the great film music composers always have had and still DO have a formal education. It is not a coincidence.



Absolutely - but more is not better when it comes to music education. At least in my opinion. When I list my favorite composers, I don't think any one of them had the equivalent of a masters degree. I think most of them didn't even get the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. Of course they all studied the music of those who came before them, but most of it was outside the halls of academia. But OT, I guess.

I know we're not talking about contemporary concert music - my point was that just because someone does or does not use samples has no bearing on his chops as a composer.

I'll go back to my example of the horn player: is a valve horn player less a musician than a natural horn player? Wouldn't you agree that it depends mostly on the player, and not the horn?

If you do agree, then why wouldn't we make the same argument for composers and samples?

rgames


----------



## Guy Bacos

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tino Danielzik @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are we to say which is better? or who is more talented? at the end of the days its different skill sets in the same field...like a guy who paints landscapes and a guy who paints abstract, both art, both paint, just different styles.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And maybe Lady Gaga is more talented than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together. Thanks for straighten me out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy why the sudden need to be facetious?
> 
> Lady Gaga is more talented at doing Lady Gaga music than "Bach, Beethoven and Mozart all combined together" would ever be.
> 
> Even if you dont like it and don't consider it up to your high standards, it is still music regardless...music which millions seem to enjoy.
> 
> Lady Gaga couldnt do Bach....Bach couldnt do Lady Gaga....both are music...both are good at doing their own music. Like it or not, which is better comes down to personal taste.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...


If it's all a matter of taste and if that is the bottom line, than there wouldn't be any strong roots for music, and what is considered the foundations of music and the fathers of centuries of classical music, would be on the same level as Lady Gaga. The result of this would be that none of the people here, including yourself, would be doing what they enjoy doing so much, cause it all started it out with looking up the our idols, from Beethoven, Wagner etc to Goldsmith or John Williams etc. If a child grows up looking up to Lady Gaga as an equal to the great ones, I petty that child.


----------



## SvK

Turn off the percussion beds / tracks in 90% of the Orchestral based action cues, today.....there's nothing there. 

No harmonic foundation, no colors, no contrast, no space, no odd-meters.

SvK


----------



## Daniel James

> I like Lady Gaga actually but to say that her music is as good as Bach or Mozart is frankly silly IMHO. I doubt she would say it was if you asked her as she is a pretty good musician.
> 
> it isn't all just taste, there are some empirical standards for greatness.



Again you are missing the point. Music by Bach or Mozart does not equal ALL music.

Grab a realistic landscape painting. Put it next to an abstract painting. Which is better?

Its different styles of music...Gaga is amazing at being Gaga music. Bach is amazing at being Bach music. The can co-exisit because they are different. Just because one doesnt follow the conventions of a past era does not make it any less musical.

Dan


----------



## germancomponist

SvK @ Sat May 21 said:


> Turn off the percussion beds / tracks in 90% of the Orchestral based action cues, today.....there's nothing there.
> 
> No harmonic foundation, no colors, no contrast, no space, no odd-meters.
> 
> SvK



+1

Your post reminds me to a library what was produced some month ago, called "guns" or so..... . I had a very big smile when I listend to the demos...... .


----------



## Ashermusic

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> I like Lady Gaga actually but to say that her music is as good as Bach or Mozart is frankly silly IMHO. I doubt she would say it was if you asked her as she is a pretty good musician.
> 
> it isn't all just taste, there are some empirical standards for greatness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you are missing the point. Music by Bach or Mozart does not equal ALL music.
> 
> Grab a realistic landscape painting. Put it next to an abstract painting. Which is better?
> 
> Its different styles of music...Gaga is amazing at being Gaga music. Bach is amazing at being Bach music. The can co-exisit because they are different. Just because one doesnt follow the conventions of a past era does not make it any less musical.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...


That is not the correct analogy. The analogy is put a Modigliani next to a well done magazine ad. The, Modigliani is bette art, period. You may prefer the magazine ad but it is not equal just because you do.


----------



## dinerdog

As someone who has no formal training (except as a bass player) I would say that using samples totally has a bearing on my composer chops. I mean I know what I like when I hear it and what I'm going for when I write something (coupled with obsessive research on that genre), but it's a lot more 'searching' than I care for and a lot more than than someone who's done the homework through formal study.

Of course I also try and use that to my advantage and be more original than the next guy (occasionally succeeding), but my dream would still be to have a steady diet of further education In addition to my on the job passion.

Again, as most people say, there's no right or wrong and much of it is just a sign of the times that can't be stopped (another no win debate). So, IMHO the tools today are better than ever, but the work scene is mostly suffering. Only the strong.


----------



## Casey Edwards

As much as I have a very firm opinion on classical/art/film/modern music both historical and current, I think it's really idiotic to argue the subjectivity of art in music and its personal value.


----------



## Danny_Owen

I'm with Daniel on this one, writing something that is very current, present, and with the aim to get people having fun in the clubs and at social occasions is a totally different craft to writing a piece of music to be sat and listened to and contemplated over. 

Lady Gaga and Beethoven are both very good at what they do, and both their record sales prove it.

For me there is no 'better' because what they do is totally different. Beethoven' musical ideas are more complex, sure. But better? That depends entirely on how you're gauging it, they're aiming to meet very different ends, and both accomplish exactly what they set out to do.


----------



## Ashermusic

Danny_Owen @ Sat May 21 said:


> I'm with Daniel on this one, writing something that is very current, present, and with the aim to get people having fun in the clubs and at social occasions is a totally different craft to writing a piece of music to be sat and listened to and contemplated over.
> 
> Lady Gaga and Beethoven are both very good at what they do, and both their record sales prove it.
> 
> For me there is no 'better' because what they do is totally different. Beethoven' musical ideas are more complex, sure. But better? That depends entirely on how you're gauging it, they're aiming to meet very different ends, and both accomplish exactly what they set out to do.



1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation. 

2. Record sales prove nothing about artistic merit, only commercial appeal. KISS has sold countless millions more records than Charles Ives but only a musical imbecile would say KISS was remotely artistically equal.


----------



## mikebarry

I regret even posting here. I cannot stand the elitist classical position - I used to subscribe to it and I am proud to have moved on.

Opinions are opinions you are all welcome to it.

Most people find fur elise better then the piano concerti. Who am I to judge that?

More people find joy in Harry Potter then Dumas - maybe there is something to it.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Where does one get the notion that because the music are of different styles they cannot be compared on other levels?


----------



## Daniel James

> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.



I must ask you to explain why this is please. Seems like a very vague statement.

Dan


----------



## Daniel James

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:


> Where does one get the notion that because the music are of different styles they cannot be compared on other levels?



On what levels do you have in mind?


----------



## Guy Bacos

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does one get the notion that because the music are of different styles they cannot be compared on other levels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what levels do you have in mind?
Click to expand...


Centuries of agreement on what is considered music of "higher" level. I hope I can say this without sounding like a snob. This becomes a fact, no?


----------



## Casey Edwards

mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:


> I regret even posting here. I cannot stand the elitist classical position - I used to subscribe to it and I am proud to have moved on.
> 
> Opinions are opinions you are all welcome to it.
> 
> Most people find fur elise better then the piano concerti. Who am I to judge that?
> 
> More people find joy in Harry Potter then Dumas - maybe there is something to it.



Ditto. I am guilty of the same and then realized that I was fighting for nothing but my own frustration. I love Williams, Manuel De Faya, Powell, Holst, Goldenthal, Respighi, Stravinsky...Hell, I'll even crank my Sum 41 up and re-live my high school nostalgia. No shame to represent what is meaningful to me personally.


----------



## Ashermusic

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must ask you to explain why this is please. Seems like a very vague statement.
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...



It is the intent. High art attempts to touch people emotionally at a deeper level; to provoke deeper thought; deeper contemplation; deeper intellectual stimulation. 

Pop art attempts to do the same things but at a much more superficial level and with far less effort by the listener/viewer/reader. It is the difference between picking a pretty girl up in a bar and having a sexual encounter and making love to a woman you love deeply. It is the difference in crying over the loss of a beloved friend and crying over a sad scene on a TV show. 

I may prefer a Hostess Twinkie to a beautifully prepared desert but the Twinkie is not artistic cuisine.

They both have a place but they are not equal artistically.


----------



## rgames

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:


> Where does one get the notion that because the music are of different styles they cannot be compared on other levels?



Guy - if you want to compare, how about Lady Gaga compared to Franz Lizst? Aren't they about the same? Both led flashy lives designed to attract attention and both wrote music that catered to the populace of his/her day.

That raises the question - are we really talking about musicians and composers or the people who consume their music? That goes back to my comment a few posts up: is the audience really demanding something other than what's being written for the majority of films?

Also, it's true that Lady Gaga's music is relatively uncomplicated, but is complication a necessary condition for good art? The first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony is pretty simple. Same darn rhythm through much of the piece. Or how about some of Rembrandt's self-portraits where most of the canvas is black and there's just a hint of a face in one tiny spot? Also pretty damn simple.

In fact, I would argue that simplicity is at the heart of all great art (and science, for that matter: Newton had F=ma and Einstein had E=mc^2, both pretty friggin' simple).

rgames


----------



## mverta

mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:


> I regret even posting here. I cannot stand the elitist classical position - I used to subscribe to it and I am proud to have moved on.



Mike, an "elitist classical position," when defined as, "Classical music is superior to all other forms of music," is indeed nauseating, and perhaps comfortingly, indefensible. 

My position, as a Jazz session pianist, drummer in cheesy 80's rock bands, synth whore, and 20+ year orchestral composer and orchestrator is that every style of music has levels of "amateur," and "expert." Differing levels, let's say depths, of harmonic and timbral sophistication can be found between orchestral work and a pop tune - a fact which is often co-opted by the biased as some sort of absolute foundation to establish supremacy for orchestral work. And what makes their argument easier is that every bit of that sophistication, learned, can show up and inform a musician even in a pop context.

Case in point: Flea has been studying theory with my friend for some time, now. 

But in the end, you have to acknowledge that the tradeoff for the fun, accessible simplicity of a pop progression is endurance. Similarly, you can't truly appreciate Respighi's Pines of Rome unless you've got a 20-minute block of uninterrupted time to dedicate to it. They serve different intents, but only one is truly enduring.

And that's the catch; that's the caveat. Enduring and entertaining are not the same thing, though neither are they mutually exclusive. The Holy Grail, it seems to me, is to have both.


But I maintain that to have studied and mastered greater musical depths and then decide to let that inescapably color your pop-tunes will likely produce better works than not to know in the first place. It is never elitist to suggest that more knowledge and control is better.



_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does one get the notion that because the music are of different styles they cannot be compared on other levels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On what levels do you have in mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Centuries of agreement on what is considered music of "higher" level. I hope I can say this without sounding like a snob.
Click to expand...


Centuries of agreement that the world was flat didnt work out so well in the end.
The fact people have been saying something for years doesn't really mean much. When they first started saying it they didnt have the music, technology, creative avenues available to them that we do now.

I think basing the comparison of 'what higher level music is' on the opinion of others, regardless of how long they have had said opinion, is a hollow argument.

I mean you are arguing that Bach's music is 'better' because other people said so.

Dan


----------



## Guy Bacos

There is no scientific way of proving 100% what music is better or "superior". So we have to deal with some facts, and there are plenty more facts that advantage great composers from Lady Gaga. You could decide to not accept these facts, but then you have your own very personal criteria.


----------



## NYC Composer

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Danny_Owen @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Daniel on this one, writing something that is very current, present, and with the aim to get people having fun in the clubs and at social occasions is a totally different craft to writing a piece of music to be sat and listened to and contemplated over.
> 
> Lady Gaga and Beethoven are both very good at what they do, and both their record sales prove it.
> 
> For me there is no 'better' because what they do is totally different. Beethoven' musical ideas are more complex, sure. But better? That depends entirely on how you're gauging it, they're aiming to meet very different ends, and both accomplish exactly what they set out to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 2. Record sales prove nothing about artistic merit, only commercial appeal. KISS has sold countless millions more records than Charles Ives but only a musical imbecile would say KISS was remotely artistically equal.
Click to expand...


When arguing a point using contrasting examples, it's usually better to use two equally weighted ones. How about Charles Ives and the Beatles? 

Additionally, "better" is the in the eye of the elitis,er...the beholder :wink:


----------



## lux

are we back again on this discussion? Classical versus Lady Gaga? no. Please.


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> That wholly transformative power of music - even the potential of it - is part of why I feel so passionately about educating ourselves to mastery. It always strikes me as tragic when people argue against empowerment for themselves. My original reply to this thread was rooted in the fact that so many young "composers" think more samples means better music, when the truth is samples and technology have mostly displaced quality, not improved it. Yes, they're tools in the hands of masters. But they've become placeholders in their own right, and that the average level of skill in film music today has plummeted is a matter of musicological fact, and not subject to debate.
> 
> Oh, and Ed: I began my career as a jazz Big Band composer, did Jazz albums and was a (mostly) Jazz session player. How you could ever have gotten from my posts that I think orchestral music is the only valid style to define oneself as a composer through is totally beyond me. If you want to be a Big Band writer, I have a host of names I'd be recommending equally as strongly, for exactly the same reasons. Mine isn't an argument about specific people, it's about the long, hard-earned road to mastery and the potential to change lives that comes with it; as my life was changed.



Except I class jazz composers in the same league as classical composers. So I would call them "proper" composers as well. 

The music I'm talking about is music I gave an example of. So have you seen Danny Boyle's Sunshine? John Murphy, the composer comes from a rock background and taught himself how to do the orchestra stuff and says in interviews he doesn't feel that comfortable with it. According to the things you have said this is not great film music and an exact example for the kind of people you describe having such a problem with...

Look at what you said... 



> "'Cause that's what filmscores are now, right? Half orchestra, half synth. Only the set has no idea what to do with the orchestra part, so they focus on the synth part. More drum samples, more pads and sound design. More buttons to press, knobs to turn. That they can handle. The orchestra? Brass chords. String lines. Wow! You don't say. No real melodic chops; no real counterpoint chops, no real orchestrational chops. But "composers," to a one. "



How does that NOT describe someone like John Murphy and the music for Sunshine? How can you praise (assuming you do) Sunshine or someone like Clint Mansell (eg. Moon) for their film music and yet say the things you do above? I don't see how you can rationalise the two in your head.


----------



## Guy Bacos

lux @ Sat May 21 said:


> are we back again on this discussion? Classical versus Lady Gaga? no. Please.



It's not the same folks as the last time there was this debate, if there was, so you have to give a chance to hear from other people about this.


----------



## Daniel James

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must ask you to explain why this is please. Seems like a very vague statement.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the intent. High art attempts to touch people emotionally at a deeper level; to provoke deeper thought; deeper contemplation; deeper intellectual stimulation.
> 
> Pop art attempts to do the same things but at a much more superficial level and with far less effort by the listener/viewer/reader. It is the difference between picking a pretty girl up in a bar and having a sexual encounter and making love to a woman you love deeply. It is the difference in crying over the loss of a beloved friend and crying over a sad scene on a TV show.
> 
> I may prefer a Hostess Twinkie to a beautifully prepared desert but the Twinkie is not artistic cuisine.
> 
> They both have a place but they are not equal artistically.
Click to expand...


So you are saying someone would be moved 100% more by a work of Bach or Mozart than a song of today...regardless of what musical taste they have?

I am betting there are people who could listen to the saddest songs from these 'great' composers and not feel a thing, but that same person could be moved to tears by a 'lesser' piece of music by a pop artist. 

By your definition of higher art you are implying that it is impossible for a pop song to emotionally effect someone the same as a piece by Bach or Mozart...I argue that not everyone reacts that way. Which kind of defeats the point of what you say makes them great...if they are not connecting with me emotionally, by your rules, are they no longer considered high art?

Dan


----------



## NYC Composer

mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:


> I regret even posting here. I cannot stand the elitist classical position - I used to subscribe to it and I am proud to have moved on.
> 
> Opinions are opinions you are all welcome to it.
> 
> Most people find fur elise better then the piano concerti. Who am I to judge that?
> 
> More people find joy in Harry Potter then Dumas - maybe there is something to it.



I have a hard time with elitist positions of any stripe. See my sig.


----------



## lux

Also, its so clear that the background and the style the composer has influences in such an evident way the position on the matter. 

People which embraces different styles have a broader vision while musicians which arise mostly the orchestral world have another take on the matter.

I believe you need to have some background to judge whatever style out there. I tend to not offer a judgement on styles which i'm really not involved in.

If you have more than 35 years and have not been already involved in some style your not likely to approach it now


----------



## Ashermusic

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny_Owen @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Daniel on this one, writing something that is very current, present, and with the aim to get people having fun in the clubs and at social occasions is a totally different craft to writing a piece of music to be sat and listened to and contemplated over.
> 
> Lady Gaga and Beethoven are both very good at what they do, and both their record sales prove it.
> 
> For me there is no 'better' because what they do is totally different. Beethoven' musical ideas are more complex, sure. But better? That depends entirely on how you're gauging it, they're aiming to meet very different ends, and both accomplish exactly what they set out to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 2. Record sales prove nothing about artistic merit, only commercial appeal. KISS has sold countless millions more records than Charles Ives but only a musical imbecile would say KISS was remotely artistically equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When arguing a point using contrasting examples, it's usually better to use two equally weighted ones. How about Charles Ives and the Beatles?
> 
> Additionally, "better" is the in the eye of the elitis,er...the beholder :wink:
Click to expand...


Nobody but nobody loves The Beatles more than I do. I just performed a set of their songs at my daughter's wedding with some of my friends. I know their music intimately. If I were to go to a desert island with only 1 CD it would be one of theirs.

But I still acknowledge Charles Ives is a higher level of artistic creation. If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the badge proudly.


----------



## choc0thrax

Film music vs. classical is back! It's just wearing bondage gear and a blonde wig this time. Hope everyone is lawyered up.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Nobody but nobody loves The Beatles more than I do.



I do. 8)


----------



## lux

choc0thrax @ Sat May 21 said:


> Film music vs. classical is back! It's just wearing bondage gear and a blonde wig this time. Hope everyone is lawyered up.



i'm wearing bondage gear now


----------



## polypx

It seems impossible for musicians to agree on what makes music "great".

Is it any easier to agree on what makes music "bad"?


----------



## mverta

Ed @ Sat May 21 said:


> How can you praise (assuming you do) Sunshine or someone like Clint Mansell (eg. Moon) for their film music and yet say the things you do above? I don't see how you can rationalise the two in your head.



I don't know either of those works, so I can't comment on their quality. But if they're musically masterful or if they're not, either way I probably know why.  

As it is I certainly can't take one composer's opinion of his own work as a measure of how the work is. I think my own work is mostly ass. But I'm trying, goddammit.


_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

polypx @ Sat May 21 said:


> It seems impossible for musicians to agree on what makes music "great".
> 
> Is it any easier to agree on what makes music "bad"?



Isnt that what started this off in the first place? Mike Verta saying that by using samples you are instantly a lesser composer than Goldsmith XD


----------



## Ed

And let all all be reminded... again I feel I have to say this every time... the reason why there exists so many bad films and bad music today is that technology today means more people can easily make film and more people can easily make music.

Back in the day if you wanted to make a film you needed an really expensive camera, so you just didn't. Now you can make a really professional looking product for next to nothing, same with music, same with photography. etc. 

It doesn't mean that films are any worse today than they always have been, it just means today there is a lot more crap being made than before. It is ridiculous to treat this discussion as if this fact doesn't exist.


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> [
> I don't know either of those works, so I can't comment on their quality. But if they're musically masterful or if they're not, either way I probably know why.



Well I recommend you go watch Sunshine since it exemplifies my point as it fits your complaints about music so well. And don't just go find the soundtrack on youtube, you need to see a film score on the film. 

I am saying that there is no way you can say the things you have done and still think it is a good soundtrack or good music - at the same time.


----------



## Ashermusic

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must ask you to explain why this is please. Seems like a very vague statement.
> 
> Dan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is the intent. High art attempts to touch people emotionally at a deeper level; to provoke deeper thought; deeper contemplation; deeper intellectual stimulation.
> 
> Pop art attempts to do the same things but at a much more superficial level and with far less effort by the listener/viewer/reader. It is the difference between picking a pretty girl up in a bar and having a sexual encounter and making love to a woman you love deeply. It is the difference in crying over the loss of a beloved friend and crying over a sad scene on a TV show.
> 
> I may prefer a Hostess Twinkie to a beautifully prepared desert but the Twinkie is not artistic cuisine.
> 
> They both have a place but they are not equal artistically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are saying someone would be moved 100% more by a work of Bach or Mozart than a song of today...regardless of what musical taste they have?
> 
> I am betting there are people who could listen to the saddest songs from these 'great' composers and not feel a thing, but that same person could be moved to tears by a 'lesser' piece of music by a pop artist.
> 
> By your definition of higher art you are implying that it is impossible for a pop song to emotionally effect someone the same as a piece by Bach or Mozart...I argue that not everyone reacts that way. Which kind of defeats the point of what you say makes them great...if they are not connecting with me emotionally, by your rules, are they no longer considered high art?
> 
> Dan
Click to expand...


I am saying that deeper emotional response requires greater effort. All religions maintain that. All serious art maintains that.Appreciating String Theory or Quantum Mechanics requires that more than watching a sci-fi film.

Pop music is meant to paint in broader strokes and move people more superficially, provoke thought and emotion with little or no effort required.

There are pop artists who attempt to do this more than a Lady Gaga, certainly and Jazz artists do as well. It is not the lexicon, it is the intent. But as a genre as a whole, the pop world is relatively superficial and always has been.

i say this as a guy who has spent most of his life creating pop music. Go to my website and listen to songs I have written that were recorded by Whitney Houston, Julio Iglesias, Donna Summer, etc. They are IMHO well-crafted songs but they are not high art.

Anyway, I cannot explain this better than I have already. It saddens me that it even needs explaining frankly.


----------



## Ed

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Mike Verta saying that by using samples you are instantly a lesser composer than Goldsmith XD



Not just that, he was complaining about how we can't hear the orchestra properly. As if synths, drums or whatever don't really have any musical value. Mike will probably claim he didn't say that, but he did, I even quoted it in a post a moment ago.

To differentiate this from the classical vs film music thread I kind of like this more. Since to me that discussion was stupid because it was an irrelevant distinction, this thread is more interesting since it's about music in general.


----------



## mverta

Hopefully, Ed, it's that I've failed to articulate my philosophies, rather than it be they are so transparently flawed that they can't withstand even the elementary scrutiny you suggest. That would be disappointing; and an abdication of my cardinal rule to really think about my position on this stuff - and devil's advocate in my head for probably way too long - before yakking about it. But I'll give a listen, and let you know 

For now, both you and Daniel James are 900 kinds of not getting my point, if that's what you think.


_Mike


----------



## mikebarry

I don't get the in 200 years argument either. 200 years ago there wasn't rock and pop. I think People will still be listening to sinatra and elvis and the beatles in 100 years.


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> But I'll give a listen, and let you know
> 
> For now, both you and Daniel James are 900 kinds of not getting my point, if that's what you think.



Well I hope so... I just don't see how you could watch Sunshine and think its a good film score and good music while still maintain what you said in the passage I quoted. As i said please watch the film not just clips or listen to the soundtrack on youtube. The film Moon is also a good example, but Sunshine is better, there are some parts of the film just so beautifully put together.


----------



## mverta

mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:


> I don't get the in 200 years argument either. 200 years ago there wasn't rock and pop. I think People will still be listening to sinatra and elvis and the beatles in 100 years.



Yikes, bad choices there, Mike. The sales demographics and performance for those artists are honed to laser precision, and clearly indicate my kid ain't gonna be buying the White Album. (Though interestingly [according to one of my best friends who was an exec at Capitol] the Beatles still sell a million albums a year to Mom and Dad).


_Mike


----------



## Casey Edwards

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Similarly, you can't truly appreciate Respighi's Pines of Rome unless you've got a 20-minute block of uninterrupted time to dedicate to it. They serve different intents, but only one is truly enduring.
> 
> And that's the catch; that's the caveat. Enduring and entertaining are not the same thing, though neither are they mutually exclusive. The Holy Grail, it seems to me, is to have both.
> 
> It is never elitist to suggest that more knowledge and control is better.
> 
> _Mike



These are very good summaries of my feelings.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Speaking of the Beatles earlier, when Paul McCartney was asked what made them more special than the other groups, he replied, "we were more arts-y". He didn't just say, I don't know or it's a question of taste, he recognized the more artistic side they were incorporating into their music, which is why the Beatles havea lot of fans from the classical world of music as well.

One thing I find out of line is, as soon as you make any sort of connection with the great composers as we know them, we are labeled as being in the elitist classical position. Then we can't say anything I guess.


----------



## NYC Composer

deleted


----------



## NYC Composer

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny_Owen @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Daniel on this one, writing something that is very current, present, and with the aim to get people having fun in the clubs and at social occasions is a totally different craft to writing a piece of music to be sat and listened to and contemplated over.
> 
> Lady Gaga and Beethoven are both very good at what they do, and both their record sales prove it.
> 
> For me there is no 'better' because what they do is totally different. Beethoven' musical ideas are more complex, sure.  But better? That depends entirely on how you're gauging it, they're aiming to meet very different ends, and both accomplish exactly what they set out to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, totally different crafts, both worthy, but the former is a higher level of artistic creation.
> 
> 2. Record sales prove nothing about artistic merit, only commercial appeal. KISS has sold countless millions more records than Charles Ives but only a musical imbecile would say KISS was remotely artistically equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When arguing a point using contrasting examples, it's usually better to use two equally weighted ones. How about Charles Ives and the Beatles?
> 
> Additionally, "better" is the in the eye of the elitis,er...the beholder :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody but nobody loves The Beatles more than I do. I just performed a set of their songs at my daughter's wedding with some of my friends. I know their music intimately. If I were to go to a desert island with only 1 CD it would be one of theirs.
> 
> But I still acknowledge Charles Ives is a higher level of artistic creation. If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the badge proudly.
Click to expand...


I think you sorta are-and I think you do. Let your non-freak flag fly!


----------



## Ashermusic

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the in 200 years argument either. 200 years ago there wasn't rock and pop. I think People will still be listening to sinatra and elvis and the beatles in 100 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, bad choices there, Mike. The sales demographics and performance for those artists are honed to laser precision, and clearly indicate my kid ain't gonna be buying the White Album. (Though interestingly [according to one of my best friends who was an exec at Capitol] the Beatles still sell a million albums a year to Mom and Dad).
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Mmmm , not sure about that, Mike. My daughter who is now twenty-seven bought all the Beatles CDs when she was in her late teens and likes Elvis and Sinatra along with all here Indie stuff.


----------



## ozmorphasis

mverta @ Fri May 20 said:


> A friend and I were just talking about this yesterday, about the enormous gulf between work today, and great works of yesterday (We were specifically talking about just how amazing Daphnis is, Pines of Rome, a few others...), and how it seems the younger set can't tell the difference. It's bizarre. I mean, both he and I are competent composers, and yet we feel like our work truly can't even begin to be compared to such masterworks. Not in the same league by any standard.
> 
> And yet you've got this whole generation coming up who seemingly can't tell how average their contemporaries truly are. Now, we figure at least SOME of that HAS to be because they don't know the repertoire. Literally don't know what they're missing/have nothing to compare to. I mean, that MUST be it, right? I mean, if you can stand the sound of an orchestra at all, then you can easily stomach orchestral music that isn't literally film music, and then there's a treasure trove of works which you can immediately tell led to certain composers' sounds, and there's all this serious, serious shit there. Mind-blowingly good stuff. To say nothing of how dismissive the whole thing is. Like great orchestral music is something you can just waltz into. Like there's some sort of shortcut for literally decades of study, which is what it takes, MINIMUM, to speak even competently. It's like a dude buys a knife, thinks he's a surgeon. It's ridiculous. And all his friends, who just upgraded to Switchblade v2.3 are ready to be Chiefs of Surgery. It's insulting to the craft, minimizing in general, and what we've got is a mile-high thick fog of completely disposable, forgettable music that all sounds alike. Loud, kinda. With drums. And totally generic orchestral parts. "Brass." And "Strings."
> 
> 
> And they worship Hans Zimmer as the God of Sample-Based Music like Hans was invented along with the DAW, when the truth is, Hans was doing his thing way before then, and his inspirations were Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart ('swhat he told me, anyway). Hans was a composer who DECIDED to move the direction he's gone, and the massive army of Zimmer-wannabes out there think imitating his patches and figures - without recognizing how long a path he walked to get to where he is - makes them contemporaries. Like all it really is some "orchestra" parts plus sound-design-y synth.
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's what filmscores are now, right? Half orchestra, half synth. Only the set has no idea what to do with the orchestra part, so they focus on the synth part. More drum samples, more pads and sound design. More buttons to press, knobs to turn. That they can handle. The orchestra? Brass chords. String lines. Wow! You don't say. No real melodic chops; no real counterpoint chops, no real orchestrational chops. But "composers," to a one. Yeah. The few times Hans has told me about a score he was working on, told me about his process, and shared what he was thinking, I heard the familiar strains of an actual musician, working it out. He's notoriously self-effacing about his craft, but it's not true. He knows the repertoire, he knows the works of the greats. No matter what you think of his approach today, dude's legit. Any of you who want to be like Zimmer should get your ass to listening to the masterworks, stat. You'll have an actual perspective on where things are today, and find a shit-ton of inspiration. Like a 2-for-1 kinda deal.
> 
> 
> You know, this just isn't old-fart talk. This isn't about digging in one's heels and fighting the future or hatin' on technology. I've got my VI template running like anyone else, and I'm an upgrade whore. Will I be buying Cinesamples Brass? F-yeah, are you kidding? But don't give me the bullcrap about how people who "can't," do the same quality work as people who "can." 'Cause it ain't true. And there's only one path to the "can," in this case, and that's a shit-ton of study. And years. And that's it.
> 
> I'm no Goldsmith, and I'm no Williams. Hell, maybe I'm nobody. But as dogshit as I think my own work is compared to Ravel's, at least I'm in the trenches slogging it out, trying with every fiber of my being every day of my life. And to say that someone can have any hope of producing great stuff without even THAT, is just insulting. And isn't fooling history. Goldsmith et. al. trained forEVER, tutored by and studying with greats 1-on-1. We may not have that opportunity, but we can try. But dismissing all that and deciding to just re-set the bar - the impossibly low bar - isn't helping ourselves, our music, the craft, our clients, nobody. Nobody.
> 
> 
> You can read this one of two ways: I'm just hating on the younger set. Or you can read it for what it is: I'm not going to pretend it's all good in the hood when it ain't. I'm going to continue to say, "Get real, so you can get better!" You gotta know where you're going to know where you are. Elevate; rise; increase your power; increase your contribution; further the craft; make more money! Mine is a message of encouragement - avoid accepting a lower standard and aim higher. Higher than Williams, higher than Ravel if you can. Music can change the world. You may fail; I may fail. But what, in the end, are we in this for, if not to go out carrying our shields, or on them?
> 
> 
> /crowd roars
> 
> 
> _Mike



The reason why these discussions are weird for me is that people are bound to each other here because of the technology primarily, not because of musical tastes. Having "deep" and "meaningful" discussions about this stuff always makes me first want to check out the poster's music. Discussing the value of music (if you're into melody, harmony, phrasing, etc) with someone that primarily gets goosebumps when listening to orch/synth repeated 1/16th note scores is a waste of time. Again, this forum brings you together because of the technology and tools, but really those two musical realities would hardly ever be caught in the same room together. If you continue to discuss, it will usually go in the direction of calling what someone else does "not-music" or implying it. Or, on the flip side, someone telling me that so-and-so's action cue is as meaningful as Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin. Fair enough, but ~o) 

I'm not interested in pissing contests, but at the same time, we get moved by things that move us. I choke up listening to late Beethoven string quartets more than any moment in any movie. It doesn't mean the other guy's taste or favorite composer is invalid, but as you said Mike, it certainly makes it clear for me what I should be "slugging" away at every day.

I personally am a Ravel, Stravinksy, Mahler, etc, kind of guy. Therefore, when someone tells me that they LOVE the tone of a certain library, etc, I have to listen to their music first in order to know where they are coming from. If they are into trailer stuff, I know that we are probably too divergent in our tastes to be able to take their comments on face value.

It's easy to forget all of this because there is a strong community here, although not necessarily formed based on music.

O


----------



## Ashermusic

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> I think you sorta are-and I think you do. Let your non-freak flag fly!


 
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## mverta

Casey Edwards @ Sat May 21 said:


> "It is never elitist to suggest that more knowledge and control is better. _Mike"
> 
> 
> These are very good summaries of my feelings.



Which is probably why, Casey, you're one of a tiny minority on this board who posts their compositions _along with the score_(!), and truly seeks criticism and feedback to improve your core abilities. I am hella impressed by that.


_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

> Anyway, I cannot explain this better than I have already. It saddens me that it even needs explaining frankly.



It saddens me that there are people who think a requirement to create great music is that you have to be born a few hundred years ago and write orchestral music.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Anyway, I cannot explain this better than I have already. It saddens me that it even needs explaining frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saddens me that there are people who think a requirement to create great music is that you have to be born a few hundred years ago and write orchestral music.
Click to expand...


Nobody on the forum said anything like that. Maybe your interpretation.


----------



## mverta

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> Mmmm , not sure about that, Mike. My daughter who is now twenty-seven bought all the Beatles CDs when she was in her late teens and likes Elvis and Sinatra along with all here Indie stuff.



1) Your household likely isn't representative of the masses. I'd put some money on that.

2) With every generation, it goes down. Seriously, the sales trends are absolutely consistent. I only spoke with any authority because I happened to have actually seen the numbers, on accounta my friend, and all. (This is back in the day, when I did the animation for Capitol Records that went at the top of all their DVD's for which I did a CG model of the Capitol Records building, for which I still have a full set of all the original blueprints of the actual landmark building, which is kinda cool, and way more info than you give a shit about.)



_Mike


----------



## Ed

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> It saddens me that there are people who think a requirement to create great music is that you have to be born a few hundred years ago and write orchestral music.



i find it best to remind yourself that there will always be people that hate not just the work you do, but also who you are as a person. So long as you're honest and true to yourself, thats what matters, to me anyway...


----------



## Ashermusic

Daniel James @ Sat May 21 said:


> Anyway, I cannot explain this better than I have already. It saddens me that it even needs explaining frankly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It saddens me that there are people who think a requirement to create great music is that you have to be born a few hundred years ago and write orchestral music.
Click to expand...


i don't maintain that. There are people who still do great art today. I maintain that to haver deeper emotional experiences with art requires a deeper commitment to learning about it, understanding it, and studying it. Pop music does not require that, which while artistic makes it not art on a higher level as a whole.


----------



## mverta

Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:


> Nobody on the forum said anything like that. Maybe your interpretation.



That's how you know there isn't an argument there. When an opposing debator has to pervert your position into something ridiculous to mount a counter argument, it's because your actual point is beyond debate. 101.

_Mike


----------



## Ed

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> i don't maintain that. There are people who still do great art today. I maintain that to haver deeper emotional experiences with art requires a deeper* commitment to learning about it, understanding it, and studying it.* Pop music does not require that, which while artistic makes it not art on a higher level as a whole.



That just gave me a thought.... there is no inherent connection between any of that and the orchestra whatsoever. 

You can learn all that and learn it with synthesisers, what difference does it make? In fact I would say you can have a higher level since with a synthesiser you have potentially an infinite amount of tones and nuances and can take what you're talking about to new levels.


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the forum said anything like that. Maybe your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how you know there isn't an argument there. When an opposing debator has to pervert your position into something ridiculous to mount a counter argument, it's because your actual point is beyond debate. 101.
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


No one said anything like that on THIS thread, but lets not go there. :wink:


----------



## Ashermusic

Ed @ Sat May 21 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't maintain that. There are people who still do great art today. I maintain that to haver deeper emotional experiences with art requires a deeper* commitment to learning about it, understanding it, and studying it.* Pop music does not require that, which while artistic makes it not art on a higher level as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just gave me a thought.... there is no inherent connection between any of that an the orchestra whatsoever.
> 
> You can learn all that and learn it with synthesisers, what difference does it make? In fact I would say you can have a higher level since with a synthesiser you have potentially an infinite amount of tones and nuances and can take what you're talking about to new levels.
Click to expand...


There are certainly people who have created art with a synthesizer. Pauline Oliveros comes to mind.


----------



## mverta

Now you're equating timbre with harmonic progression/melodic strength/contrapuntal integrity. Different things entirely. A great piece of music can certainly be realized on any number of palettes; virtual or organic. But great music (enduring music :roll: ) has thus far not escaped the need for those inherent qualities, no matter how fancy your plugins are.


_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody on the forum said anything like that. Maybe your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how you know there isn't an argument there. When an opposing debator has to pervert your position into something ridiculous to mount a counter argument, it's because your actual point is beyond debate. 101.
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


So I make one wildly off base statement and my entire side of the argument is void? I dont think so. Not letting you off that easy 

Dan


----------



## noiseboyuk

This is real deja vu time on this thread now, right? Seriously, is there any point at all in continuing? Some people believe that some art is - empircally - better than others. Other people (including me) think this is absurd. This to me is the irreducible conundrum at the heart of this and many other threads. You won't be able to produce a formula that demonstrates Beethoven is better than Gaga, just start quoting that "so and so says" or "lots of people down the ages" that, or "if you REALLY can't see that" such and such or even "so and so invented" the other. It doesn't matter to this argument. Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4

It's a flawed movie, but I'm with Mr Williams on this one.


----------



## mverta

I think you made, two, actually. But I'll honor the three strikes rule. And since it's clear I'm either a glutton for punishment, or always willing to stand in debate, I'm not expecting you to let me off easy. I'm not going anywhere. Well, not for another couple months or so, anyway. 

_Mike


----------



## Scrianinoff

Debates about cultural equality often end with: 

"If all cultures are equal, then cannibalism is a matter of taste."


----------



## mverta

noiseboyuk @ Sat May 21 said:


> It's a flawed movie, but I'm with Mr Williams on this one.



I'm just going to hope you don't think I subscribe to this sort of insanity. It's why I left school in the first place. I work from the other direction - "It's great, full stop. Now, why?" Who knows, perhaps, but it's not a coincidence that most of the greats had chops of all sorts for years.


_Mike


----------



## Daniel James

For the record my side of the story is.

Good music is good music, regardless of who wrote it, how they wrote it and what tools got them there. 

(including samples...hey remember samples from the start of the topic haha)

Dan

EDIT: This too is my last post on the topic. Wasted way to much time on it.


----------



## mikebarry

Hipsters are taking over the world. Beatles are in believe me. Just go drive on Melrose , Ventura and Brooklyn. Sales records or not. 

Anyway I am done with the thread.

Good luck! It's all opinions and it's good for people to express them - lets just not go overboard.

As long as everyone agrees the annoying professors at college are annoying I am all good.


----------



## NYC Composer

Just to throw an extra monkey wrench into this mix re/film music, Bernard Herrmann insisted on and got complete creative control of his film music or he quit the film, which happened at least twice that I know of, the more well known of which was pulling out of Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain", leading to a permanent rift between Hitchcock and Herrmann.

The issue as I understand it was that Hitchcock was being pressured by the studio to modernize his films, and wanted a 'pop' (read "jazz") score from Herrmann, who didn't write one, and they fought-but I digress.

Which composers presently have final cut on their music?? The composer, with rare exceptions, is told to "sound like this", cut, copied, pasted, and has cues rejected out of hand by directors who may or may not have a felicitous musical sensibility. The art of writing music for film has been devalued for many different reasons, but I think there's little doubt that it happens on a regular basis.

Interestingly, Herrmann's last score for Taxi Driver included a jazzy sax theme.


----------



## NYC Composer

Just to throw an extra monkey wrench into this mix re/film music, Bernard Herrmann insisted on and got complete creative control of his film music or he quit the film, which happened at least twice that I know of, the more well known of which was pulling out of Hitchcock's "Torn Curtain", leading to a permanent rift between Hitchcock and Herrmann.

The issue as I understand it was that Hitchcock was being pressured by the studio to modernize his films, and wanted a 'pop' (read "jazz") score from Herrmann, who didn't write one, and they fought-but I digress.

Which composers presently have final cut on their music?? The composer, with rare exceptions, is told to "sound like this", cut, copied, pasted, and has cues rejected out of hand by directors who may or may not have a felicitous musical sensibility. The art of writing music for film has been devalued for many different reasons, but I think there's little doubt that it happens on a regular basis.

Interestingly, Herrmann's last score for Taxi Driver included a jazzy sax theme.


----------



## Ashermusic

mikebarry @ Sat May 21 said:


> As long as everyone agrees the annoying professors at college are annoying I am all good.



Yes but the annoying students are even more annoying :D


----------



## mverta

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Interestingly, Herrmann's last score for Taxi Driver included a jazzy sax theme.



...and as soon as he finished he went back to his hotel room and died.

See kids? Stick to your principles. 



_Mike


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Now you're equating timbre with harmonic progression/melodic strength/contrapuntal integrity. Different things entirely. A great piece of music can certainly be realized on any number of palettes; virtual or organic.



Asher is the one that stated the things he did, I merely pointed out that none of what he said has *necessarily *anything do with the orchestra. 



> But great music (enduring music :roll: ) has thus far not escaped the need for those inherent qualities, no matter how fancy your plugins are.



I hate to state the obvious... but if we're going have a discussion on something we have to try to stick to what we can objectively prove, at least in theory. You can't just fall back on subjectivity or we might as well all stop posting right now. We all have "opinions" and if all we're going to do is state our own opinions then thats great but there's no argument unless someone says their opinions have more validity than others. Since that is the case here, tension develops, argument ensues.

Now, I stated an obvjective fact, didn't I? When someone stated what was needed to be considered to be great about various classical or certain film music, like Star Wars, is objectively based on a great understanding of music theory. As I said this need not have anything at all to do with the orchestra, all any instrument is is a physical device that produces certain frequencies. That is all it is. 

There is something else that must be pointed out in addition to this. It is merely convention of the west that has decided that these frequencies all together produce a pleasing tone. If you listen to traditional Chinese orchestra for example, its usually extremely jarring to western ears and sounds like a complete mess. But had it sounded like a complete mess to the people who created that orchestra, that music, originally? Of course not. So how do we judge such music in light of that? 

The problem with the last thread is one side of the argument refused to deal with any objective facts and rather claim their subjective tastes were objective reality. This is why I can say that Mozart is objectively more sophisticated than Justin Bieber, *because I am defining better in specific ways*, see? Until words like "better" or "artistic" is defined objectively you'll only roll around in the land of semantics. If you're going to hold up the orchestra/big band/jazz - whatever it is - as the absolute epitome of the source of great music you're going to have a hard time justifying that with any objective facts in my opinion. This is not about music that has been made, or about music that is being made right now, its about this theory that seems to be voiced by some in this thread that synths or some other kind of instrument ensemble are of *inherently *less musical value and artistic integrity than orchestral music. 

*EDIT: *Oh and btw, I should point out that if objective definitions are provided and examples are sound I will have no choice but to agree with you. "Objective" isn't open to debate. If you say Beethoven is more artistic than Zimmer because you define artistic to be precisely how he wrote his 5th Symphony and you describe in objective terms what you mean by that, there can be no disagreement. But only in those specific ways can i agree. I can explain why I *like *Zimmer better and I can give objective reasons as to why I like his music more to listen to most of the time, and you would have to agree those reasons are objectively *real*, but that doesn't mean you have to like it the same way I do.



> Cause that's what filmscores are now, right? Half orchestra, half synth. Only the set has no idea what to do with the orchestra part, so they focus on the synth part. More drum samples, more pads and sound design. More buttons to press, knobs to turn. That they can handle. The orchestra? Brass chords. String lines. Wow! You don't say. No real melodic chops; no real counterpoint chops, no real orchestrational chops. But "composers," to a one. "


----------



## noiseboyuk

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a flawed movie, but I'm with Mr Williams on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just going to hope you don't think I subscribe to this sort of insanity. It's why I left school in the first place. I work from the other direction - "It's great, full stop. Now, why?"
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


This is my whole point, and why this debate is completely futile. This is the irreducible conundrum. There are those who believe that the graph method of determining value is correct and reject other considerations as "insanity", while the others believe that a reductionist approach to art fails to understand what art is in the first place - it makes no more sense to such people to reduce art to constituent parts as it would to try to measure your love for someone by doing an MRI scan and analysing the data. It's two diametrically opposed world views, and you can see in peoples posts on this thread pretty easily which camp they fall into. Not co-incidentally, it's the reason why that particular movie had a profound effect on some moviegoers (yes, I do know people who literally claim the movie changed their lives, however hokey it seems to some... personally I'm not a huge fan, but there are elements I greatly admire). Note - this is different to being able to study or appreciate craft within art, the difference is in not basing a supposedly objective value on it as a whole.

The irony to me is that even those who will swear blind that Beethoven is the greatest at some point give up in their explanations why and resort to "oh for goodness sakes, you can just TELL! Listen to it! The next note is given by God!" etc etc. I don't think a reductionist approach to art is a credible one personally. It's just not art.


----------



## NYC Composer

Frederick Russ @ Sat May 21 said:


> Is this thread about samples or is it about music theory? It was originally supposed to be about samples and virtual instruments but its veered off topic so many times. Interesting discussion though. But it probably belongs somewhere else instead of Sample Talk.



It's mostly about "great art is what *I* say it is". :wink:


----------



## mverta

Most of that desperate attempt to quantify music or poetry into understandable, finite quantities is pursued and furthered obsessively by people with grandiose visions of greatness and not a picoliter of talent to get there. They figure if they can make it into a formula they can follow, like a Jell-O recipe, and get others to buy into it, it'll transform their crap into gold. It's always been the promise of Alchemy. Was bullcrap then, is bullcrap now. 

_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Frederick Russ @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread about samples or is it about music theory? It was originally supposed to be about samples and virtual instruments but its veered off topic so many times. Interesting discussion though. But it probably belongs somewhere else instead of Sample Talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's mostly about "great art is what *I* say it is". :wink:
Click to expand...


Actually, it is about what great artists for centuries have said it is.


----------



## NYC Composer

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly, Herrmann's last score for Taxi Driver included a jazzy sax theme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and as soon as he finished he went back to his hotel room and died.
> 
> See kids? Stick to your principles.
> 
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Yes yes, but what about the devaluation? True or no?


----------



## lux

i find funny even trying to argue with Mike and Guy which would be prolly pretty satisfied only by some yes-man approach. Nothing wrong of course, we as well need stuff to keep ourselves calm, like porn or the like.

The whole debate is some yes->no->yes->no sequence. But really nothing shows that anyone is reading other arguments with some attention.


----------



## mverta

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Yes yes, but what about the devaluation? True or no?



There is only the illusion of a debate about this absolute truth.

Which, again, is part of why I advocate leveling-up: It's easier to sell something truly valuable for a premium price.


_Mike


----------



## NYC Composer

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Russ @ Sat May 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread about samples or is it about music theory? It was originally supposed to be about samples and virtual instruments but its veered off topic so many times. Interesting discussion though. But it probably belongs somewhere else instead of Sample Talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's mostly about "great art is what *I* say it is". :wink:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it is about what great artists for centuries have said it is.
Click to expand...


Prove it.


----------



## NYC Composer

double post


----------



## Ed

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> [Actually, it is about what great artists for centuries have said it is.



Circular reasoning FTW! :roll: :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Most of that desperate attempt to quantify music or poetry into understandable, finite quantities is pursued and furthered obsessively by people with grandiose visions of greatness and not a picoliter of talent to get there. They figure if they can make it into a formula they can follow, like a Jell-O recipe, and get others to buy into it, it'll transform their crap into gold. It's always been the promise of Alchemy. Was bullcrap then, is bullcrap now.
> 
> _Mike



did you mean "finite qualities"?


----------



## Ed

Fixed it for you :wink: 




noiseboyuk @ Sat May 21 said:


>


----------



## hbuus

Remember the space thingie that was sent out in space from Earth some years ago? As I recall, it contained stuff about our civilization which could be used by a foreign civilization to define us as human beings. What was sent was both some classical music and something by The Beatles. That's interesting in the light of this discussion. Apparently the people who decided what should be included in the space thingie thought it was of equal importance to include classical music as well as The Beatles stuff.

Henrik


----------



## hbuus

My bad, not sure it was Beatles that was included, but this link says Chuck Berry amongs others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record

Henrik


----------



## mverta

The Beatles (or whoever popular from the day it was) were in there because it was the music of those sending the capsule out. Send that capsule today, and it'd be Beethoven and, I, dunno.. Justin Beiber. Popular music is transient, like a fart. Some has longer staying power, but no popular piece of music has managed to have centuries-wide legs. Yet, anyway? Of course, it can be argued that in his time, Mozart WAS the rock star. Ah, yes! But he was MOZART. See, when Mozart IS your rock star: best of both worlds. 

God, how many more ways can a guy be right? I wonder. 



_Mike


----------



## rJames

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> That's how you know there isn't an argument there. When an opposing debator has to pervert your position into something ridiculous to mount a counter argument, it's because your actual point is beyond debate. 101.
> 
> _Mike



Mirror, mirror on the wall...


----------



## hbuus

Well, I'll have to agree, I think. When I was growing up, Depeche Mode was my favorite band - still is, although I don't listen to them much anymore. I was shocked to learn a few years back that today's kids don't know who Depeche Mode are! So quickly such a tremendously influental band such as Depeche Mode was, what, forgotten? Same I suspect with Pink Floyd etc. and yes, even The Beatles.

Henrik


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Some has longer staying power, but no popular piece of music has managed to have centuries-wide legs. Yet, anyway? Of course, it can be argued that in his time, Mozart WAS the rock star. Ah, yes! But he was MOZART. See, when Mozart IS your rock star: best of both worlds



Of all the composers back in those days (_and we're talking about hundreds of years time periods here_), what percentage at any given time have had that staying power? 

To put another way... in Mozarts time, what percentage of composers in his day do we still listen to?

In the last 50 years how many Mozarts, Beethoven's or Tchaikovsky's do you think *should *have sprung up if music *wasn't* in such a (according to you) dire state?


----------



## mverta

Sadly, we will never know. But fortunately, we can still hear the great stuff anytime we want... and we can still learn from it, grow from it, and let it work its way into our own music.




rJames @ Sat May 21 said:


> Mirror, mirror on the wall...



...Who in the land is fairest of all?"

"You are, Mike."

Not sure what you were going for there, but: F. I think you meant a sort of pot-calling-the-kettle-black thing, but... I'm reminded again to stress the importance of education.


_Mike


----------



## Ed

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Of all the composers back in those days (and we're talking about hundreds of years time periods here), what percentage at any given time have had that staying power?
> 
> To put another way... in Mozarts time, what percentage of composers in his day do we still listen to?
> 
> In the last 50 years how many Mozarts, Beethoven's or Tchaikovsky's do you think should have sprung up if music wasn't in such a (according to you) dire state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, we will never know. But fortunately, we can still hear the great stuff anytime we want... and we can still learn from it, grow from it, and let it work its way into our own music.
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you appear to be basing arguments on the assumption that the answer to all 3 questions is..."A LOT."

From my perspective if you cannot answer the questions you should not use "staying power" as an argument since it clearly, admittedly, isn't actually based on anything factual and merely a "feeling" or some other subjective reason.

Don't agree? Then please by all means answer those questions with some figures. The first two questions I asked can be objectively stated, while the third will be your own opinion of course but then we can see how reasonable it is or not, because it is dependant on the answers to the first two questions.

If only one or even two composers from the last 50 years get listened to in another 100 years or so, will that really be that different to music in the last 500 years of history? It seems some people forget that and lump all classical greats together as if they all lived at the same time.


----------



## rgames

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> Of course, it can be argued that in his time, Mozart WAS the rock star. Ah, yes! But he was MOZART. See, when Mozart IS your rock star: best of both worlds.
> 
> God, how many more ways can a guy be right? I wonder.
> 
> _Mike



Mike - do you ever wonder how you come up with these insights?

I've seen you contribute to a number of discussions where such self-reflection might yield interesting results.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Those musical giants have been played, studied, debated, revered, a MILLION ZILLIONS times - ENOUGH!! 

I officially called for a one-year boycott of way-over-played farts like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Bieber and Gaga. 

And Jay, there are many really good musicians who can make a synthesizer as subtle and powerful as any orchestral instrument, but Oliveros is not the first name that comes to mind.


----------



## NYC Composer

Yeah, that transient "'here today, gone tomorrow" pop music. Cole Porter, The Beatles, George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Bob Dylan, Irving Berlin, Miles Davis, Rogers and Hammerstein. Nobody will be listening to _that _stuff 100 years from now! (though for some mentioned above, 100 years has almost passed already).

I wonder how many orchestras would survive without the public/private dole. I wonder if there would be a Metropolitan Opera, speaking of frozen-in-time archaic forms. These classical forms have been on life support for years.


----------



## mverta

NYC Composer @ Sat May 21 said:


> Yeah, that transient "'here today, gone tomorrow" pop music. Cole Porter, The Beatles, George Gershwin, Duke Ellington, Bob Dylan, Irving Berlin, Miles Davis, Rogers and Hammerstein. Nobody will be listening to _that _stuff 100 years from now! (though for some mentioned above, 100 years has almost passed already).
> 
> I wonder how many orchestras would survive without the public/private dole. I wonder if there would be a Metropolitan Opera, speaking of frozen-in-time archaic forms. These classical forms have been on life support for years.




Everybody you mentioned had musical skills above and beyond what we see on average, today, Larry. Every one of those people could actually play an instrument - well, in some cases! Insanity! - and a few may have been able to accomplish the Herculean task of being able to read music. Dylan? Okay, Dylan was a poet. But rumor has it some of them could even write down music on sheets of paper; that's clearly an insane rumor.


Speaking of which, in preparation for the piece I'm recording in July, I had JoAnn Kane prepare the parts from my score; hadn't worked with them in about 7 years. They sent back the parts and I noticed Violin 1 and 2 on the same part. Never seen that before. I guessed it was because orchestration chops have gotten so shitty that "composers/orchestrators" actually have to rebalance and make changes ON THE STAGE, ON THE DAY. I asked if that was it. It was. "Wow," I said. "How bad has it gotten?" "Real bad." 7 years ago, returning a part to a composer like that would've been an insult. It says you don't know how to orchestrate. Yesterday's Amateur Hour Bullcrap is today's Professional. True dat.


_Mike





P.S. Of COURSE I had them split the parts! ..."rebalancing..." Christ.

P.P.S. Literacy and Historical Awareness are on life support, too, Larry. Ditto Remedial Math Skills and The Ability to Focus for Three Consecutive Minutes. If your point was that quality stuff and people are disappearing like Pandas, you made it succinctly.


----------



## stonzthro

Another reason to do that is for stacking strings - 1st pass the violins play I, second time II.


----------



## Ed

Now hold on Mike, you made a point that certain music is better because we still listen to it and that today its all so shitty no one will listen. But I asked you three questions which will show whether that really is true. Why will you not answer them or admit the argument is not based on anything factual?

I also asked you for an objective measure by which the orchestra/jazz music is *inherently *better than any other ensemble or synths. I still don't see you providing that. Please see my longer post on the previous page, about half way down.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat May 21 said:


> Those musical giants have been played, studied, debated, revered, a MILLION ZILLIONS times - ENOUGH!!
> 
> I officially called for a one-year boycott of way-over-played farts like Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Bieber and Gaga.
> 
> And Jay, there are many really good musicians who can make a synthesizer as subtle and powerful as any orchestral instrument, but Oliveros is not the first name that comes to mind.



i think she's brilliant.


----------



## mverta

@stonzthro - that's not why they did it. They know I'm using 16/16/12/10/8 and don't do passes in the first place, and secondly, they told me flat out it was because of the poor orchestration chops out there.


@Ed - I haven't answered you because I've read your post 3 times and I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about.  Something about defining terms to bound stylistic predilections based on Western biases, or... actually, I'm not sure what you're asking. Simpler, perhaps. I'm not the brightest bulb. 

The direct question about objective terms to define why orchestral/jazz music is better than other ensembles is moot, because I've never suggested that. It's not the style that defines competency; competency is universal, and can be applied to any palette you want. But you either have it or you don't, and certain forms illustrate more succinctly whether that's true or not. Other forms - these days - allow you to get away with almost no competency. Hopefully that clears that up?


_Mike


----------



## re-peat

Ed,

One reason why classical music (great classical music, I mean) is musically more satisfying/stimulating/inspiring than many other styles/types of music, is that *the art of music can be practiced more completely in a great classical piece* than it can in most other types/styles of music. And by ‘more completely’ I mean: the composer can use more of music’s linguistic, semantic, structural, referential, intellectual and emotional powers, and often to a fuller extent as well.

This, however, doesn’t necessarily make the classical piece intrinsically ‘better’, but there’s no denying that, in a good work, classical music offers much more and much richer food to the musically hungry. And there’s your answer: great classical music offers more to the musically hungry than most any other type of music.

To give an example: there is a lot more musical food in Prokofiev’s third piano concerto than there is in anything by, say, Lady Gaga, The Beatles, Nine Inch Nails, Burt Bacharach, John Powell, Hans Zimmer or Cole Porter. To many people, the food offered by these illustrious names might be far tastier and much more pleasantly digestible — no argument there —, but the fact is that the Prokofiev does present a much richer and far more interesting musical plate. And that is NOT a subjective opinion, it is very much an objective observation that can quite easily be supported by simply studying the music.

But … does that make the Prokofiev ‘better?’ Is listening to Prokofiev’s third a more profound, more ‘complete’ experience than listening to Lady Gaga? In absolute and pure, abstract musical terms: yes, it is. Undoubtedly. Only a complete musical idiot would say otherwise. However ...

... we are entering a very problematic area here, because in order to appreciate certain qualities in music, you have to have the talent, insight and musical sensitivity to (1) recognize these qualities and (2) be receptive to whatever it is that makes these qualities superior. In other words: it requires talent and musical knowledge to FULLY appreciate Prokofiev. Lots of people like him on an emotional level (which is a very superficial and limited response to music, no matter how profoundly it may be experienced), but only those that have sufficient talent and musical understanding are able to really dig deep inside the music.
You see, there is no democracy or ‘all men are equal’-principle in art, I’m afraid. The best things in (great) art happen far above the heads and far beyond the reach of most people, unfortunately. Call this elitist or whatever, but that's how it is. It takes talent to write great music, but it also takes talent to listen to it and fully appreciate it. And paradoxically perhaps, that’s also the level where artistic appreciation becomes a much less subjective affair than most people like to believe it is. It’s the emotional appreciation of music which is, indeed, highly subjective, but the MUSICAL appreciation of great music is much less clouded by subjective considerations. (Most people never make that distinction, as is evidenced again by this thread.)

But the power (and mystery) of music is such that there’s a lot more to it than simply communicating abstract musical ideas and/or qualities. The way people absorb and respond to music, the many fascinating and unforeseeable ways in which they invent and wrap a non-musical context around a piece of music, each with his or her own intellect, background, taste, emotions and imagination, is something which is largely (not entirely of course) beyond the composers’ control. The music has moved from the composer’s desk, where music rules, into the listener’s territory and there, music may very well not be (and usually isn’t) the absolute monarch. So, which type of music provides the ‘best’ or most meaningful experience is, at the end of the day, something that can not or should not be evaluated on purely musical grounds alone.

And that is precisely why discussions such as these never really work. While ‘quality of music’ is, like I said, a much less subjective thing than most people think it is (or would like it to be) — very objective musical fact: Beethoven *is* a much greater composer than Ottorino Respighi, who is, in turn, a lot more musically rewarding to listen to than Beyoncé — the individual listener’s response to music (and the non-musical wrapping he or she provides for it) is obviously very much a subjective thing and, in my view, not the best trigger for a truly interesting debate about music.

_(Some of the above is quoted/paraphrased from something I wrote earlier.)_

_


----------



## impressions

a few things-
1.HTTYD is memorable yes, probably the best in the last decade, but is it comparable to goldsmith?
2. what difference all these arguments you people are having here, if the zillion composers out there will continue to think they'll make the break by "sounding like"? and i wonder if all the purists in here get a gig to write zimmer'ish score, for a few thousands dollars, would they reject it because they want to make their "own voice"? easy to say, harder when you have to pay your bills.

3. is competency really the factor in here? we are here to entertain, even bach, mozart, etc were.
we're all a bunch of upgraded clowns trying to make it big with our entertainment-ooo, how clever of us.
is memorable scores over 200 years more competent than madona's 20 years? not to the young generation who enjoyed it, they don't even care about all this, they don't even think about all this crap-only we do.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

FWIW, Beyoncé is not considered a pop composer. You might want to compare Respighi to Elton John, PJ Harvey, Sheryl Crow, Trent Reznor or some other writers.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

FWIW, I'm all for subjectivity. I am passionate about what I like and what I don't, and that enthusiasm is, I would hope, sometimes reflected in my music. I let that passion guide me in some cases as much as any 'plan'. And I like the unknown/unpredictable part of our emotional responses to music at least as much as the intellectual part. I veered away from academic music precisely because of the type of argument that Repeat has very well articulated. In my experience, writing pop material poses at least as many challenges as that of any other genre, only the challenges are different, as may be the goals (I want to make money/I want to be immortal)...


----------



## lux

What Piet said is explicative enough probably.

But I think the cultural evolution in the last century added a few parameters to music which makes a difference in a complex enough judgement system.

Stuff like "cool", "energetic", "sincere", "headshaking", "bodymoving", "destructive", "aggressive", "sexual", "uplifting"...and many others are strictly necessary, in addition to "typical" or "technical" parameters to judge (and enjoy) modern music. Not to say the aspiration of modern music writers to paint/describe the actual society or the effect it makes on our lives.

If we leave out all the cultural/social matters of modern music the comparison makes no sense. Its pretty obvious that even the most crappy piece of the classical repertoire has some more inner complexity than most pop/rock/whatever creations.

But its a comparison which makes no sense. Modern music has a wider range of implication which make it a whole to judge, for good or bad. Trying to compare stuff based on the number of chords and voicing is an insult to every intelligence imo 

Luca


----------



## impressions

mverta @ Sat May 21 said:


> It's not the style that defines competency; competency is universal, and can be applied to any palette you want. But you either have it or you don't, and certain forms illustrate more succinctly whether that's true or not. Other forms - these days - allow you to get away with almost no competency.
> 
> _Mike



with this i totally agree, and you being the VFX guy also-know it even better.
we are using bigger cannons to compensate for our lack of ability, but not because we can't-because we're lazy bums.
because having bigger sound and a bunch of power chords thrown in brass+strings+timpani gives the usual bombastic impression, no sophistication, thinking, or even composing, is required here. 

its like in current movies, games, etc.. the blockbusting belongs to those with the most awesome special effects and not the ones with great script/acting etc (avatar anyone?), because people like shiny stuff, etc etc... so i agree with the "elders" that these kind of tools can lead the composer to total stupidity and degradation of the craft, but not because of the tools, but because of laziness of the composer who uses them. his super-ego, thinking he is the best out there, just by mimicking a texture, also really helps degrade this whole thing.


----------



## hbuus

OT: What does HTTYD stand for?

Henrik


----------



## robibla

"How to Train Your Donkey" :lol: 
or Dragon, one of the two.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

How To Train Your Dragon.


----------



## hbuus

Thanks


----------



## Guy Bacos

hbuus @ Sun May 22 said:


> OT: What does HTTYD stand for?
> 
> Henrik




I had to google it as well. 

Today every thing is in short. Sometimes too much.


----------



## MichaelL

Ashermusic @ Sat May 21 said:


> But I still acknowledge Charles Ives is a higher level of artistic creation. If that makes me an elitist, I will wear the badge proudly.



Perhaps it is merely a perceived higher level of artistic creation, by those with an emotional need to quantify "quality" for their own validation.

@Mike V -- I wouldn't be so quick to assume that popular music will not endure. People all over the globe continue to play and sing folks songs that are hundreds of years old (the equivalent of today's pop music). And, how many revered classical and film composers have borrowed those lowly folk melodies? So, the notion that only high art is what endures holds little water.

But with respect to the OT, I embrace the new technology and all of its possibilities, because when you were a little kid, enamored with Star Wars, I was trying to squeak decent orchestral sounds out of an original emulator. So, I am thrilled with the capacity of these tools, because they allow me to work the way that I always wanted to work, and to accomplish creatively, what I want to accomplish.

Michael


----------



## mverta

I don't know what you mean by "high art," but it's making my skin crawl a little bit. No matter how many times the terms in this discussion want to be semantically perverted, you either know your shit or you don't, and if you do, it's better.


_Mike


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Piet,

I like your post!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## germancomponist

Yes, Piet`s post is also a very good one.

For a composer who has graduated from a good education and has much experience, for such composers all these new libraries are, of course, a gift. But, as I wrote before, there are unfortunately people who call themselves composers, just only because they have these new libraries. And these "modern composers" use these libraries, and often provide a good sound from, but often it is not good music. 

A dilemma probably also is that know many young film makers do not know how good film music can be?!?!?! These young film makers have often no experience and just follow the fashionable trend: Big drums, drones, sounddesign.... . 

It is a cycle. And the level is not thereby getting better. You ca see this also in many other things...... . :-(


----------



## Ashermusic

germancomponist @ Sun May 22 said:


> Yes, Piet`s post is also a very good one.
> 
> For a composer who has graduated from a good education and has much experience, for such composers all these new libraries are, of course, a gift. But, as I wrote before, there are unfortunately people who call themselves composers, just only because they have these new libraries. And these "modern composers" use these libraries, and often provide a good sound from, but often it is not good music.
> 
> A dilemma probably also is that know many young film makers do not know how good film music can be?!?!?! These young film makers have often no experience and just follow the fashionable trend: Big drums, drones, sounddesign.... .
> 
> It is a cycle. And the level is not thereby getting better. You ca see this also in many other things...... . :-(



Yep.


----------



## synergy543

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> hbuus @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OT: What does HTTYD stand for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had to google it as well.
> 
> Today every thing is in short. Sometimes too much.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL 2M2H

IMO FWIW, YMMV. HTTYD IS AWESO, OTOH, OMGYG2BK BFD. TMOT, BACH RULES.

HTH GR&D,

CYAL8R



WTH, I don't think Google will translate this, so JFF, YCLIU here:

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/text ... ations.asp

TLK2UL8R


----------



## Guy Bacos

Holy cow!!! I gotta go back to school!


----------



## José Herring

germancomponist @ Sun May 22 said:


> ......fashionable trend: Big drums, drones, sounddesign.... .
> :-(



You sound as if these things are easy to do. I've spent the better part of the last two years studying and learning how to do this. I've gotten good at the sound design and drones, but the big drum stuff is still eluding me. But, I do agree there's far too much of people just playing sounds out of the box and thinking that it's good. I don't get it. I scratch my head. As good as the modern libraries are none of them sound like a finished product out of the box. And, I think there in lies the danger. People buy the marketing hype. Then the marketing hype becomes the new standard for music amongst a certain breed of composer. If you don't have "x" library then you don't sound good. It's horrible. And, in all the words that MVerta has posted in this thread, I only agree with one statement. That is that in a lot of ways it is a terrible time to be a composer. I'm running into more and more guys using Symphobia and poorly, that are now getting work as composer. >8o 

It is a shame that we've gone down this direction. But, in a few years all will change again. And the guy only relying on the libraries will go the way of the Jazz composer of the 60's and 70's. We either change and offer something new or we die. It's pretty simple. For all the times Jerry Goldsmith is mentioned, it's never mentioned that he ended his life with a string of rejections. Not because he was a bad composer. But, because he failed to keep up with the technology. I remember hearing one of his animated scores, were he was using eastern flutes with orchestra. He didn't even autotune the flute so it was totally out of tune with the orchestra and wasn't even in the same key range. Sounded horrible to me. The eastern tuning and the western orchestra didn't match at all. I can tell he was trying. The orchestra was trying to adjust, but it was just too far out to get it. Just by chance I happened to hear a score done by the then Media Ventures crew, that used the same orchestration. They ran their eastern and other ethnic flutes though autotune. Made it match the western tuning while keeping the pentatonic scale going and came up with something that sounded great. With that they were able to match with samples the orchestral arrangement around the flutes, then replaced the samples with live orchestra. Quite a brilliant approach really. Great use of the studio and recording technology in bringing the two worlds together.

Of course some of you will say that Jerry was being "true" to the instruments and that the mismatch of keys and out of tune notes with the orchestra added to the "charm". Nah, the truth is he didn't value or know about technological advances in the latter part of his life. Shame really. He started out in the '70's and '80's being the hip go to orchestral guy, only to end up in the end kind of an old hat. 

So I say to the trained composers out there. Don't be afraid of the new. There's value in good sound design. There's value in knowing how to use a studio to it's fullest. There's value in moving beyond the notes and the counterpoint. We are writing for an audience with ever expanding taste. Or course you may fall on your ass trying new things. I do. But in the end I learn something new and the next time I get better at it. It's always easier to fall back on what you know. Easy to knock people, rather than finding out what they're doing right that's catching on and learning it.

I also find it kind of funny that the people that get put up as "new" ground breaking composers like Ives, and Stravinsky wrote music nearly 100 years ago. Not really new. Plus maybe because I've studied it over and over, I find it pretty easy to be "ground breaking" by writing in two different keys simultaneously and in odd meters. I find it much more challenging to make some girl cry playing a single line melody as she's breaking up with her lover. I get hired more for being able to do that than I do for the hours of "cutting edge" contemporary bitonal odd meter music I did when in music school. It's funny how the skill of imparting a genuine emotion in somebody is the most overlooked and neglected skill when talking with composers, but is the only thing the actual public we write for even cares about. Does it make them feel something. They could give a shit about the "craft". Nobody ever did. The craft of composing is far to esoteric for even trained composers to spend too much time contemplating beyond knowing the basic keys and ranges of instruments. Even in Beethoven's time they didn't care about the orchestration and the counterpoint. Write something that somebody can actually feel. Write something that catches somebody's ear. But for God sake. Don't spend your time trying to get approval from other composers whether trained or not. :lol: I find the typical composer ,myself included, far too narrow minded about music to make any kind of fair assessment. Though I do find the crew helpful when I need to pick up a particular set of skills that somebody might know that I don't....yet.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Wicked post, Jose! I can totally relate to the last paragraph.


----------



## synergy543

josejherring @ Sun May 22 said:


> ...So I say to the trained composers out there. Don't be afraid of the new. There's value in good sound design. There's value in knowing how to use a studio to it's fullest. There's value in moving beyond the notes and the counterpoint. We are writing for an audience with ever expanding taste....


Interesting post, particularly you're advice of "Dont be afraid of the new". However, the key operative above is "trained composer". I know you yourself have been through Julliard. I think what Mike V and others are pointing out (as you yourself mentioned), there are many more composers today who are not well-trained or educated. And they seem to be afraid of the old as its a lot easier (and cooler) to grasp hold of the new (every latest synth or sample library has a new 'trick'). However the new "adds" to the old; it doesn't replace it. Its like icing on the cake. But if you only eat the icing, its not so tasty by itself.

Listening to music created only with new trendy techniques and sound design, and without much substantial underlying foundation, rapidly sounds very shallow to my ears. Not too much different to me from UJAM.


----------



## MichaelL

germancomponist @ Sun May 22 said:


> A dilemma probably also is that know many young film makers do not know how good film music can be?!?!?! These young film makers have often no experience and just follow the fashionable trend: Big drums, drones, sounddesign.... .
> 
> It is a cycle. And the level is not thereby getting better. You ca see this also in many other things...... . :-(



My late father was a film-maker. The idea of editing to a temp track would have been completely unfathomable to him. He would have seen it as a crutch. Yet, in a world where this is the norm, how will young film-makers have the opportunity to learn otherwise?

With respect to big drums, drones and sound design, I believe that it is what the average ticket buyer expects and wants, and thus what the bean counters and financiers expect and want. 

By analogy, sometimes it isn't the best actor that gets the role -it's the prettiest, most handsome, whatever. 

I think the big drums, drones, and sound design are merely a reflection of the world in which we live. If you find this to be shallow and uncreative -- look around -- perhaps that this merely a reflection culture in which we are living is the best explanation. 

@Mike V. Yes, one has to know their sh*t. No disagreement there. 

_Michael


----------



## Ed

Great post Jose.

I think people forget how fast things have moved in the last hundred years because of technology, they have no way of knowing what will be remembered from the last 50 years of music but automatically assume for some reason that nothing will because they think its all so shitty.

Mike brought up the issue of longevity, that because these classical composers have lasted for hundreds of years this means that the orchestra and that kind of music is therefore better. I am paraphrasing, please go back a page and read the post yourself. The point I was making with my 3 questions is asking the obvious question, if what Mike is suggesting is true then we should see a vast number of classical composers *all from the same time period *still being listened to. Is that true? When Mozart was alive, how many of his contemporaries are still being listened to? If only 1 or 2 composers survives in this way into the future, will this really be any different to that? I really do think that while intellectually they know that they didn't all live at the same time period, emotionally they imagine that they did. You can't argue with facts and we may only know for sure what this technological age has done to music in the future looking back, but we sure can tell just how well we *should *have to do.

If I may play this:



Sure its distorted ... but is this good music? How would you know? To western tastes it sounds utterly dreadful, we just don't get it. Seriously, just listen all the way through, they frickin love that kid. I think it sounds awful. *THEIR* tastes are different. So how then can we know if this is good or bad music? By what measure do we decide? Is there an objective measure or not? 

The orchestra as we know it is only what we have decided sounds good, the orchestra itself is not special in itself. Many people in this discussion seem to be under the impression that music is this objective tangible thing that everyone agrees with. Quite obviously that is not the case. There is plenty of music, in fact plenty of other art and plenty of foreign customs that we in the west simply do not understand but are extremely important to other cultures. Are their values worth less than ours simply because our culture has permeated most 1st world countries? 

And *intent* and hard work that went into the music (or any art) makes absolutely no difference as to the quality of it. It is only our *perception *that changes our feelings towards it - by *definition* subjective. This is precisely the reason why a lot of modern art while seemingly simple and often ridiculous, lots of people DO like it but most of the time *ONLY* because of the intent of the creator. Art purists however think that you shouldn't need to know what the artist intended the work itself should show some kind of technical skill. When you look at Rembrandt you know its brilliant, you don't need to be told its brilliant. 

So here's where I stand... 

Whether music is written for film or the concert hall or anything else, if we are trying to see if there is an objective basis for what is and what is not good music then we must *completely discard the intent*. If it is however necessary to include intent of the artist or composer in this question in order to make the argument, then we must also accept that there is no real objective basis for it.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I'll say like Mike V when I read Ed's last post, what the hell is he talking about? Stop mixing apple with oranges.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> I'll say like Mike V when I read Ed's last post, what the hell is he talking about? Stop mixing apple with oranges.



*EDIT*:

{deleted}

I tell you what, you tell me how I am comparing apples and oranges. o=? You won't of course, because the truth is, you have no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I've retired arguing with you, and life is better since. o=? o=? o=?

Edit. I see you edited your post,...


----------



## choc0thrax

It's weird that I can easily like Clint Mansell more than any classical composer and I don't think the guy can even read music.

(o)


----------



## MichaelL

Ed,

I'm really glad that you posted that clip. I was going to make the point that the assumption of quality running through this thread is based on Western/European standards. It's sort of the equivalent of posting a sign the reads "you're in America, speak English." 

But the audience is global, and it brings more than just western ears to the theater.
To paraphrase Mike V, I guess that if any of us had to compose in that idiom, we wouldn't "know our sh*t." In fact we would suck. 


_Michael


----------



## José Herring

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> josejherring @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So I say to the trained composers out there. Don't be afraid of the new. There's value in good sound design. There's value in knowing how to use a studio to it's fullest. There's value in moving beyond the notes and the counterpoint. We are writing for an audience with ever expanding taste....
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting post, particularly you're advice of "Dont be afraid of the new". However, the key operative above is "trained composer". I know you yourself have been through Julliard. I think what Mike V and others are pointing out (as you yourself mentioned), there are many more composers today who are not well-trained or educated. And they seem to be afraid of the old as its a lot easier (and cooler) to grasp hold of the new (every latest synth or sample library has a new 'trick'). However the new "adds" to the old; it doesn't replace it. Its like icing on the cake. But if you only eat the icing, its not so tasty by itself.
> 
> Listening to music created only with new trendy techniques and sound design, and without much substantial underlying foundation, rapidly sounds very shallow to my ears. Not too much different to me from UJAM.
Click to expand...


I try to forget as often as possible my past. Though in truth I'm not very good at forgetting. Truth is that for some reason, people that hire me tend to like the fact that I can mix the old with the new. Maybe as I get further along in my career that will be my calling card. But, in the end I couldn't even imagine scoring a film not knowing what Bernard Herrmann did, as well as not knowing certain scores like Batman or Inception. I just love music that's effective no matter if the guy doing it is trained in the traditional sense or not.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything. There has always been folkish art are since the dawn of man and there will always be.

But let me give you an example. What makes Tchaikovsky so different from the other russian composers before him? He was to first russian composer to reach international recognition. One of the things that defines artistic genius is its universality. It's way beyond folkish art. It's the same for ALL the greats, otherwise we just don't hear of them and we still do 50, 100 and 400 years later. They crafted their art in such a way that it reaches everybody, except choco. :mrgreen: And they probably do know their shit really well! As Mike would say. I think it is possible some day we will see geniuses in the world of virtual music. Who knows?


----------



## dcoscina

Jose, I dearly wish you hadn't compared jazz composers from the '60s to composers relying on libraries....it's a very bad bad analogy. You should have compared sample library composers to the guys who did cheesy '80s synth scores with DX7 rhodes patches and LinnDrums all over the place. That's a more suitable comparison. 

Guys from the '60s and '70s are fellows like Lalo Schifrin, Jerry Fielding, Bill Conti, those chaps, and guys who could also write orchestral music more than competently.


----------



## choc0thrax

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> They crafted their art in such a way that it reaches everybody, except choco.



If you think it's just me you need to step outside into the general population sometime. I have a friend in Paramus N.J. who mainly just listens to 2pac and who's favourite weekend activities include eating nacho chips off an Atlantic City hotel room floor while wasted. I'll ask him what he thinks of Tchaikovsky and let you know if his music has reached him.


----------



## dcoscina

As far as this whole technology thing in music goes, it's simple: sample libraries allow less trained or non trained musicians to sound pretty good with little effort. The same cannot be said of writing for orchestra. You can sound bad pretty easily without proper voice leading and orchestration. It's not subjective, it's a fact. Because these libraries are getting cheaper and more affordable, anyone can "compose" music. Or should I say, anyone can bang out something that the average shmo could not discern from a more involved piece composed by a trained musician (by trained, I don't mean formally necessarily but someone who has through time and work, studied the discipline in some fashion). 

I do find it more than a little interesting who here advocates for which side. On average, the schooled or trained musicians vehemently defend the fact that there is an objectivity quality to music, like any discipline. 

The admitted self taught or untrained group veer off into quasi philosophical reasoning to support their stance. I don't mind getting all New Agey once in a while to ponder what the effect of music all means but it's a go-to crutch and frankly a bit of a cop out to always defer to this wishy washy stance whenever the conversation gets too analytical because heaven forbid we ever treat music with the same respect physics or any other evolved system gets. Rolls eyes...


----------



## Guy Bacos

Choco, that was just a tease BTW about one of your earlier post.

Of course when one says international recognition, it does not include every single of the 6.92 billion people on this planet. Give me some leeway.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything. There has always been folkish art are since the dawn of man and there will always be.



Except I asked you specific questions about that. 

Is it good music? How would you know? They all seem to love it, do you love it like they do? If not why not? To me it sounds like a total mess, and not just because the recording is distorted. By what objective measure can we say that that music is good or not? Why is it western audiences hate that while if you live in their culture they really appreciate it? 

If there is an objective measure rather than personal taste then lets hear it. I certainly believe there is one, but so many people keep wanting to act like their own subjective feelings are fact. How do you measure how good, or not, that music is? I think it is possible to do that, in theory, even if I don't like the music myself. Its a very simple question and if you gave it any thought I think you'd soon realise how unobjective your opinions are.



> But let me give you an example. What makes Tchaikovsky so different from the other russian composers before him? He was to first russian composer to reach international recognition.



That sounds like a really boring reason to think he is a great composer.



> It's way beyond folkish art.



This isn't folk like some back water town's band playing in a pub somewhere, its traditional chinese opera. What makes it inherently worse than something written for the orchestra? What makes his voice worse than an western opera singer's voice? Until that sinks in you will forever just keep saying the same things over and over again.



> They crafted their art in such a way that it reaches everybody, except choco. :mrgreen:



By everybody you mean the "classical" audience, apparently "everybody" mean something different in your language.



> I think it is possible some day we will see geniuses in the world of virtual music. Who knows?



But how would you know if there were any if you have already discounted out of hand anything not orchestral by acting like it must necessarily be of less musical worth?

A guy can spent countless years just coming up with amazing synth sounds, he can go to all manner of scientific lengths to come up with them, the frequencies, the harmonies etc... but its not orchestral ...and what if he also can't read music? So what.. notation is merely a way of expressing music, it can equally be expressed in mathematical terms, as can everything. Notation is not the language of the gods. In the end the people that would appreciate it would be people that recognise all his work, the same way people appreciate Mozart when they understand the lengths he went to. The real question is... does any of that matter when you DON'T KNOW and you're *just *listening to the music itself? What is left when you discard all these personal opinions and subjective bias' is cold hard science, that is where you will find objectivity, if there is any to be found.

Thats why I keep harping on at you about what makes the orchestra this somehow godly symbol of the best music the universe can possibly offer?


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything.



What it proves is my point, that once you come from the assumption that Western/European music is the standard by which all music is to be measured, you are incapable of accepting, or hearing, anything else.

@David --I respectfully disagree. The division that I see is between those who have a romantic notion of carrying forward a sacred torch and the pragmatists, who understand that we are talking about commercial music. 

The reality is that only a very very small percentage of the programs/films produced demand music that is even remotely close to that which you and Mike V. refer.

There's not much room for Beethoven or Goldsmith, in between the car wrecks and bodily function humor that dominate films these days. So, the holier than thou schtick is a bit oxymoronic.

On the other hand, if your'e talking about concert music, by all means shoot for the stars.


----------



## germancomponist

josejherring @ Sun May 22 said:


> germancomponist @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......fashionable trend: Big drums, drones, sounddesign.... .
> :-(
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound as if these things are easy to do. ...
Click to expand...


Oh no, I know it can be very hard to get best results, because I also make sounddesign.

But, this is not the point here when I talk about good music compositions.

Sound design is sound design, and music composition is music composition. Sure, in the modern scores there is now mostly a mix of both, and I think there is nothing wrong with 
this. 

But a best sound design will not automatically transform a so so music into a best one... .

Apples and oranges, at least for my understanding. 

BTW, your completely post is a good post! o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed

dcoscina @ Sun May 22 said:


> On average, the schooled or trained musicians vehemently defend the fact that there is an objectivity quality to music, like any discipline.
> .



And you'd think they would be in the best position to provide evidence of this objectivity, wouldn't you? 

Yet what invariably happens is people are defending their own *TASTE *rather than just dealing with the *FACTS*, which is why it never works.


----------



## Guy Bacos

MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it proves is my point, that once you come from the assumption that Western/European music is the standard by which all music is to be measured, you are incapable of accepting, or hearing, anything else.
Click to expand...


I'm not assuming that, so I can't relate to that. BTW, in my last post I did state my views about this a folkloric culture video or whatever Ed wants to call it.


----------



## dcoscina

Not sure this applies but for years I just couldn't get into Stravinsky's music. I tried and tried and just couldn't. Much preferred Prokofiev whose music always had an emotional impact as well as a technical one on me. But, just this last year, I "got" Stravinsky. I even had a chance to hear the TSO perform the Rite of Spring live. Amazing piece and it gets as loud as a rock concert in places (yes, I've been to a few in my youth so I know how loud they are). 

I think the biggest concern I have with some of the sentiments being discussed here is that no one wants to do the work and try to get better at music. Why should they? If music is all interpretation rather than a system that's evolved over several centuries, why should they? I think it's a pity because it's less the amateurish attitude that troubles me but the lack of interest in getting better at this craft. getting better by futzing around with technology all day doesn't make you a better musician, regardless of whether you think it does. That's not music- that's technology. 

I would bet that the beloved Thomas J. has had more than a little grounding in music theory to be able to do what he does, just as Alex Temple and Guy Bacos, the guys whose music continues to impress me here, even if it's self studying. The route of sample libraries allows people to be lazy and cut corners. Again, superficially, most cannot tell the difference but it's still there.

I think the best analogy I can come up with is comparing music to martial arts (a lot of musicians, especially jazz guys do both). Do you think anyone could spend a day watching YouTube videos or playing Mortal Combat (or whatever, I don't play fight video games) for a week or so then square off against a master at any martial art whether it's Tae Kwon Do, JuJitsu, Wing Chun, Karate, Judo or Aikido and do well against them. Odds are no. Yeah, you'll find one or two natural fighters but most folks would have their asses handed to them in no time because the martial arts master has learnt THE SYSTEM through years of hard work and training. Movie watchers can still enjoy and awe at Keanu Reeves' slick moves in The Matrix but that doesn't mean he could do very well against even against someone as old as Ip Chun. but to the casual spectator, they wouldn't know the difference. It's kinda the same thing with composing. At least that's how I see it. I'm still learning because writing better music interests me. I do like my sample libs but more from the practical standpoint that I don't have an orchestra or jazz group waiting to play my stuff on a whim.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ed, if you,re looking for a scientific way for me to prove one music is better than the other, the answer is, no, there is none. However, you can believe in something without having a scientific answer all the time. For me it's common sense, but I know for a lot of people will take this is an insult to their taste, but that's my opinion.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> BTW, in my last post I did state my views about this a folkloric culture video or whatever Ed wants to call it.



It was around long before the orchestra was ever created and yet they all still love it. This isn't pop music. This is music with a deep history and past, something that has spanned generations upon generations. Yet you dismiss it with a wave of your hand as nothing more than "folk music". Some might see that as incredibly arrogant. They may even ask you, what makes the orchestra or western opera so much better? But you can't answer that, becuase if you did you'd have to give some kind of scientific reason he can't arge with.


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it proves is my point, that once you come from the assumption that Western/European music is the standard by which all music is to be measured, you are incapable of accepting, or hearing, anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming that, so I can't relate to that. BTW, in my last post I did state my views about this a folkloric culture video or whatever Ed wants to call it.
Click to expand...



You perceive the music as "folkloric" when in fact (I'm not a music historian) it may be the equivalent of Tchaikovsky --to the Chinese.


----------



## dcoscina

MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @David --I respectfully disagree. The division that I see is between those who have a romantic notion of carrying forward a sacred torch and the pragmatists, who understand that we are talking about commercial music.
> 
> The reality is that only a very very small percentage of the programs/films produced demand music that is even remotely close to that which you and Mike V. refer.
Click to expand...


I think if we're discussing this solely in the context of film music or any commercial music venture, than of course you can bring in the pragmatics of working in such an industry. I don't think Mike V was assigning any reasons as to why music isn't as good as it used to be but rather just lamenting that the technique ain't there any longer. Whether it's a high minded romanticized ideal or not, it's just an observation based on a purely objective, analytical standpoint.


----------



## synergy543

Ed & Michael L, the thread topic was on virtual orchestras with a summary of the current western sample library offerings. 

Nevertheless, there are far more well-educated and classically trained musicians in all of Asia than in the US and UK combined. You might ask yourself what their interest in western music might be? In fact, just in Japan alone, the general public is far more musically educated that that here in the U.S. Everyone in Japan is taught to read western music - not gagaku. In fact, few people in Japan have much exposure to traditional styles such a gagaku compared to western music. And to appreciate western music, it helps to have some music education. Japanese with their interest in Western music are not judging it as superior to traditional Japanese music, its a different language. And they just seem to be more eager and thirsty to learn than their western counterparts. Everyone starting in elementary school is taught to read and write western music. A much larger percentage go on to learn musical instruments. The "developers" in Japan such as Yamaha take a very active role in music education, not just racking up sales of instruments. The general atmosphere is greatly encourages the study and active participation in western music.

@Michael L - Nobody is judging other music by western standards; just as nobody is judging western music by gagaku or traditional Chinese music standards. This isn't American Idol. They each have history and merit of their own. Its not a zero-sum game where one wins and the other loses. Just like Charlie Sheen, win-win, its bi-winning dude!


----------



## Guy Bacos

MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that asian video Ed posted, and I don't see how that proves anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it proves is my point, that once you come from the assumption that Western/European music is the standard by which all music is to be measured, you are incapable of accepting, or hearing, anything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not assuming that, so I can't relate to that. BTW, in my last post I did state my views about this a folkloric culture video or whatever Ed wants to call it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You perceive the music as "folkloric" when in fact (I'm not a music historian) it may be the equivalent of Tchaikovsky --to the Chinese.
Click to expand...


Come on now, you don't need to be a history buff to clearly see that this art is a reflection of their culture. All countries have that, and that video is extremely cultural attached. Often these things don't mean much to other countries.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed, if you,re looking for a scientific way for me to prove one music is better than the other, the answer is, no, there is none. However, you can believe in something without having a scientific answer all the time. For me it's common sense, but I know for a lot of people will take this is an insult to their taste, but that's my opinion.



What a wonderful admission!

If we don't have science* all we have* is subjectivity and opinion. If you can demonstrate a claim is objectively true then that* is science. *

Your failing is apparently believing that you can have objective facts without actually needing any.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Hey Ed, how come your avatar is so much bigger than the rest, I read the limitation is 100 X 100, yours is clearly bigger.


----------



## synergy543

Ed, it is scientific fact there are far more people in Asia interested in western music than in the western world.


----------



## Guy Bacos

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed, it is scientific fact there are far more people in Asia interested in western music than in the western world.



Right, I'm sure Asian people loves Gershwin, but I doubt that video will appeal to the rest of the world.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ed must be preparing 8 more questions.


----------



## Ed

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed & Michael L, the thread topic was on virtual orchestras with a summary of the current western sample library offerings.



I think we went off the thread topic some time ago. 



> Nevertheless, there are far more well-educated and classically trained musicians in all of Asia than in the US and UK combined.



You ignore the point for some reason. The question is why do the Chinese think that little boy sounds so good and you, presumably, do not? On what do *they* judge his technical abilities? They don't just think he is just some kid singing chinese opera, they quite clearly think he is amazing. But *you* can't see it, why not? Doesn't it interest you to ask questions like... "_WHY do people have different tastes to me? HOW do they hear music so DIFFERENTLY to ME?_" Apparently the Chinese, for this example, have a different way of hearing and judging what is good and what isn't. You hear a mess, they hear a child prodigy. What reason can you give that says your taste is objectively better than theirs?



> You might ask yourself what their interest in western music might be?



Because its the music of the gods?

No its because western culture has permeated all these first world cultures. You will also find many of them extrodinarily good at electric guitar, but as we have already discovered this thread shows that only the orchestra is the sound of the gods. They also love western pop music, what does that prove do you think? But you ignore these facts, because it doesn't suit your argument.

Humanity has found that carving pieces of wood and bending metal etc in certain ways produce certain frequencies that are found to be generally pleasing to most cultures played in certain ways. The orchestra is an evolution of an ensemble of these instruments that has been generally accepted for many hundred years. Even what is considered "in tune" is not an absolute in relation to what people like. You are stuck literally with your head in ONE time period, in ONE culture and stating that this is the only true way to see things ignoring everything surrounding it. That to me is not just wrong but very limiting.




> @Michael L - Nobody is judging other music by western standards; just as nobody is judging western music by gagaku or traditional Chinese music standards. This isn't American Idol. They each have history and merit of their own. Its not a zero-sum game where one wins and the other loses. Just like Charlie Sheen, win-win, its bi-winning dude!



If so, why would any of you compare The Beatles to Mozart? Why are we even having this argument? Of course people are. It was said that synths and drums for example are of inherently less music value and worth than the orchestra. Why? No reason has been given and no reason will be given that is going to be based on anything more than someones personal taste.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> yours is clearly bigger.



That's what she said!

(I get a bigger avatar because I'm awesome. _-) )


----------



## Ed

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed, it is scientific fact there are far more people in Asia interested in western music than in the western world.



It is a scientific fact that more people listen to pop and folk music in the world than they do listening to classical music. So is popularity now a case for what makes something better? Does this mean Justin Bieber is now pretty damn awesome? If the population of the world is getting so desensitized to great music and music generally is going down the tubes, as people claim here, then eventually when less and less people listen to the kinds of great music that you love, or even stops listening at all, does that mean its now not good music anymore if no one is listening? 

See, when you apply your logic equally it all falls apart. Once you try and bring in science and reason to defend something so indefensible as your own personal taste you're going to get a hard time.

And you still don't understand what I am talking about when bringing up traditional Chinese opera and why they like it and western ears don't. Oh well.


----------



## synergy543

MikeV and GuyB were right.

What the hell is Ed talking about? His analogies and logic are so twisted, one wouldn't know where to begin.

Its like arguing with a drug addict - delusional assumptions, relentless and confused.

Are you OK man? Because there is help.

This is a great book btw,
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-Gensler/dp/0415226759/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1306098820&sr=8-7 (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logi ... 820&amp;sr=8-7)

Toodaloo!


----------



## germancomponist

Friends, please stop this way of discussion! It is not worth it!
0oD


----------



## dcoscina

I agree Gunther. No one should insult someone else. We're just talking music here...it's supposed to be a nice thing.


----------



## germancomponist

dcoscina @ Sun May 22 said:


> I agree Gunther. No one should insult someone else. We're just talking music here...it's supposed to be a nice thing.



+1


----------



## Ed

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> MikeV and GuyB were right.
> 
> What the hell is Ed talking about? His analogies and logic are so twisted, one wouldn't know where to begin.



So please explain it to me Synergy! What is so wrong with my comparisons? Why won't you answer my questions or even explain why the questions are flawed?

This is the bottom line, so please pay attention.... 

*If you want to state that your opinions about music are objectively true, then be prepared to have to defend that on those terms. No subjective arguments are valid.*

You claimed that more people outside the west listen to classical music than people in the west, as if this therefore proves classical music is better. A logical fallacy anyway even assuming it is true, but like so many of these things you don't apply this logic equally because if you did you would understand why you can't possibly use this argument. I demonstrated that to you and yet you just insist I'm not making any sence. It seems like everyone understands me perfectly so long as you aren't someone that is trying to stubbornly insist they are right no matter what and has to intentionally misunderstand me on purpose.

All I am asking is for you or anyone else that agrees with you to provide a valid logical and scientific argument to demonstrate your point, I have literally seen absolutely no one do that and I challenge you to find a single example. Cut and paste it or something, the best argument you can find.



> This is a great book btw,
> http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-Gensler/dp/0415226759/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1306098820&sr=8-7 (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logi ... 820&amp;sr=8-7)



Funny... ever heard of Argumentan ad Populum? Its whats known as a logical fallacy, its logic 101 .... yet you still made this fallacy and still insist its valid despite the fact that when applied equally it doesn't work in your favour anyway.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Well he IS relentless.


----------



## synergy543

Ed, I wasn't stating my opinion, just the facts.

There is no "correct" scientific answer, so you can draw your own conclusions.

Ciao


----------



## Ed

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed, I wasn't stating my opinion,* just the facts.*
> 
> *There is no "correct" scientific answer*, so you can draw your own conclusions.
> 
> Ciao



(Emphasis mine)


Congrats on managing to contradict yourself in such a short post and still not understand why...

I'll come back later and see if I can see anything more than hand waving and empty dismissals


----------



## TheUnfinished

Well, I'd say page 7 before the personal attacks start is quite good going frankly...

I may not necessarily agree with everything Ed is saying but he's pretty much the only person in this thread whose argument has any intellectual integrity (and I found it perfectly easy to understand). He's pointing out that many of the rules/measurements applied in previous posts don't actually stand up to much investigation (in some cases they have practically been contradictory). Doesn't mean that results arrived at are fundamentally wrong, just that the means by which they were arrived at are.

Ed's not so worried about what's being said, more how it's being intellectually justified.


----------



## choc0thrax

Ed is insidious. 8) I tend to gloss over his posts because they're too long but occasionally read bits of it and you don't think you've wasted too much time until you look at the clock and it's tomorrow and you've read like 1400 debate posts. I generally think of all replies to Ed's posts as white blood cells attacking a virus. _-) o[])


----------



## Guy Bacos

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed's not so worried about what's being said, more how it's being intellectually justified.



We all understand that, but we only have only life to live. Is it possible to understand that?


----------



## germancomponist

I am sure: If some people with different oppinions would sit together in a pub, drink some beer or wine...., at the end of the evening they would laugh all together!


----------



## TheUnfinished

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ed's not so worried about what's being said, more how it's being intellectually justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all understand that, but we only have only life to live. Is it possible to understand that?
Click to expand...

Perfectly understandable Guy. But, some people enjoy a rigorous intellectual debate and enjoy taking up part of their life with them! Ed is tenacious, undoubtedly, but he's just seeking a thorough argument. 

As Gunther says, if we were in a pub we'd all enjoy it more (so long as everyone got a round in!) and realise that even the most fiercely argued point is not meant to harm. Which is why personal attacks are so unnecessary - they're almost always an admission of failure on the attackers part.


----------



## mverta

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> I may not necessarily agree with everything Ed is saying but he's pretty much the only person in this thread whose argument has any intellectual integrity (and I found it perfectly easy to understand).



Yes, but you guys are smarter than we are. Have some compassion; we really try. You know, between baloney sandwiches and whatnot while we wait for the short bus to arrive.




_Mike


----------



## Guy Bacos

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ed's not so worried about what's being said, more how it's being intellectually justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all understand that, but we only have only life to live. Is it possible to understand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfectly understandable Guy. But, some people enjoy a rigorous intellectual debate and enjoy taking up part of their life with them! Ed is tenacious, undoubtedly, but he's just seeking a thorough argument.
> 
> As Gunther says, if we were in a pub we'd all enjoy it more (so long as everyone got a round in!) and realise that even the most fiercely argued point is not meant to harm. Which is why personal attacks are so unnecessary - they're almost always an admission of failure on the attackers part.
Click to expand...



I think a good debater is one who could deal with different kinds of people as well, I'm sorry if Mike Verta, Synergy and myself are not to the intellectual level of Ed. I guess that rules us out for further discussions, cause we sincerely thought we gave some valid points. I am surprise you take a side like this, we all gave it our best shot and then to be told we have no intellectual integrity, well there's nothing left to say I guess.


----------



## Ed

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> Well, I'd say page 7 before the personal attacks start is quite good going frankly...
> 
> I may not necessarily agree with everything Ed is saying but he's pretty much the only person in this thread whose argument has any intellectual integrity (and I found it perfectly easy to understand). He's pointing out that many of the rules/measurements applied in previous posts don't actually stand up to much investigation (in some cases they have practically been contradictory). Doesn't mean that results arrived at are fundamentally wrong, just that the means by which they were arrived at are.
> 
> Ed's not so worried about what's being said, more how it's being intellectually justified.



Thanks and exactly...

I don't even disagree that the orchestra and its history is great because its so rooted in intellectual skill. I will also agree that we are to a certain extent loosing that. Its a kind of mathematical brilliance that could be called that objective basis I refer to. Here's the thing though... even if I don't care for a lot of the music I can still respect it for this reason. That's because you can't argue with facts... 

Anyway.. my problem comes when people insist its something much, much more than that.

Like... that this is the *only *example of music and ensemble that can achieve this. Notation is not some perfect way of representing music, its just a way to express mathematical terms. Lets also not forget ALL sound is a sine wave and as I have said over and over just because westerners hear things one way doesn't mean that is the best way and the only way as that evidently is not the case. 

If you can't communicate to someone in another language, the language you use is that of mathematics because its always the same everywhere. In the same way I guess the best way to put this might be how to explain to someone who has always been deaf that has been living completely separate from our culture all their life why orchestral classical music is the best and most artistic music. You'd have to use science to show him since he can't hear anything, potentially you could show that Beethoven's 5th is far more complex and harmonically interesting than plenty of other music. But that is the most you could do and that is I believe as far as you could go. 

(is this post long enough for you Choco?  I actually wrote stuff I then deleted loooool)


----------



## mverta

Oh,
The wheels on the bus go round and round!
Round and round!
Round and round!

The wheels on the bus go round and round!
All through the town!


----------



## lux

Ed i'm afraid youre being the nude girl on the magazine for a couple of one-man sessions here. Stop keeping the guys excited


----------



## TheUnfinished

Look, I wasn't talking about people not having intellectual integrity and being smarter than others, I was just talking about the way that arguments are generally conducted in debates because that was the approach Ed was taking.

I said I didn't necessarily agree with Ed, just that I could see where he was coming from and how he was arguing... all in the light of the fact that someone had decided to make a personal comment about him.

My terminology probably wasn't the best, but I was merely talking from the angle of arguing a case. I actually don't think the subject can be argued like this. I was just trying to defend someone who I understood and didn't think deserved the comment he got.


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Sun May 22 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may not necessarily agree with everything Ed is saying but he's pretty much the only person in this thread whose argument has any intellectual integrity (and I found it perfectly easy to understand).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you guys are smarter than we are. Have some compassion; we really try. You know, between baloney sandwiches and whatnot while we wait for the short bus to arrive.
Click to expand...


C'mon Mike. I'm a big fan of your music -- not always your arguments. There have always been great composers and not great composers. Writers with chops and without. Yes, to a large degree, some of those without have been forgotten. 

I think what this thread is about is people being pissed off at those, whom they perceive to be of lesser talent, or who have somehow cheated the system, because they didn't put in the time, are getting work, and are making money --that by implication should go to the more deserving.

That sentiment has reared its head through every successive generation of composers. There was a time, when jazz was thought of as the anti-music, then rock n' roll, then hip hop, etc. 

So the daemon among some film composers now is the "sound design" score. Perhaps it's a silly question, but didn't Beethoven put bird calls in the the 6th? Wasn't there a cannon in the 1812 overture? Aren't these examples of "sound-design" compositions? There's room for reasonable argument that Beethoven and Tchaikovsky might use the tools available today. As, Peit is fond of Prokofiev, perhaps the answer can be found within Prokofiev's grandson Gabriel. http://gabrielprokofiev.com/ 

_Michael


----------



## Guy Bacos

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> Look, I wasn't talking about people not having intellectual integrity and being smarter than others, I was just talking about the way that arguments are generally conducted in debates because that was the approach Ed was taking.
> 
> I said I didn't necessarily agree with Ed, just that I could see where he was coming from and how he was arguing... all in the light of the fact that someone had decided to make a personal comment about him.
> 
> My terminology probably wasn't the best, but I was merely talking from the angle of arguing a case. I actually don't think the subject can be argued like this. I was just trying to defend someone who I understood and didn't think deserved the comment he got.



What do you say about the people who believe in God, or a God? Are you going to ask them for scientific proof? It's not because from our end it's not as intellectually challenging or scientific that it is less valid. We are talking about music here, and this is an art, arguments should be flexible both ways, not one more than the other, but at the end of the day we are just tired of this relentless, on going, never ending debate, and would like to come out of this with some satisfaction. I believe this, I don't need to give him a scientific reason why, there is no scientific reason, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or my points aren't valid.


----------



## mverta

MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:


> I think what this thread is about is people being pissed off at those, whom they perceive to be of lesser talent, or who have somehow cheated the system, because they didn't put in the time, are getting work, and are making money --that by implication should go to the more deserving.



Well this sure as hell isn't where I was coming from. If you've "cheated the system" and are making money at it hand over first, congrats, I say. My position is more... esoteric? I'm sad for the craft, for the art, for the missed opportunities, and for those who are intentionally or unintentionally limiting themselves for lack of some woodshedding. 

I will never concede that great works are a lark or can be waltzed into without tons of dedication and training. And my original post about why it's a dark time to be a composer is because we're living at time when what would otherwise be mere tools have become "legitimization" vehicles in their own right, and they have largely prospered at the exclusion of more actual empowerment for their users. I can't listen to the vast majority of music today and possibly feel otherwise. I just can't!


_Mike


----------



## Ed

lux @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed i'm afraid youre being the nude girl on the magazine for a couple of one-man sessions here. Stopkeeping the guys excited



Yea. No one is saying anything of substance now so I don't have much interest anymore . I am a bit disapointed in Mike though, oh well.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> It's not because from our end it's not as intellectually challenging or scientific that it is less valid. We are talking about music here, and this is an art, arguments should be flexible both ways, not one more than the other, but at the end of the day we are just tired of this relentless, on going, never ending debate, and would like to come out of this with some satisfaction. I believe this, I don't need to give him a scientific reason why, there is no scientific reason, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or my points aren't valid.



I agree Guy. This isn't a terribly useful way to talk about music and I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with Ed's overall argument twice.

But, he was asking a couple of questions in direct response to some claims that had been made in order to back up the position opposite to his. He disagreed, pointed out why and asked how people saw these original justifications in light of his counter-argument. In response to this someone made a personal comment about him.

I thought that was unfair. That is all.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> What do you say about the people who believe in God, or a God? Are you going to ask them for scientific proof?



I really don't know why I am bothering... but... 

If someone who believes in god says their belief is an *objective fact * then yes, I can ask them to back that up with science. If they can't, guess what? Its not an objective fact. If however they say it is a personal belief, based only on feelings not logic or science, then no I can't. 

I wonder if this is some kind of admission that you see your opinions about music as comparable to religious belief. I guess that would explain why you're always so unreasonable. 




> I believe this, I don't need to give him a scientific reason why, there is no scientific reason, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or my points aren't valid.



If you have no scientific reason then your position cannot be objectively true, by definition.If you're going to say something is an objective fact you're going to have to produce some or people have every justification to call you on it. Sorry you don't like that.


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Sun May 22 said:


> MichaelL @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what this thread is about is people being pissed off at those, whom they perceive to be of lesser talent, or who have somehow cheated the system, because they didn't put in the time, are getting work, and are making money --that by implication should go to the more deserving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well this sure as hell isn't where I was coming from. If you've "cheated the system" and are making money at it hand over first, congrats, I say. My position is more... esoteric? I'm sad for the craft, for the art, for the missed opportunities, and for those who are intentionally or unintentionally limiting themselves for lack of some woodshedding.
> 
> I will never concede that great works are a lark or can be waltzed into without tons of dedication and training. And my original post about why it's a dark time to be a composer is because we're living at time when what would otherwise be mere tools have become "legitimization" vehicles in their own right, and they have largely prospered at the exclusion of more actual empowerment for their users. I can't listen to the vast majority of music today and possibly feel otherwise. I just can't!
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...



Fair enough. I misinterpreted your tone. Look, I feel the same way about song lyrics, although I haven't written a song in a few decades. The illiterate crap that passes for lyrics today is totally moronic compared to Ira Gershwin, Cole Porter, or the Bergmans. So, yes, I'm sad for the craft of songwriting. I can barely listen to what is current, without finding it jaw-droppingly stupid. So, in that sense I get where you're coming from -- musically. But, on the other hand, it is a reflection of our culture, which makes me even more sad. 

With respect to the tools -- it is a good time for me, as a composer. I can't deny that.
Like I said, I can do now, what I only dreamed of 28 years ago, and that is immensely satisfying. 

_Michael


----------



## mverta

Lyrics are a great parallel. God how vapid they've become, for the most part. I don't think people are even trying anymore. But such is the case with great dialogue, as well. What's the last piece of great dialogue from a movie that entered the lexicon pervasively?


_Mike

P.S. If you were working 28 years ago, then you MORE than know what I'm talking about. And yes, I love the toolset we have as well.


----------



## Guy Bacos

TheUnfinished @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not because from our end it's not as intellectually challenging or scientific that it is less valid. We are talking about music here, and this is an art, arguments should be flexible both ways, not one more than the other, but at the end of the day we are just tired of this relentless, on going, never ending debate, and would like to come out of this with some satisfaction. I believe this, I don't need to give him a scientific reason why, there is no scientific reason, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or my points aren't valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Guy. This isn't a terribly useful way to talk about music and I've already said that I don't necessarily agree with Ed's overall argument twice.
> 
> But, he was asking a couple of questions in direct response to some claims that had been made in order to back up the position opposite to his. He disagreed, pointed out why and asked how people saw these original justifications in light of his counter-argument. In response to this someone made a personal comment about him.
> 
> 
> I thought that was unfair. That is all.
Click to expand...


You thought that wasn't fair, ok fair enough. But remember that wasn't a comment from me. What about what Ed has just said to me in his last post, is that fair?



Ed @ Sun May 22 said:


> I wonder if this is some kind of admission that you see your opinions about music as comparable to religious belief. I guess that would explain why you're always so unreasonable.



Did I deserve this? His tone is of the upmost arrogance, if anything showing his insecurity of fearing not being right.

and this:



Ed @ Sun May 22 said:


> I really don't know why I am bothering... but...




I enjoy talking with you even though we are as well debating, but I can at least relate to your replies.


----------



## Ed

Seeing as how you are quite evidently unreasonable, yes Guy, you did deserve that. Why did you ask questions and again ignore my answers? Why did you ask them in the first place if you never intended to care about what anyone has to say? I find it kind of funny that you just asked a question, ignored my answer again but at the same time wonder why I say things like that to you? And you wonder why I find you frustrating? According to Synergy I am like a drug addict that makes no sence whatsoever. Apparently thats fine. o[]) 

*Anyways... I actually more or less agree with Mike about maybe 85% of what he is complaining about. Its just this 15% that bothers me because it's completely baseless and makes no sence.*


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ed @ Sun May 22 said:


> Seeing as how you are quite evidently unreasonable, yes Guy, you did deserve that. Why did you ask questions and again ignore my answers? And you wonder why I find you frustrating? According to Synergy I am like a drug addict that makes no sence whatsoever. Apparently thats fine to you.



That's fine to me? Would you please quote me where I said, I agree. Maybe I agree and maybe I don't, but that's my business and I didn't state anything of that sort here.

The only thing I agree is that you are relentless.

Since you love to sticking to facts, please stick to that. That's what quotes are for.


----------



## Ed

Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:


> Ed @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as how you are quite evidently unreasonable, yes Guy, you did deserve that. Why did you ask questions and again ignore my answers? And you wonder why I find you frustrating? According to Synergy I am like a drug addict that makes no sence whatsoever. Apparently thats fine to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine to me? Would you please quote me where I said, I agree..
Click to expand...


I would say you agree by your obvious support for people like Synergy and the fact you say the same kinds of things. It is kind of insulting to ask questions of someone, ignore their answers then pretend they said something else or just hand wave it as being absurd without ever trying to explain why, then complain about it when they act mildly annoyed with you for doing that. I think I have more cause to be insulted than you do. All I have ever got is frustrated by your attitude, yet I get called names. But we've all been here before, so I'm going to stick to the topic.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Guys, I'm asking you to please stay on topic and stop making this personal. It only dilutes the thread and ends up derailing it. Debates can be won without getting personal.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Ed @ Sun May 22 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed @ Sun May 22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as how you are quite evidently unreasonable, yes Guy, you did deserve that. Why did you ask questions and again ignore my answers? And you wonder why I find you frustrating? According to Synergy I am like a drug addict that makes no sence whatsoever. Apparently thats fine to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine to me? Would you please quote me where I said, I agree..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you agree by your support for people like Synergy and the fact you say the same kinds of things. It is insulting to ask questions of someone, ignore their answers then pretend they said something else or just hand wave it as being absurd without every trying to explain why. I think I have more cause to be insulted than you do. All I have ever got is frustrated by your attitude, yet I get called names. But we've all been here before, so I'm going to stick to the topic.
Click to expand...


There's a big difference in agreeing with someone else's views and what you were implying, that I agreed about his comment you didn't like. Maybe I do agree with that comment and maybe I don,t, but you'll never know, since it's my business.


----------



## synergy543

OK, I think I'm responsible for sending this off in the wrong direction by ticking Ed off and then leaving here for him to bash others.

My bad.

Ed, my apologies to you sir. I should keep my thoughts and opinions to myself or should have sent you a PM with my concern. I just didn't have time for an endless debate (and I'm well aware of your tactics sir) because I'm working on something much more interesting here - a few different music projects.

So I kind of took my best shots and left. Well, I think debating subjective topics in pseudo-scientific way is rather meaningless so I won't carry on a fruitless arguement with you. As I said, the several interesting facts have been stated and you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. There is no right or wrong here, so we could arrive at different conclusions and still both be confident about our beliefs. Just so long as you can agree to differ, we can end all arguments started here on any comments I may have made and allow the thread to move forward in a meaningful way.

OK to agree we can disagree? Just bow in agreement. 0oD 

(o::o)


(btw, relentless is one thing, but don't you ever sleep? Now I'm seriously worried.)


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Sun May 22 said:


> Lyrics are a great parallel. God how vapid they've become, for the most part. I don't think people are even trying anymore. But such is the case with great dialogue, as well. What's the last piece of great dialogue from a movie that entered the lexicon pervasively?
> 
> 
> _Mike
> 
> P.S. If you were working 28 years ago, then you MORE than know what I'm talking about. And yes, I love the toolset we have as well.



Yeah, I was working 30+ years ago (still am), in my little corner of the universe. At that time, I was using live players. I think that there's always been friction between cats with knowledge and the three chord wonders. 

Ironically on point, I just received this on FMPRO:

"Never, in all our history of popular music, has there been such a plethora of composers - professional, amateur, alleged - as we have today. Responsible, of course, are those two fresh hotbeds, the coniferous cinema and the radio. 

The merciless ether - by unceasing plugging - has cut down the life of a popular song to but a few weeks, with the result that anyone who thinks he can carry a tune - even if it's nowhere in particular - nowadays takes a 'shot' at music-making." 

George Gershwin, ranting in the New York World Sunday Magazine, May, 1930."


The more things change, I guess the more they stay the same!

Michael


----------



## Guy Bacos

synergy543 @ Sun May 22 said:


> OK, I think I'm responsible for sending this off in the wrong direction by ticking Ed off and then leaving here for him to bash others.
> 
> My bad.
> 
> Ed, my apologies to you sir. I should keep my thoughts and opinions to myself or should have sent you a PM with my concern. I just didn't have time for an endless debate (and I'm well aware of your tactics sir) because I'm working on something much more interesting here - a few different music projects.
> 
> So I kind of took my best shots and left. Well, I think debating subjective topics in pseudo-scientific way is rather meaningless so I won't carry on a fruitless arguement with you. As I said, the several interesting facts have been stated and you're welcome to draw your own conclusions. There is no right or wrong here, so we could arrive at different conclusions and still both be confident about our beliefs. Just so long as you can agree to differ, we can end all arguments started here on any comments I may have made and allow the thread to move forward in a meaningful way.
> 
> OK to agree we can disagree? Just bow in agreement. 0oD
> 
> (o::o)
> 
> 
> (btw, relentless is one thing, but don't you ever sleep? Now I'm seriously worried.)



I'll agree to that. o-[][]-o


----------



## David Story

"No roots no fruits, only flowers."


----------



## dcoscina

mverta @ Sun May 22 said:


> Lyrics are a great parallel. God how vapid they've become, for the most part. I don't think people are even trying anymore. But such is the case with great dialogue, as well. What's the last piece of great dialogue from a movie that entered the lexicon pervasively?
> 
> 
> _Mike
> 
> P.S. If you were working 28 years ago, then you MORE than know what I'm talking about. And yes, I love the toolset we have as well.



"I look at people and see nothing worth liking"- Daniel Plainview (There Will be Blood)

Parenthetically a movie with a score by a guy who represents a collision between the old and new. A rock guitarist with a formal music education who mixes Bartok, Penderecki with ebow guitar and minimalist piano chords over vacuous pads for a period American film. I don't know what could be more illustrative of both sides of this debate.


----------



## mverta

If memory serves, they went to source music (orchestral) when actual depth of emotion was required. ? Am I remembering that wrong?

In any case, I recall thinking that opening dissonant string glissando was a bold move and I hoped it heralded a lot of powerful stuff to come. It did (thank you, DDL), but not musically.

_Mike


----------



## dcoscina

I think PT Anderson's choice to go with Greenwood was inspired. Greenwood's scores do still sound like contemporary concert works rather than classic film scores, I'll give you that, but it's deftly done stuff, which is rare these days no matter what the sound is. 

I was listening to Williams' Superman the Movie the other day and that score is like Wagner's Ring or Parsifal compared to stuff today. I love the way he was able to write such complex yet crystal clear music. He actually wrote for wind choir, brass choir, and strings and the listener can hear everything. Not to mention his harmonic vocabulary was just amazing and the stylistic breadth in that score alone was scary good. It's my fave Williams score of all time because it's such an epic, well rounded work.


----------



## KEnK

Hello Everyone,

Been lurking here for a while now and decided this is a good spot to jump in.

To those of you who are saying that, "All things are equal."

Lady Gaga = Mozart = The Beatles = etc,

I offer the analogy of Food...

Burger King
A more Upscale Chain (Olive Garden, Outback etc)
A small nice "ethnic" restaurant with entrees for less than $20
A Home cooked meal by Mom
A really expensive 5 star restaurant

These are not the same and you know it.
There is a fairly clear line of bad to good here.
Scientifically, health effects can be measured, 
taste is something we agree to that can change and develop over time.

Someone who eats at McDonald's 4x/week may be revolted at escargot,
or a traditional Indian meal, but they may still be able to recognize the over-all quality.

A wall hanging of a Clown that I buy at Walmart is not equal to a Picasso or Rembrandt, or even a high end print of those masterworks.
You know this too.

I find the Chinese vid and responses of it pretty interesting.

I play erhu (along w/ guitar, keys, percussion etc)
I've listened to a lot of Chinese music. (I'm a "World" music lover)

To me it should be obvious to anyone that the kid is highly trained.
He has a good voice, lots of control and presents himself professionally.
Compare that to a drunken karaoke vid,
or someone banging on any instrument for the 1st time.

People anywhere will know which is better. 

To the question of Western Classical vs "Other".

There is a greyer line between Classical Chinese, Korean, 
Indian and Middle Eastern music and the Traditional music of these places.

This is mostly because they use the same instrumentation and ensemble size.
But anyone can hear the difference between an Erhu Master 
and a guy at the bar who knows a few tunes.

There is a thing called quality in Art.
Mass produced crap is just that.

KenK


----------



## choc0thrax

I gotta say nothing, I mean nothing beats guiltily eating a Wendy's Baconator in your car in the back of the parking lot.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Choco's guilty pleasure. :twisted:


----------



## synergy543

Gee, I hope that's not real. But if it's not, that's some pretty good photoshop work!


----------



## Guy Bacos

I guess they could have a lot of toothpicks inside holding it all in place. Making me hungry. Wendy's huh?


----------



## dcoscina

I just wonder something and this is obviously subjective- I was listening to Ilia's Theme by Jerry Goldsmith composed for Star Trek The Motion Picture, a film that is 32 years old this year. The emotional impact of this piece coupled with the pure skill involved in developing the theme and moving it through its paces still affects me as much if not more than when I was 10 years old and bought the LP in 1979. I do wonder whether anything composed in the last 10 years can stand up to this or will it be like a McDonald's Big Mac. Good going down but ultimately empty as far as nutrition is concerned.. It's more of a rhetorical question mind you...


----------



## choc0thrax

Guy Bacos @ Mon May 23 said:


> Choco's guilty pleasure. :twisted:



If you walked up to my car in the parking lot and I had the burger you just posted you would not want to see what I'd be doing to the roast beef in the center.

Dave, what food do you think matches Star Trek The Motion Picture Movie Film? I've always thought of Goldsmith as old spaghetti noodles draped over a gramophone.


----------



## mverta

David -

Ilia's Theme is great, but I think the real standout in that score is The Enterprise - an uninterrupted 6 minutes on screen with nothing but pans around a model and the score. 6 straight minutes of flawless thematic development and evolving dramatic interest. Anybody who can't see the galactic gulf in quality between that level of work and what we hear today has got be near-deaf. 


_Mike


----------



## dcoscina

mverta @ Mon May 23 said:


> David -
> 
> Ilia's Theme is great, but I think the real standout in that score is The Enterprise - an uninterrupted 6 minutes on screen with nothing but pans around a model and the score. 6 straight minutes of flawless thematic development and evolving dramatic interest. Anybody who can't see the galactic gulf in quality between that level of work and what we hear today has got be near-deaf.
> 
> 
> _Mike



I agree but frankly there are guys on this forum who do know a lot about music yet still prefer someone like John Powell to Goldsmith, as much as that might seem insane to us. At the end of the day, I can't really say much because I'm not a career composer (though I'm getting one of my concert works performed next year by a kick ass local orchestra ). I think it's a shame that there is such a divide in music analysis even amongst musicians. I always thought that rational discourse and more objective observations could be the universal means of communicating about a discipline and system such as music, math, physics, etc. The problem is, music, unlike the others, affects people on an emotional level and as soon as you bring in that to the mix, objectivity sails out the window.

You know I totally agree with you on the inherent quality of music these days. From a purist standpoint, even the good stuff isn't as good as it used to be. I recently caught a John Adams festival held by the TSO with the composer present (I shook his hand). What I found alarming is that pieces like Short Ride in a Fast Machine or Harmonielerhe were so much better developed and structured than his more recent works like City Noir which kind of rambled a bit. I know he's been composing on Digital Performer since the early '90s (then it was just Performer of course) and I have to believe that this has had in part an effect on his writing. 

Even a crappy Williams piece has more musicality in it than the best from some composers out there now to my ears. There's not a lot of meat on the bone. Much of what I hear these days is frankly boring. Absolutely boring. I cannot stand hearing the same bloody chord progressions done the same bloody way a million times. My YouTube remark that Ed didn't understand had to do with hundreds of not thousands of novices and amateurs posting pieces they have composed using the same libraries we use but which largely sound terrible. I'm not going to say I'm as awesome as yourself when it comes to composing nor a bunch of others on this forum but the few things I've posted in public forums that use say EWQLSO, I get responses like "how come your library sounds better than mine" when it's the same product? Um, perhaps studying harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, composition in university? D'ya think? So it's not an intangible quality here. Which leads me back to my slight aside which is sample libraries can, not always, promote laziness. 

Goldsmith heard all these weird and wonderful sounds in his head and went out and realized them sometimes with acoustic instruments played in non traditional ways, other times using electronics. Frankly, his acoustic machinations were much more satisfying to my ears. But regardless of the timbre or sound, he knew who to write music. It makes me a little sad when some people say they don't feel moved by the more than 100 scores he pumped out in his lifetime. I surmise that either those who make this charge haven't heard a large amount of his music, or else they just have a very different set of criteria that they apply quality or some inherent value to when listening to music....


----------



## dcoscina

choc0thrax @ Mon May 23 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Mon May 23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Choco's guilty pleasure. :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walked up to my car in the parking lot and I had the burger you just posted you would not want to see what I'd be doing to the roast beef in the center.
> 
> Dave, what food do you think matches Star Trek The Motion Picture Movie Film? I've always thought of Goldsmith as old spaghetti noodles draped over a gramophone.
Click to expand...


The film, not the music? Well, it's pretty slow moving and perhaps not Robert Wise's best film by a long shot. Heck, I'll take The Haunting over ST:TMP. But Goldsmith's score is glorious; it impresses me more now than even 10 years ago. I will say I prefer Papillon or even First Blood as a film/music experience. Much more satisfying. 

Goldsmith wrote so many great themes in his career I cannot fathom equating him with pasta over a record player. Planet of The Apes is still one of the most avant garde scores written in the history of film. I love his use of the Echo-plex with the pizzicato strings to evoke that starkness of the alien land. It perfectly illustrates the bleakness of the story. Goldsmith and Frank Shaffner had a terrific director-composer partnership. But hey, if you don't dig him, so be it. Maybe you'll warm to him someday. I didn't dig Stravinsky until recently and I was trying for 20 years to get him. Finally it just clicked. And I do feel all the better for it.


----------



## mverta

Setting aside who likes what, I would be damn stunned if John Powell said with a straight face that he had Goldsmith's chops. Even _I'm_ not that arrogant. Powell has nothing to apologize for, but I think as artists we all gotta keep it real.

_Mike


----------



## Farkle

mverta @ Mon May 23 said:


> David -
> 
> Ilia's Theme is great, but I think the real standout in that score is The Enterprise - an uninterrupted 6 minutes on screen with nothing but pans around a model and the score. 6 straight minutes of flawless thematic development and evolving dramatic interest. Anybody who can't see the galactic gulf in quality between that level of work and what we hear today has got be near-deaf.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Just a +1 to that, Mike V. The Star Trek: The Motion Picture has some amazing Goldsmith creations, but that 6 minute suite/cue, where J. Goldsmith grows, develops, and holds you in his emotional hand, as you see the epic cinematics of the Enterprise evolve... it's just stupendous.

I've been making my students transcribe Goldsmith, because I have been transcribing him, and his control of the emotion and the musical drama is frighteningly awesome.

Oh, and a cool quote by Goldsmith about "playing to scene".

(I may mangle this a bit, but you get the idea).

"When you see a sheriff riding off on his horse to save someone; don't play the horse galloping, play the fear of the rider."

Keep on rocking, Mike V! 

Mike W (Hey, I come just after you in the alphabet!).


----------



## dcoscina

I'm pretty certain Powell would be flattered but would not say he's in the same league. In an interview with Leonard Slatkin and John Williams, the maestro said that Goldsmith, Raksin, and Rosza were first rate composers who could have been equally as successful as concert composers as they were as film composers. his respect for Goldsmith is abundantly clear and this is John friggin Williams we're talking about.


----------



## robibla

Music has been the biggest part of my life for as long as I can remember. I always fiddled with composing in my bedroom as a kid with my dodgy yamaha keyboard and a pentium150 with an onboard soundcard. For the last few years, and now as a university student studying teaching, I have been pumping out what I thought was music for quite a while on the side with my sample libraries - always in *my own little music world*. That is, until a few months ago - I found this forum. And I haven't composed a single piece since...

It was actually your sketch thread Mike that hit me. I listened to your sketches and podcasts and was totally blown away by your music and your philosophy. It really inspired me to 'pursue excellence' and has led me on a crazy journey in the last couple of months. I was obsessed with your music and then noticed you were seemingly obsessed with Star Wars, so I started listening to that. Blown away by Star Wars, listening to it on repeat for a week straight, I looked up this 'Williams' guy (some of you probably think I'm joking) and have purchased some scores and have had my head buried in them, amazed again. Then after much perusing of forums I notice this Williams guy sometimes gets a bit of a bad rep, and I am thinking to myself, "What on EARTH!" So I started digging into Williams inspiration - you get the picture... I guess I am kind of working backwards.

I had to 'Grooveshark' 'The Enterprise' just now because I've never heard it in my life. Once again, AMAZED! I had never before sat down and listened to music with the intention of learning. I was totally satisfied with my almost 'loop based' orchestral compositions until introduced to 'REAL' music by people on this forum. 
So thank you all, even if you have absolutely screwed over my current semester of my studies, (seriously, that's how obsessed with this I have become).

As far as my own composing goes, I'm dying to start it up again but don't think i'm ready. I have more of a hunger for learning more about it than anything else at the moment. (Which is no joke a first for me, I've never done so much reading in my life). My only wish is that this would have happened to me 10 years ago.

Back to the scores and manuals.


----------



## David Story

mverta @ Mon May 23 said:


> David -
> 
> Ilia's Theme is great, but I think the real standout in that score is The Enterprise - an uninterrupted 6 minutes on screen with nothing but pans around a model and the score. 6 straight minutes of flawless thematic development and evolving dramatic interest. Anybody who can't see the galactic gulf in quality between that level of work and what we hear today has got be near-deaf.
> 
> 
> _Mike



Ilia's Theme is also the Overture. STTMP is the last major film with an overture, with a few odd exceptions. The Enterprise incorporates most of the score's themes. That major cue was written at the end, because the visual effects were late. Producers caused the delay, not Doug Trumbull.

On the other hand, Jerry had 4 months to do the score. Yes, he had to redo the main title, but he was given time.

There's a galactic gulf in the value filmmakers place on music. I miss melody. In those days, concert music was a model for producers and directors. That's gone. And the optimism and sense of wonder about the future. That's also changed.

The answer is to expose young directors to live orchestra. That was common until recently.

Even young composers going to live is revolutionary today!


----------



## mverta

robibla @ Mon May 23 said:


> Music has been the biggest part of my life for as long as I can remember. I always fiddled with composing in my bedroom as a kid with my dodgy yamaha keyboard and a pentium150 with an onboard soundcard. For the last few years, and now as a university student studying teaching, I have been pumping out what I thought was music for quite a while on the side with my sample libraries - always in *my own little music world*. That is, until a few months ago - I found this forum. And I haven't composed a single piece since...
> 
> It was actually your sketch thread Mike that hit me. I listened to your sketches and podcasts and was totally blown away by your music and your philosophy. It really inspired me to 'pursue excellence' and has led me on a crazy journey in the last couple of months. I was obsessed with your music and then noticed you were seemingly obsessed with Star Wars, so I started listening to that. Blown away by Star Wars, listening to it on repeat for a week straight, I looked up this 'Williams' guy (some of you probably think I'm joking) and have purchased some scores and have had my head buried in them, amazed again. Then after much perusing of forums I notice this Williams guy sometimes gets a bit of a bad rep, and I am thinking to myself, "What on EARTH!" So I started digging into Williams inspiration - you get the picture... I guess I am kind of working backwards.
> 
> I had to 'Grooveshark' 'The Enterprise' just now because I've never heard it in my life. Once again, AMAZED! I had never before sat down and listened to music with the intention of learning. I was totally satisfied with my almost 'loop based' orchestral compositions until introduced to 'REAL' music by people on this forum.
> So thank you all, even if you have absolutely screwed over my current semester of my studies, (seriously, that's how obsessed with this I have become).
> 
> As far as my own composing goes, I'm dying to start it up again but don't think i'm ready. I have more of a hunger for learning more about it than anything else at the moment. (Which is no joke a first for me, I've never done so much reading in my life). My only wish is that this would have happened to me 10 years ago.
> 
> Back to the scores and manuals.



Right on, brother. If it makes you feel any better, I go through periods where I don't compose either, having been similarly "paralyzed," by the gulf between my abilities and those I'm listening to. But after 30 years I can tell you this: you're not paralyzed when you think you are. Your brain is working it out; drawing relationships, finding patterns. You will hit a period of saturation and need to get away from the listening. And at that point, as you begin fiddling, you may find you suddenly have some more colors in your palette/ideas/confidence. You will write, and it will be better. And the cycle begins again.

The glorious part of studying like this is that it never ends. It just gets cooler, and each level promises more profound experiences for both you and your audience.

Enjoy it!


_Mike


----------



## TheUnfinished

I've just taken a listen to The Enterprise. What immediately strikes me, for a six minute piece of music for a film, is a) how much musically is going on, and b) how little of it is percussion.

I can well imagine in a film coming out this year, the sequence would either be slightly more dronish, or the strings and brass movements would be far slower. And if detail were required, it might be covered by percussion (or the occasional flourish from a solo instrument) rather than the orchestra.

But, how much of this is because modern day composers (and I'm not including various untrained people sat at home with their sample libraries, because I think the comparison is disingenuous) cannot write in that style, or they are simply asked not to?

Because I know his work well, I'll use Harry Gregson-Williams as a rough example. These days he predominantly seems to be asked to do 'hybrid' scores, with lots of electronic percussion and synths underpinning some fairly simple, although effective, orchestration. Whereas, if you look back at his work on something like Sinbad or the first Narnia film, there's a lot more going on musically and tonally.

So, it's surely no surprise that people wanting to get into film composing these days don't necessarily see the advantage in learning all those traditional orchestrating skills, when the very industry they want to get into appears to be telling them it won't be to their advantage.


----------



## noiseboyuk

This is a bit of a tangent, but what the hell. I haven't seen Star Trek I for a long time, but I know the scene you're talking about. IMHO it's a truly terrible scene that sunk that movie. It's pretentious, ponderous and totally overblown. 6 minutes is certainly what it felt like, and it was around 5m 50s too long. I don't think the finest score in the world could have saved that scene.

The only reason I mention it is that for me at least, the music on its own is secondary. It has to work to picture first. It's hardly Goldsmith's fault that this scene was so overlong and over-wrought, but my real excitement only comes from a successful marriage between score and film, be that synths, orch or teaspoons and a washboard.


----------



## MichaelL

TheUnfinished @ Tue May 24 said:


> But, how much of this is because modern day composers (and I'm not including various untrained people sat at home with their sample libraries, because I think the comparison is disingenuous) cannot write in that style, or they are simply asked not to? ...
> 
> So, it's surely no surprise that people wanting to get into film composing these days don't necessarily see the advantage in learning all those traditional orchestrating skills, when the very industry they want to get into appears to be telling them it won't be to their advantage.



I tend to agree. I think that the market, audience preferences and technology are driving the music, not necessarily lack of skill.

I seems that "style wars" is really at the heart of this argument. 

Now.. where did I put those teaspoon and washboard samples?

Michael


----------



## Ricardinho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYBJAQ-_24


----------



## dcoscina

noiseboyuk @ Tue May 24 said:


> The only reason I mention it is that for me at least, the music on its own is secondary. It has to work to picture first. It's hardly Goldsmith's fault that this scene was so overlong and over-wrought, but my real excitement only comes from a successful marriage between score and film, be that synths, orch or teaspoons and a washboard.



No offense but it is precisely this sentiment that is largely responsible for the state of music in film scores these days.


----------



## noiseboyuk

dcoscina @ Tue May 24 said:


> No offense but it is precisely this sentiment that is largely responsible for the state of music in film scores these days.



None taken! And it's cool. I think it's another one of those things that puts people in 2 camps on these forums. There's a group for whom - for want of a better phrase - musical purity is paramount. It sometimes seems to me that for these people the film and relationship to the film itself is secondary. For others (and I'd be one) the film is the boss. The story is king. The music plays its part in that, and the music can be of any style and any form at any level of complexity... if it aids the story and cinematic experience then it is a good score. I'm obsessed with the brilliance of Star Wars, but I like the Social Network score too (definitely prefer listening to the former, mind...)

It's fascinating to me that - over and above this core purpose - scores can be a style of their own. But I started a thread on that which got wound up after legal threats, so I won't go there again!


----------



## Guy Bacos

Please, stay on topic. We are talking about Wendy's hamburgers.

:wink:


----------



## David Story

No root no fruits, only flowers.

That's by a famous poet, see. Poetry is where the meaning of the words is more in your imagination than the words by themselves.

Music can be like that, where it's more than the sound. In fact, you can tell all kinds of stories by the poetics of music.

But you have to listen to music that has poetry, to get it. For example, composers referencing the ancient past and the present day. That's where the "roots" part of the quote comes in.

Some people like to grab a few ideas from great, poetic composers, without getting the structure and imagination that lend meaning to a particular effect. That's the "flower" part.

The result is music with no greatness, a transient bit of entertainment. When it could inspire and nourish mind body and soul. That's the fruit part.

In a multimedia form like film or games, you can have storytelling by many artists at once. Music can take the lead just as well as a movie star. But the audience needs roots, and especially the composers and directors.


A good story, told in cinema, requires good music. More than any style or depth that works. That's a flower without fruit, to paraphrase the poet.

BTW, great music in a not so great film is just as great. It stands on its own.


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Tue May 24 said:


> Please, stay on topic. We are talking about Wendy's hamburgers.
> 
> :wink:



Thank you Guy -- for reminding me that I'm hungry, and it is lunch time.

o[]) 

Now off to Wendy's.


----------



## MichaelL

noiseboyuk @ Tue May 24 said:


> [ I think it's another one of those things that puts people in 2 camps on these forums. There's a group for whom - for want of a better phrase - musical purity is paramount.



Ironically -- many composers of concert music abandoned that concept long ago.
Much contemporary concert music is far more experimental than the "musically pure" film scores of yesteryear. 

But, it seems that there are certain parts of this argument that can't be reconciled. No one asks - is a film about mutant robots art? They just complain that the music accompanying it isn't.

How many contemporary film makers are making films at the level of Citizen Kane? Yet, where's the out cry against sophomoric crap on the screen? Or, doesn't that matter --as long as the music isn't sound design?

Some say the music isn't good anymore. Well...are the movies? 
I would argue that the truly great films, the ones that resonate on all of the levels of meaningful human experience, still have great music. The rest have what they deserve.


----------



## MichaelL

And maybe one's preference for a certain kind of film score has nothing to do with anything other than what you were listening to when you were 14.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/opini ... ml?_r=2&hp

If so -- what will the film composers of tomorrow take with them from today's scores?


----------



## David Story

MichaelL @ Tue May 24 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Tue May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [ I think it's another one of those things that puts people in 2 camps on these forums. There's a group for whom - for want of a better phrase - musical purity is paramount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say the music isn't good anymore. Well...are the movies?
> I would argue that the truly great films, the ones that resonate on all of the levels of meaningful human experience, still have great music. The rest have what they deserve.
Click to expand...


I admire people who do their best, even if the project isn't all that. Herrmann, Goldsmith, even John Powell made good music for lesser projects.


----------



## mikebarry

Well it's easy to see who has the big egos here at vi.


----------



## Guy Bacos

or the biggest hamburger.


----------



## mverta

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> Well it's easy to see who has the big egos here at vi.



Ironically, that's an arrogant thing to say.


_Mike


----------



## mikebarry

mverta @ Tue May 24 said:


> mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's easy to see who has the big egos here at vi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, that's an arrogant thing to say.
> 
> 
> _Mike
Click to expand...


If it is - it is small in scale to some of the things posted on previous pages; it needed to be said to stop the intellectual bullying.

Can film music be better? Sure but Goldsmith wasn't working with temp music. It's a business - more then ever. Digital camera's - more films, smaller budgets. Director's need mockups, it changes the game. I just wouldn't be publicly going after Powell - who is probably the best composer outside of the 3-4 classic guys from the 70's 80's still writing. You never know who reads the boards.....


----------



## Ashermusic

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> mverta @ Tue May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's easy to see who has the big egos here at vi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, that's an arrogant thing to say.
> 
> 
> _Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is - it is small in scale to some of the things posted on previous pages; it needed to be said to stop the intellectual bullying.
> 
> Can film music be better? Sure but Goldsmith wasn't working with temp music. It's a business - more then ever. Digital camera's - more films, smaller budgets. Director's need mockups, it changes the game. I just wouldn't be publicly going after Powell - who is probably the best composer outside of the 3-4 classic guys from the 70's 80's still writing. You never know who reads the boards.....
Click to expand...


Powell is great and there are some other terrific contemporary film composers of course but I am sorry, the simple truth is that the overall level of craft: orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, conducting, etc. is way down from 30 years ago.

You can say it just "a business-more than ever" but that kind of cynicism is self-fufilling Mike and IMHO, respectfully, makes you part of the problem, not the solution, which is to encourage younger guys to develop their craft and not just their technological skills. Not because the marketplace demands it but because respect for the craft demands it.


----------



## mverta

It's your job to "stop the intellectual bullying" ?! Eaaassssyy there.

Anyway, who's "going after" John Powell? I, for one, was paying him a complement by suggesting he's well aware of how great Goldsmith, et al. were/are. JG had a lot of years on Powell, as does Williams. For ANY of us to suggest we have equal levels of skill - which require the years - without having done the years yet, would be arrogance writ large. I doubt he's that arrogant.

You can read that however you like, I suppose, irrespective of my clarification, but appointing yourself Czar of Personal Conduct is a slippery slope, however well-intentioned, trust me. We're well aware of who "might be" (is, by the way) reading the boards without being chastised by you. Or at least stop using apostrophes to indicate plurality if you're going to be handing out advice on how to express oneself publicly; it makes it hard to give your input proper gravitas.*


_Mike



* Yeah, that was a little bit of a cheap shot, but that's the danger of presenting yourself as an intellectual/moral superior. You gotta dot the i's and cross the t's. Why do you think I spell-check my posts so carefully?


----------



## mikebarry

Jay - I am not sure we have ever agreed on anything why start here? I sometimes think you just like to debate so you often take the less popular position to defend it.

Anyway as a trained classical guy I still get pleasure and respect the work going on - sure its different - its less technique and more imaginative and you can't go to school for that.


----------



## mverta

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> Jay... I sometimes think you just like to debate so you often take the less popular position to defend it.



Okay, I suppose utter minimization of Jay's astute input is one way to go...

Admittedly, yours is the first time I've heard the incessant droning on of string ostinatos and tom-tom fills called "imaginative," but to each his own, I suppose. You do have a vested interest in that sort of thing, don't you? Anyway, I'll not play the conflict-of-interest card (again), inasmuch as for all your hypocrisy, you do make a damn good product.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> Jay - I am not sure we have ever agreed on anything why start here? I sometimes think you just like to debate so you often take the less popular position to defend it.
> 
> Anyway as a trained classical guy I still get pleasure and respect the work going on - sure its different - its less technique and more imaginative and you can't go to school for that.



Mike, I am sure if we sat down together at Marmalade Cafe and talked, we would find we agree on a lot of things. And actually, in my real life I hardly ever argue about anything other than politics, and then respectfully, with anyone.

But I have consistently argued for standards since I have been on this forum (and in my columns), which are:

Standards of craft, which technology can be an enhancement to, rather than a substitute for.

Standards of personal conduct, like politeness, respect for others, etc.

Standards for fair and balanced assessment of software, without hyperbole, venting, and ill will towards some developers while prejudiced in favor of others.

And I simply am bewildered that you think scores today show more rather than less imagination. But I respect your differing opinion.


----------



## mikebarry

LOL marmalade is about a 2 minute walk from my house!!!


Anyway guys I leave in peace. 

I just know when i go to the gym I have Rap and "Epic/Crap" soundtracks on the phones cuz it works better then The Omen when I am working out. Just extend this analogy further and I think you get what I mean.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Okay, back to the epic hamburger.


----------



## MichaelL

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> Well it's easy to see who has the big egos here at vi.




Can't be me, I'm way too far from the glow of LA, and my work is too far down the food chain. 

But I should have said "the rest get what is appropriate," which is not a bad thing.


BTW Guy --the burger for lunch was good. Thanks for the inspiration.

_Michael


----------



## mverta

Mike, I'll see your "rap," and raise you a "Tool." 

_Mike


----------



## David Story

That's imaginative!


----------



## Guy Bacos

MichaelL @ Tue May 24 said:


> BTW Guy --the burger for lunch was good. Thanks for the inspiration.
> 
> _Michael



I knew me being on this forum would make a difference to one person sooner or later, and this is it.


----------



## David Story

A Krabby Patty made with love.


----------



## dcoscina

mikebarry @ Tue May 24 said:


> LOL marmalade is about a 2 minute walk from my house!!!
> 
> 
> Anyway guys I leave in peace.
> 
> I just know when i go to the gym I have Rap and "Epic/Crap" soundtracks on the phones cuz it works better then The Omen when I am working out. Just extend this analogy further and I think you get what I mean.



I hear you on that but music when exercise does fulfill a different function. I listen to Kenji Kawai's Ip Man and Ip Man 2 scores which have some pounding drums (but also a lovely theme) when I'm practicing Sil Lim Tao or "Dispersing Hands". It's very inspirational.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Not as cool as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNd0gKH ... re=related


----------



## TheUnfinished

For a moment, Guy, I wondered whether I was going to click on a link to a video of someone making music using Wendy burgers... And that's with, not BECAUSE OF!


----------



## SF_Guy

Wow, I haven't checked this post in several days. Interesting progression...

There's art and there's the market. Today they're two different things, and perhaps they were years ago as well. It's a beautiful thing when they meet. Yet not all together possible (or necessary) if your into music for the music. I wish more people were these days. Here's a good read if you are: http://www.amazon.com/SCHILLINGER-SYSTEM-MUSICAL-COMPOSITION-VOLUMES/dp/B000GU4F78/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4 (http://www.amazon.com/SCHILLINGER-SYSTE ... im_sbs_b_4)


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Tue May 24 said:


> Okay, back to the epic hamburger.



You know the problem with burgers today is that they are all mass produced crap.
People don't put in the time to make a great burger. I mean, years ago burgers were made from real meat --raised on the open range. Now cattle eat synthetic feed, loaded with all kinds of artificial hormones and antibiotics. Oh sure, the technology makes burgers plentiful and cheap, but they're nothing like they used to be. For cryin' out loud, kids still in high school make burgers 10 at a time, and they don't even know who the Earl of Sandwich was. The craft of burger making is a lost art.


----------



## mverta

For all your sarcasm, you were actually on to something there.


----------



## Guy Bacos

mverta @ Thu May 26 said:


> For all your sarcasm, you were actually on to something there.



Explain.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Utter madness though it may be to wade back into the fray (especially without my fray-waders on!), I always find it difficult to be swayed by a "things aren't what they used to be" argument.

Not because there isn't any value in what's being said, there obviously is. But I think the George Gershwin quote summed it up pretty well. 

I'm reminded that newspaper reports on matches from what we now herald as the Golden Age of Cricket are endlessly complaining at the lack of ability and style from the players.

Those present are always the worst judges. Every generation that passes complains about the 'state of things today'.

So, pop into your cryogenic chamber and set it for 2210. Then we can thaw and do a survey. "Mozart? Who's that? Was he the electro-kalimba player in Ace of Base?"


----------



## Ashermusic

TheUnfinished @ Thu May 26 said:


> Utter madness though it may be to wade back into the fray (especially without my fray-waders on!), I always find it difficult to be swayed by a "things aren't what they used to be" argument.
> 
> Not because there isn't any value in what's being said, there obviously is. But I think the George Gershwin quote summed it up pretty well.
> 
> I'm reminded that newspaper reports on matches from what we now herald as the Golden Age of Cricket are endlessly complaining at the lack of ability and style from the players.
> 
> Those present are always the worst judges. Every generation that passes complains about the 'state of things today'.
> 
> So, pop into your cryogenic chamber and set it for 2210. Then we can thaw and do a survey. "Mozart? Who's that? Was he the electro-kalimba player in Ace of Base?"



But we can separate the subjective from the objective.

If I write: "The overall level of film music is way down in terms of artistry from 30 years ago" it is a subjective statement, so one can reasonably agree or disagree.

If however I write: "The overall level of the craft and training of working film/YV/trailer composers is way down in terms of craft and artistry from those working 30 years ago" it is an objective statement, so one cannot reasonably disagree.

The sad thing to me is that some of those who do in fact acknowledge that the second is true don't see that as a negative, only different. It becomes a self-fufilling prophecy that it will diminish yet further.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Right.

It's not that the people who are making these criticisms don't appreciate the progress, we are not blind or deaf, we enjoy the best of what's out there as much as anybody else. But at the same time it's to the detriment of the level of craft if we look at the overall picture.


----------



## dcoscina

Not that my opinion means anything but I'm still a little surprised at the sentiment from guys here who do have music chops but who seem to rationalize the decline of musicality in film scores these days. I would think it's obvious that, in purely musical terms forgetting the politics, focus groups, temp tracks, etc, the writing isn't at the same level. It just ain't. 

p.s. Mike Barry, Goldsmith had temp tracks to deal with too. they've been around a lot longer than you think. Even Williams had to deal with them with Spielberg and Lucas. That's why even as great as he is, his music sometimes veers uncomfortably close to classical pieces.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I fail to see the argument about the temp tracks, sorry. From Mike B, I believe.


----------



## dcoscina

Well, I don't want to pick on Mike B. I really respect his chops- he did a really cool jazz tutorial on YouTube a while back.


----------



## Guy Bacos

I can respect that. I just didn't understand how that was an argument, just to enlighten me.


----------



## lux

i personally liked "The craft of burger making"


----------



## Guy Bacos

It all comes down to a hamburger in the end.


----------



## Guy Bacos

But then, where's the beef?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug75diEyiA0


----------



## TheUnfinished

Ashermusic @ Thu May 26 said:


> TheUnfinished @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter madness though it may be to wade back into the fray (especially without my fray-waders on!), I always find it difficult to be swayed by a "things aren't what they used to be" argument.
> 
> Not because there isn't any value in what's being said, there obviously is. But I think the George Gershwin quote summed it up pretty well.
> 
> I'm reminded that newspaper reports on matches from what we now herald as the Golden Age of Cricket are endlessly complaining at the lack of ability and style from the players.
> 
> Those present are always the worst judges. Every generation that passes complains about the 'state of things today'.
> 
> So, pop into your cryogenic chamber and set it for 2210. Then we can thaw and do a survey. "Mozart? Who's that? Was he the electro-kalimba player in Ace of Base?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we can separate the subjective from the objective.
> 
> If I write: "The overall level of film music is way down in terms of artistry from 30 years ago" it is a subjective statement, so one can reasonably agree or disagree.
> 
> If however I write: "The overall level of the craft and training of working film/YV/trailer composers is way down in terms of craft and artistry from those working 30 years ago" it is an objective statement, so one cannot reasonably disagree.
> 
> The sad thing to me is that some of those who do in fact acknowledge that the second is true don't see that as a negative, only different. It becomes a self-fufilling prophecy that it will diminish yet further.
Click to expand...


This may well be true. It would indeed be sad if strong technique and musicality were to fade away. Film scores that are predominantly orchestral will always benefit from a composer who has elarnt their craft. But there should still be room for other styles of film composer, who may indeed use orchestral samples to write and may not have had the training. It's just that the one should not replace the other.


----------



## rgames

Ashermusic @ Thu May 26 said:


> If however I write: "The overall level of the craft and training of working film/YV/trailer composers is way down in terms of craft and artistry from those working 30 years ago" it is an objective statement, so one cannot reasonably disagree.



What about Glass/Reich/Riley? What's the difference between their level of craft and some film/TV composers? Don't the simple rhythmic and harmonic structures that we're complaining about owe at least something to the minimalist "pioneers"?

Seriously - take somehting like Glass' violin concerto, 2nd movement. Doesn't that sound just like the type of underscore that is being derided here? And it was not written for film/TV, and Glass writes it all out on staff paper...

As I've already said, I agree: of course there's crap being written for film and TV. And of course there's more crap than ever (because there's more music). But it's not limited to the film/TV genre.

And it's not limited to guys who write using samples.

rgames


----------



## dcoscina

I think it's a little bit of a stretch to compare the minimalist movement to sup-par or simplistic film scores. The structure and design of those seminal pieces are their value- not the complexity of the orchestration or harmonic tapestry. Minimalism was a reaction to the Boulez school of over complicated, academic writing that took place in the middle of the 20th century. A Glass piece is still much more well thought out than a Brian Tyler score any day of the week. And it's funny that Don Davis pretty much borrowed from John Adams' Harmonielehre for major parts of his "innovative" Matrix scores (even though I like them and they are well written). 

Sorry but your comparison is not a good one at all IMO.


----------



## TheUnfinished

I don't mean to single you out DCoscina, but it's this sort of line that muddies the topic.


dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> I think it's a little bit of a stretch to compare the minimalist movement to sup-par or simplistic film scores.


Why do we have to keep comparing the best of those that have learnt their craft with the worst of those that haven't? How is that useful?

Is Philip Glass better than someone who writes "sub-par" film scores. Er, yes. Find me the person that has argued the opposite... ever.


----------



## David Story

In addition to scifi films, I also work on historic documentaries. There really are "Golden Ages" in various fields.

You'd have a heck of a time building Stonehenge today with the tools they had 4000 years ago. We'd have to do it differently, with our tools. And people would know it was just an imitation. Those stone builders put their best science and art into that project. To do the equivalent, we'd have to make the same effort. And no one today would do that. This is not a golden age of megaliths.

We don't have the ability to send a manned mission to the moon today, that golden age was the 1960's. Yes, we could retool and do it again, but it'd be different.That was an all out effort that changed the world. Today is not a time of human missions, we mostly use robots.

This is a golden age of sound design, and not of music. There are a few people who have the skill, talent and resources to bring together great writing, performing and audience. But that's not a priority, like it was even 15 years ago.

The sad part is that composers have again shot themselves in the foot, by rushing to be sound designers instead of standing together as composers.

The arts are different, in that styles come and go, but craft and artistry are timeless. That's why you can remake a hit, and have it be a hit again. Good composing stands the test of time. And maybe good sound design can too. But no one falls in love to the sound of a woosh.






There will be a new era of melody and live orchestration. But we're hung up on being the best with programing. Only a handful of scores have hummable tunes and stunning live orchestration. We're the cyborgs of music.

Maybe it's an unavoidable dark age for our craft. But I think it's our choice on how to use tools, and interact with our fellow artists. There have always been budget constraints, and nervous producers. We can fight for music together, like they did 60 years ago. Only now we have better tools, and alternative distribution. So if you care, you could help bring back excellence in composing.

Sound design isn't the new music. Music is.

But I suspect the truth is, that without the technology, many composers today wouldn't want to compose. The Golden Age of Technology.

Yes, a great year for sample libraries!


----------



## rgames

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> Sorry but your comparison is not a good one at all IMO.



Why?

You say that Glass' work is more thought out. But what, exactly, does that mean?

So Glass writes an arpeggiated bed of strings with horns on top and it's thought out but when a film composer does exactly the same thing, then it's not thought out?

I don't understand the distinction.

rgames


----------



## David Story

rgames @ Thu May 26 said:


> dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your comparison is not a good one at all IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> You say that Glass' work is more thought out. But what, exactly, does that mean?
> 
> So Glass writes an arpeggiated bed of strings with horns on top and it's thought out but when a film composer does exactly the same thing, then it's not thought out?
> 
> I don't understand the distinction.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


The musical expression achieved.


----------



## dcoscina

Because the idea of minimalism is gradual shifting of rhythmic cells over a protracted period of time. I would be surprised to hear if Glass, Reich, or Riley had just "winged it" when composing their pieces. There is forethought that was applied that is just as crucial to a composition's integrity than the style or language used in the piece. I respect John Powell's HTTYD more because of its architecture and on that level, it CAN be compared to Goldsmith, Williams, whomever. There are obvious and subtle references to theme groups, development of said motives and themes, and a reasonably deft approach towards orchestral coloration. I wouldn't say that it's the strongest element of the score and I find it a tad noisy and over-written in places but it's still one of my favorite scores from the last decade. It's immensely satisfying on an emotional level but I can still step back and analyze it nonetheless. It seems when people become too entrenched in the effect of a score or piece of music on them, they tend to lose their objectivity. IMO.


----------



## choc0thrax

rgames @ Thu May 26 said:


> dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your comparison is not a good one at all IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> You say that Glass' work is more thought out. But what, exactly, does that mean?
> 
> So Glass writes an arpeggiated bed of strings with horns on top and it's thought out but when a film composer does exactly the same thing, then it's not thought out?
> 
> I don't understand the distinction.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


When my 5 year old cousin repeats arpeggios or my cat accidentally does the same it just can't compare to the tortured genius of Glass. You can tell they can't compare to the composer because they don't have black and white headshots of themselves deep in thought.


http://static.ulike.net/img/03_Philip_Glass.jpg

http://www.fulbright.org/~fulbrigh/sites/default/files/Philip_Glass.jpg (http://www.fulbright.org/~fulbrigh/site ... _Glass.jpg)

http://www.lajollasymphony.com/assets/img/photos/PhilipGlass-small.jpg (http://www.lajollasymphony.com/assets/i ... -small.jpg)

http://www.spiritofbaraka.com/sites/www ... +Glass.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7Yznxrage8Y/T ... +Glass.jpg

http://www.nndb.com/people/609/000035504/glass-crop.jpg

http://img.listal.com/image/492482/936full-philip-glass.jpg (http://img.listal.com/image/492482/936f ... -glass.jpg)

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2008/01/15/philip_glass_doc_features_martin_scorsese_errol_mo_440x300.jpg (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2 ... 40x300.jpg)

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Orig ... 4_1756.jpg

http://gothamist.com/attachments/NYC_Bi ... picnik.jpg

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/216607/Philip+Glass.jpg (http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/216 ... +Glass.jpg)

http://www.njpac.org/joomla/images/press_gallery/new/philip-glass/philip_glass_image2.jpg (http://www.njpac.org/joomla/images/pres ... image2.jpg)


http://www.quotesby.co.uk/celeb_images/full/P/Philip_Glass.jpg (http://www.quotesby.co.uk/celeb_images/ ... _Glass.jpg)


Grahhh! which two notes to use????


----------



## noiseboyuk

Choc0trax - post of the year.


----------



## David Story

If you pretend everything is folly, you get comedy.


----------



## rgames

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> There is forethought that was applied



Again, that's the part I don't get. Can you give me an example of this type of forethought and how it compares to similar-sounding music that lacks that forethought? Don't a lot of simplistic film scores also use the slowly evolving approach?

I'm not being argumentative here - this is a concept that I really can't grasp. I listen to some of Glass' music and I hear simple rhythms and simple harmonic structure. And I listen to film composer XYZ and he also uses simple rhythms and simple harmonic structure, many of which sound a lot like Glass' (and others') music. So why do we say the film composer has less-developed skills?

Bear in mind, I like a lot of Glass' music that uses these simple structures. I won't say it's my favorite, but I do appreciate and like what he is doing. It just seems to be more simliar than different vis-a-vis the film music were discussing.

And that's why I don't understand the position that film composers don't have the same "craft" that they had 30 years ago. Sure, it's (mostly) a different craft because the demand is different, but does that mean it's worse?

rgames


----------



## Guy Bacos

Again, how is all this related to burgers?


----------



## Ed

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> There is forethought that was applied



If you've been reading Bear McCreary's blog you'll see how much thought appears to go into everything he does. How much forethought is required before it is enough? Even Zimmer seems to put a lot of forethought into his music, way more than most appear to judging from the documentaries and interviews I've seen. Now, you may not like their music, but you seem to suggest that film composers inherently can't do this because they are film composers.


----------



## dcoscina

Ed @ Thu May 26 said:


> dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is forethought that was applied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've been reading Bear McCreary's blog you'll see how much thought appears to go into everything he does. How much forethought is required before it is enough? Even Zimmer seems to put a lot of forethought into his music, way more than most appear to judging from the documentaries and interviews I've seen. Now, you may not like their music, but you seem to suggest that film composers inherently can't do this because they are film composers.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not saying that. Did you read my entire post or did you just take out the part to prove your straw man Ed?

I compared John Powell's HTTYD with Goldsmith, Williams, etc. Obviously good film scores do have their own inherent structure and design. But you have to admit that since the mid '90s. there's been more play it scene by scene rather than attention to the overall dramatic arc of the movie. This is not relegated to Zimmer or MV, it's widespread largely. I never said Zimmer didn't give any forethought to his scores. Clearly he's very concerned with the minutia. And I can appreciate a score that adhere's to this over all sense of design even if I don't necessarily like the thematic material. This is pure technique and not talent or inspiration though. Composers who are trained in larger forms are more likely to follow this approach no matter the style or genre. Those who don't have that grounding are less likely to naturally come to it although this doesn't apply to everyone- there are exceptions but they are rare in my experience. 

Like I said, I qualified this in my post about Powell so I don't think I need to elaborate.
[/quote]


----------



## choc0thrax

Yeah Ed, you must have missed all the stuff about the protracted minimalism shif... shifting over the... cell division something. 

Dave you shouldn't mention straw man to Ed, it's a keyword that will extend a thread by at least 10 pages.


----------



## Ed

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> No, I'm not saying that. Did you read my entire post or did you just take out the part to prove your straw man Ed?



I put the word "seems" in there since it "seems" to me that this was what you are saying. Judging from rgames's post I wasn't the only one to get that impression.



> I compared John Powell's HTTYD with Goldsmith, Williams, etc. Obviously good film scores do have their own inherent structure and design. But you have to admit that since the mid '90s. there's been more play it scene by scene rather than attention to the overall dramatic arc of the movie. This is not relegated to Zimmer or MV, it's widespread largely. I never said Zimmer didn't give any forethought to his scores. Clearly he's very concerned with the minutia. And I can appreciate a score that adhere's to this over all sense of design even if I don't necessarily like the thematic material. This is pure technique and not talent or inspiration though. Composers who are trained in larger forms are more likely to follow this approach no matter the style or genre. Those who don't have that grounding are less likely to naturally come to it although this doesn't apply to everyone- there are exceptions but they are rare in my experience.



oookay.. so you're saying the amount of thought you put into your music is irrelevant unless you're are " trained in larger forms" because then you are more likely to... ... what? What makes Philip Glass's "forethought" make his music better than Bear McCreary's forethought? And does the amount of thought Zimmer goes through to come up with his ideas make his music better or do you still judge it on its own merits?

Not to slight either of them I just don't see where you guys draw this line between good and bad. Frankly I think 99% of this is all in your head ...


----------



## MichaelL

mverta @ Thu May 26 said:


> For all your sarcasm, you were actually on to something there.



Only slightly sarcastic. I see fast food as an appropriate metaphor for larger cultural issues involving time and money.


----------



## MichaelL

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> Ed @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is forethought that was applied
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you've been reading Bear McCreary's blog you'll see how much thought appears to go into everything he does. How much forethought is required before it is enough? Even Zimmer seems to put a lot of forethought into his music, way more than most appear to judging from the documentaries and interviews I've seen. Now, you may not like their music, but you seem to suggest that film composers inherently can't do this because they are film composers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not saying that. Did you read my entire post or did you just take out the part to prove your straw man Ed?
> 
> I compared John Powell's HTTYD with Goldsmith, Williams, etc. Obviously good film scores do have their own inherent structure and design. But you have to admit that since the mid '90s. there's been more play it scene by scene rather than attention to the overall dramatic arc of the movie. This is not relegated to Zimmer or MV, it's widespread largely. I never said Zimmer didn't give any forethought to his scores. Clearly he's very concerned with the minutia. And I can appreciate a score that adhere's to this over all sense of design even if I don't necessarily like the thematic material. This is pure technique and not talent or inspiration though. Composers who are trained in larger forms are more likely to follow this approach no matter the style or genre. Those who don't have that grounding are less likely to naturally come to it although this doesn't apply to everyone- there are exceptions but they are rare in my experience.
> 
> Like I said, I qualified this in my post about Powell so I don't think I need to elaborate.
Click to expand...

[/quote]


David -- I appreciate your passion, and scholarly knowledge -- but I for one am very uncomfortable commenting with authority an those whose accomplishments I can only dream of -- and will likely never equal. But I guess that's just me.


_Michael


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Thu May 26 said:


> Again, how is all this related to burgers?



the minimalist burger:

mustard ketchup
mustard ketchup
mustard ketchup
ketchup mustard
mustard ketchup
mustard ketchup
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
mustard ketchup
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
ketchup mustard
mustard ketchup

Slowly shifting condiments.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

This thread has indeed taken an interesting turn.

I think there are a lot of Film Composers or 'Wanna be's' out there today. Let me admit and make it clear that I am one of them.

I did not go to University to study traditional music neither did I spend years under a Master composer. I do not claim to be a great composer and I even strugle with basic notation skills sometimes. I am not an expert on film music either. 

But yes, I have been able to get into this and make a small time career out of it even without the skills that Mike Verta and Guy Bacos have. Their music is really good and I know both of them spend a lot of time training. I try my best but my training is nothing compared to theirs and neither is it structured in anyway. 

I did study Music, Technology and Innovation (Bachelors) and then a Masters in writing music to picture. 4 years in total in the UK but it wasnt a traditional music course. So I am still unqualified to be in this industry. How can I ever write great music without all the training? I dont. I try and do my best. 

I think it is safe to say that I completely fall into the category of 'Composers ruining the current Film Music scene'. But I never started out thinking - oh great, even though I dont have all these skills - I will get into film music because its so easy these days and even though apparently there are other more talented and trained composers out there - I somehow manage to get enough work and actually make a good living. Its not easy for anyone!

So, first - please stop disrespecting other film composers. Its not easy to get work for anyone and everyone has a different style. If nothing Zimmer has shown us that films scoring isnt about having orchestral chops and has shown us that certain things can be done differently. Some people like that, some dont. I dont like his earlier works but most of his recent work has been fantastic!

And I dont think the current film music scene is dead or not good enough or not comparable to the greats. We dont write that kind of music that much anymore - we have moved on. I dont think music from Indiana Jones would suit a lot of films made today. And there are enough good Film Composers living out there writing excellent stuff. 

Like any industry when it grows and becomes popular - there is a huge flux of new people getting in and doing lots of cheap sounding work or whatever you may call it. Its like Mass Production of anything. 

Some guy, starts out by getting a small TV Commercial job because he can use Cubase or something because it so happens, his friend directed the commercial. Being friends, the director friend chose his good friend over Trained composers - thats how this business goes. Its based on trust and word of mouth. Because the director cannot understand sometimes what 'better' music is! This director does well, and the composer friend gets noticed - he gets more music and may be in a few years gets his first feature. So he starts writing some music and some people find it horrible because he did not study Daphnis Et Chloe by Ravel or something. But he does make it sound slick and whatever best he/she can do. 

So the kind of films that are being made and the way people get into the business has changed. Music education has changed in families. It was common practice for kids to grow up listening to classical music or be involved with the church and play the piano or some instrument in school and it was a very classical driven environment. Today, its changing fast. Very few kids want to listen to classical or learn to play the piano or violin compared to back in the day. There is all kinds of genres out there. 

So, today a Film composer is going to be influenced by these things. And I dont think its a bad thing as such. Sure, you need to know your craft but you dont only need to know ONE craft. I think the mark of a good film composer is someone who has a strong vision of sound combined with story telling abilities with music. So that calls for a balance between form, structure, orchestration and a very strong and fundamental approach to sound. This is the reason Zimmer has done well. He has exploited the very basic nature of sound and the amazing world of Cinema sound that is available to us. He really plays with 5.1 and exploits the medium - well not always, but you get the point. 

I dont think the Film Music scene is any worse than the Laptop industry where we are flooded with tons of plasticky bad ones. But good ones still exist and always do. We havnt stopped making good films and wont stop making good film composers either. 

There are so many good composers alive and working in Hollywood! I am not a part of Hollywood. I live in Mumbai and India and write music for Films and commercials here but you guys should be proud of your industry. Its achieved a lot and created the finest musicians and the world famous - Hollywood sound - of course not forgetting it was European composers like Korngold who set this bar initially. 

But seriously, Hollywood is still a dream space for so many aspiring composers around the world and may be some of you need to step back and just look at it and appreciate the whole scene! Perhaps the USA is under tough times at the moment but I am sure things will get better. Similarly, trends are temporary and I am sure even better composers are going to come out of Hollywood. 

And of course, this discussion mostly does not look at composers outside of Hollywood - because in that case we really do have a lot of great guys around the world writing music for images!


I wish you all good luck and hope to see everyone write their best music whether or not they are trained traditionally!


Best,


Tanuj.


----------



## TheUnfinished

Tanuj, you win the internet. A great, measured post.


----------



## Ashermusic

Tanuj,

Respectfully, I am sorry but when I see a guy write both "I can't write great music" and "I somehow manage to get enough work and actually make a good living." I cannot bring myself to applaud it or see it as a good thing.

Of course, that is how it sometimes works in the real world but the idealistic side that lives in all of us should root for the guys who CAN write great music to get the jobs.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku

Hey Jay,

You are right. I am not asking for anyone to support me or others like me. 

You should obviously look for better guys who are well trained and write better music. I suppose that the point I was trying to make was that it seems to me that people who are not traditionally trained are being targeted at times. Even though they may have delivered good music several times but not always of course! Only John Williams can! He is a true legend. 

I am not talking about myself of course. I have not been targeted so far! 

I did not mean in anyway that the standards should be lowered so that untrained guys can get in. In fact, nobody is completely untrained! That would be a miracle if someone got jobs without any clue of writing music. No matter how much one may criticize Zimmer. Nobody puts a gun to anyone's head to appreciate his music for example. He is not formally trained. Neither did Danny Elfman train formally. I dont think Alan Silvestri is formally trained as well. All of them write good film music. They self-trained. 

I said I cant write great music for two reasons:

1. I never sit down and think - Oh! Let me write a great piece of music today. You just compose and hope for the best. You alone cannot tell if the music is great. Sure, I love composing music and get a satisfaction from my music but thats not the end of its journey. It will go out and live a life of its own hopefully. I dont decide whether my music is great or not. I just write and do the best.

2. A lot of people think since people like me are not formally trained, we possibly cant write great music ever. Again, not in my hands. Only time will tell. What is this obsession with 'Great Music' anyway? You just write good music and hope for people to like it but I dont think anyone has control over the greatness of music. It finds its own space.

You dont need to applaud me, certainly.

Of course, the standard cannot be that - dont train to be a composer in schools and universities. What I am saying is that a person can be self-trained as well and still write good film music. People certainly need to come out the Orchestral-Music only mode. 

Trent Reznor did Social Network but will it be right to say John Williams could have done a better score because he trained for many years? There is a problem when people start comparing concert music to film music. Thats the sound of John Williams and its his life story - that he trained in that particular fashion and in certain musical forms but not all just like all of us here. 

I think what possibly could be a strong requirement in a film composer is story telling abilities - I completely agree with Mike Verta on that. One needs to have a sense of structure and story telling through music. And a vision for the sound of the film. I dont mean SFX. 

Thomas Newmann writes good music and he is formally trained. But most of his music is extremely simple - it has a vision - manifested by great orchestration and simplistic ideas arranged very well with unusual instruments - not much of which he must have learnt at school or university I believe. 

While I say all of this - let me add:

I have 10 books sitting around me at all times. I have the Adler, Persichetti, Scores from Ravel, Debussy, John Williams and harmony books like the one by Tchaikovsky. I go through them from time to time and learn at my slow space. Whatever best I can. It is never my aim to learn less or just be content with my skills. Of course, the bar must be set to the highest possible!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Guy Bacos

MichaelL @ Thu May 26 said:


> Guy Bacos @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how is all this related to burgers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the minimalist burger:
> 
> mustard ketchup
> mustard ketchup
> mustard ketchup
> ketchup mustard
> mustard ketchup
> mustard ketchup
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> mustard ketchup
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> ketchup mustard
> mustard ketchup
> 
> Slowly shifting condiments.
Click to expand...


You definitely have to publish this.


----------



## MichaelL

Ashermusic @ Thu May 26 said:


> Tanuj,
> 
> Respectfully, I am sorry but when I see a guy write both "I can't write great music" and "I somehow manage to get enough work and actually make a good living." I cannot bring myself to applaud it or see it as a good thing.
> 
> Of course, that is how it sometimes works in the real world but the idealistic side that lives in all of us should root for the guys who CAN write great music to get the jobs.



Gosh Jay, I didn't see a notice in the introduction to my copy of "Going Pro with Logic 9" that the book was to be used only by those who intend write great music and not take jobs away from truly deserving composers. Nor did I see any restrictions in my copy of SD2 prohibiting me from using it to create one of those lesser sound design scores. OK --snarky remark aside, your response raises several points.

First, Tanju is in Mumbai -he's hardly taking bread of anyone's plate in LA. But I would listen to his music before you accept his modesty as fact. And, his idea of earning a living is likely different than yours. My idea of earning a living is likely different than yours.

Second, there should be disclaimer that this discussion is about scoring feature films in Hollywood. The whole "great music" (based on dead European composers) discussion does not apply in many instances outside that idiom. Many composers fail in the commercial world because they try to impose "great music" on projects where it is inappropriate. 

I scored many (corporate) films for a client who liked to micro manage everything. On one of our first projects he sat in my studio and listened to the score. Then he started to edit -- "take this note out" -- "take that note out" on and on. Eventually there was very little left. He asked if I minded. I said "no I get paid by the minute, not the note." We worked together for years, until he retired, because I was capable of putting my ego aside, and giving him what HE, the producer, wanted (which wasn't great music).

There's a lot more to getting the jobs than writing "great music." Sometimes it's about writing the "right" music. So, saying that only great composers should "get the jobs" is like saying only 4 star chefs should be prepare meals in restaurants. John Williams would be as happy working in my world as Wolfgang Puck would be at McDonalds.

Sometimes it IS just a hamburger.

Now, I've got a lot music to write in a short amount of time. I will use all of the technology that I have available, and it will be appropriate for the project.

Regards,

Michael


----------



## dcoscina

I'm not sure how this thread got to where it got. I mention a lack of structure inherent in many scores these days and somehow I'm levelling Zimmer? Where the fuck did I write that? Please show me. I said Zimmer is concerned with minutia meaning he's detail oriented and that in no way suggests he isn't cognizant of a larger design. I said it's widespread throughout the industry for many reasons. 

I also said, obviously not well, that there is often not ALWAYS a better sense of over all design to the music of composers who studied formally. And I use John Powell, Mr. MV and Zimmer buddy as an example of exemplary attention to score architecture. Honestly, you guys really like to read between the lines or are prejudiced based on sentiments I made in the past re:MV. 

Edit- also, the next time the same guys who strongly endorse the whole "music is all great and is interpretation" criticize someone like Guy Bacos' music or Alex Temple's music, perhaps remember this thread where you vehemently defend all composers no matter their skill level or background. Or do you feel it's fine to shred those guys because they aren't big names from Los Angeles? Some of you guys are such hypocrites.


----------



## MichaelL

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> I'm not sure how this thread got to where it got. I mention a lack of structure inherent in many scores these days and somehow I'm levelling Zimmer? Where the fuck did I write that? Please show me. I said Zimmer is concerned with minutia meaning he's detail oriented and that in no way suggests he isn't cognizant of a larger design. I said it's widespread throughout the industry for many reasons.
> 
> I also said, obviously not well, that there is often not ALWAYS a better sense of over all design to the music of composers who studied formally. And I use John Powell, Mr. MV and Zimmer buddy as an example of exemplary attention to score architecture. Honestly, you guys really like to read between the lines or are prejudiced based on sentiments I made in the past re:MV.
> 
> Sheesh.



David I don't know if you're responding to me. The point of my response was that, although I've been a media composer for 30 years, I personally do not feel qualified to judge the work of Hollywood composers like Zimmer and Powell, because I am so far removed from that part of the game. I know what I like and what resonates with me. But, until I've accomplished what they've accomplished, I don't judge.

Edit -- and I'm 3000 miles from LA.


----------



## dcoscina

Hmm, I still don't get what you're saying Michael. I laud Powell for his score....there's a severe disconnect here. 

As for analyzing music, sorry, I enjoy doing it with pieces I like and dislike because it interests me about what it is I find compelling or repelling about a specific piece of music.


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Tue May 24 said:


> MichaelL @ Tue May 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Guy --the burger for lunch was good. Thanks for the inspiration.
> 
> _Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew me being on this forum would make a difference to one person sooner or later, and this is it.
Click to expand...


Guy --don't be so modest. You also inspired me to get a cappuccino maker!

o-[][]-o 

Michael


----------



## MichaelL

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> Hmm, I still don't get what you're saying Michael. I laud Powell for his score....there's a severe disconnect here.
> 
> As for analyzing music, sorry, I enjoy doing it with pieces I like and dislike because it interests me about what it is I find compelling or repelling about a specific piece of music.



Sorry David. I spend most of my time in the world of musical fast food, where larger forms are for the most part irrelevant. 

Like I said, I respect your scholarly knowledge of film music. Keep analyzing -- it's your passion.


Cheers,

Michael


----------



## rJames

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> also, the next time the same guys who strongly endorse the whole "music is all great and is interpretation" criticize someone like Guy Bacos' music or Alex Temple's music, perhaps remember this thread where you vehemently defend all composers no matter their skill level or background.


is there anyone like this at VI? Is there anyone who says, "all music is great?"

Seems like it is consistent to vehemently defend all composers' rights to accept a job scoring a film no matter their skill level or background while at the same time having a critique for either Guy or Alex on a particular cue. I don't see what the two have in common.

I think we're just arguing for the sake of argument now.

And that's why I wanted to get in on it. :lol:


----------



## Ah_dziz

Ashermusic @ Thu May 26 said:


> Tanuj,
> 
> Respectfully, I am sorry but when I see a guy write both "I can't write great music" and "I somehow manage to get enough work and actually make a good living." I cannot bring myself to applaud it or see it as a good thing.
> 
> Of course, that is how it sometimes works in the real world but the idealistic side that lives in all of us should root for the guys who CAN write great music to get the jobs.



I mean it when I say I don't mean this as a personal attack, because you seem like a nice enough guy, but as far as "getting work" is concerned, there is way way more to it than greatness. Being able to work to a schedule and still make the production staff happy is way more important than your musical "greatness". 

I have personally received second hand jobs from plenty of people that I consider to be "better at composing" than my self, but also constantly hold the production behind due to their inability to work to a schedule and follow the direction of the people running the production. Getting the job done on time and "good enough" is what it's about 90% of the time for 90% of the projects out there. Being great is for the "actually" great who can do it at the drop of a hat, not for "people who are capable of writing amazing music if given as much time as they need" 

I too want more great music in media, but I don't think that the wrong people are getting hired, people who can get the job done are getting hired.


----------



## Ashermusic

@ ah- dziz: 
I don't take any of this personally. We are just having a discussion, right?

@ Tanuj and everyone else:
I am not saying that because I am trained I always write great music. Not every project calls for great music or allows for great music. And of course, one has to be able to meet a deadline but I never heard of Williams, Goldsmith, Elmer Bernstein, Hank Mancini, etc. being fired because they id not and even today, there is no shortage of good trained composers who can meet a deadline. I have never missed one.

Nor do I say that only trained composers can write a great score. Hans Zimmer has written some great ones, better than any I have done, and he is not a trained composer. Danny Elfman has written some great ones, better than any I have done, and he is not a trained composer. And I am sure there are more. (Sorry, but Trent Reznor is not one of them. That score defined mediocrity, period.)

What I DO say is that a whole bunch of people now have taken the wrong message from their success. These guys are good DESPITE their lack of training not because of it and they are the exception, not the rule. Genius will will out but geniuses are few and far between and there are not many in this forum or any other. 

Those of us who are not geniuses however can learn to be very good with training and experience. You do NOT learn to be very good holding down a chord in Symphobia with a pre-made percussion loop or two underneath it with no real effort to learn what the fuck you are doing harmonically, contrapuntally, etc. and that is what is frequently getting hired because the clients either do not care, do not know the difference, and these kind of guys work cheap.

Self-trained can be as good as university/conservatory trained if one works hard enough at it., I totally understand and accept that. And of course, we can only try our hardest to write the best music we can write and no one hits a home run every time out. But to use the baseball analogy, the trained guy will have a better batting average generally.

I too utilize the technology but I never use it because I think I cannot write well without using it or meet a deadline without using it. If that day ever comes, dig a hole in my backyard, kick me into it, and shovel the dirt over me.


----------



## noiseboyuk

I agree that there tends to be a fixation on the big Hollywood movie scores, which represent an absolutely minute amount of work for composition-to-picture. If TV is discussed, it's again on the level of Battlestar Gallactica and LOST. It's rarely a small local game show, or a European preschool puppet series. Here's what interests me... who is comparing music today from music 20 or 40 years ago in these areas? Arguably this is more relevant to us at VI-C - AFAIK no-one working at that absolute top level actively contributes at VI-C (though word is that lurkers are out there).

In my tiny little British kids TV world, the music of 1985 was usually pretty awful. It was often literally one DX7 and a drum machine (how Alan Silvestri started, incidentally!) With the best will in the world, that's not gonna sound great. Now I suspect that 1985 composer's musical skills were excellent, but he didn't have the money or the technical ability to see it to its full potential. Does that make me a better composer today because I can paint with so many more colours? Nope, of course not. But to producers - and I'd argue audiences - it will SOUND better. And that, to me, is the real excitement of Virtual Instruments today (to very briefly return to the OT) - you can do things that were previously unimaginable on small scale productions. There's often no rose-tinted golden age of music in these sort of productions to compare to! To producers this argument is so obvious that it doesn't even need saying, but I realise its different among composers who can separate the composition from the sound itself.

I like Tanuj's posts very much, looks like we're coming from a similar place. And I like Michael's and Ah_dziz' pragmatism, which seems wholly appropriate for many composing gigs. And I too don't see that there is a contradiction in being honest and pragmatic on the one hand, but also striving to be as good musically as you can, given those base conditions. Some projects will demand very little musical effort (my dream gig is to write the tension drone for a game show that runs for 50% of a show which airs daily around the world forever and ever), while other gigs will have far more musical potential, even at a modest level.

I hold guys like Guy Bacos and others here in extremely high regard, their skills are tremendous and they've worked incredibly hard for them. The sheer amount of programming fare across the world at different budgetary levels means - I hope - I think there's room for different folks with different skill levels at different ends of the spectrum. But working to deadlines, listening to producers, being technically savvy and storytelling skills are the essential basics of anyone starting out. As to compositional ability - a good ear is also essential, but much higher level skills are in many cases an optional extra imho. Yeah, that probably is a shame, but I do think that's how it is.


----------



## Ed

dcoscina @ Thu May 26 said:


> Edit- also, the next time the same guys who strongly endorse the whole "music is all great and is interpretation" criticize someone like Guy Bacos' music or Alex Temple's music, perhaps remember this thread where you vehemently defend all composers no matter their skill level or background. Or do you feel it's fine to shred those guys because they aren't big names from Los Angeles? Some of you guys are such hypocrites.



Is that what you think I've been saying all this time?


----------



## Ashermusic

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 26 said:


> I As to compositional ability - a good ear is also essential, but much higher level skills are in many cases an optional extra imho. Yeah, that probably is a shame, but I do think that's how it is.



Yes, it IS how it is and yes it IS a shame.

What guys like Mike Verta and I are saying to all of you who are younger: See it as a problem and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, by working hard on your compositional skills and not just your library manipulation skills. 

NOT because it will get you more work: 
NOT because it will make you more money:

Do it for respect for the venerable craft and the increased self-esteem you will have knowing that you are not just getting paid work but actually composing something that is not just decent sounding mal-composed crap.

OK, end of my lecturing :D


----------



## dcoscina

Bless you Jay.


----------



## dcoscina

I bet you that most composers here, trained or untrained, rely on their intuition for inspiration. The only thing the differentiates composers is some have a greater ability to manipulate and shape their ideas endlessly while others conform to a limited set for their ideas. personally, I don't write anywhere near as involved music when I'm working in Logic or DP with sample libraries. I feel constrained by the sounds. All of my concert works were written in NOTION or Sibelius and while they wouldn't impress anyone here for their realism for playback, I've gotten an orchestra to perform my work because of it. 

So, in some respects, and to get back on track here, I feel the tools sometime constrain and limit a composer- or perhaps this is just my experience because I started off writing on manuscript/


----------



## rgames

Ashermusic @ Fri May 27 said:


> be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, by working hard on your compositional skills and not just your library manipulation skills.



But Jay, in order for anyone to do that, there needs to be some substantive discussion (see my post at the top of this page). After 11 pages or whatever on this thread, I still haven't seen any substantive discussion. Only vague comments like "film composers have no craft" or "film composers don't apply forethought to their music" or "peope who write with samples have no craft."

Where do you expect people to go with those sorts of vagaries? I think it was you who said somewhere that these issues can be discussed objectively. Well, please do! I gave several specific examples that I thought would further the discussion via objective analysis.

As I said at the top of this page, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm one of those guys who's always trying to improve his compositional skills!

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic

rgames @ Fri May 27 said:


> Ashermusic @ Fri May 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, by working hard on your compositional skills and not just your library manipulation skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Jay, in order for anyone to do that, there needs to be some substantive discussion (see my post at the top of this page). After 11 pages or whatever on this thread, I still haven't seen any substantive discussion. Only vague comments like "film composers have no craft" or "film composers don't apply forethought to their music" or "peope who write with samples have no craft."
> 
> Where do you expect people to go with those sorts of vagaries? I think it was you who said somewhere that these issues can be discussed objectively. Well, please do! I gave several specific examples that I thought would further the discussion via objective analysis.
> 
> As I said at the top of this page, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm one of those guys who's always trying to improve his compositional skills!
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


Richard, EVERYONE here knows whether or not they have a reasonably solid understanding of theory, harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration. I have no interest in singling people out.

Kudos to you for "always trying to improve those skills." I am as well as it is a lifetime homework assignment.


----------



## Guy Bacos

dcoscina @ Fri May 27 said:


> I feel the tools sometime constrain and limit a composer



For sure. A traditional orchestral has a 400 year history, samples and libraries has only been around for some 20 years, more or less. Sadly for our generation it will only be the next generation and after that, that will really benefit from samples. We will have paved the way at least.


----------



## David Story

Ashermusic @ Fri May 27 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu May 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I As to compositional ability - a good ear is also essential, but much higher level skills are in many cases an optional extra imho. Yeah, that probably is a shame, but I do think that's how it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it IS how it is and yes it IS a shame.
> 
> What guys like Mike Verta and I are saying to all of you who are younger: See it as a problem and be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, by working hard on your compositional skills and not just your library manipulation skills.
> 
> NOT because it will get you more work:
> NOT because it will make you more money:
> 
> Do it for respect for the venerable craft and the increased self-esteem you will have knowing that you are not just getting paid work but actually composing something that is not just decent sounding mal-composed crap.
> 
> OK, end of my lecturing :D
Click to expand...


Thank you. It's what I've said since my earliest post here. I take the philosophical approach, because I know that I don't have credibility as an engineer.

And that is the heart of it.
Throwing caution out the window:
There are lots of talented people here at VI-control
About 10 composers 
100 engineers and sound designers
1000 people who want to be engineers or sound designers.

That reflects the world at large, where technology has been raised to where art and science once were. People don't strive to write better melodies, or more expressive textures, or inspire compassion in the world.
They want cool toys that sound Epic, make money, and are new.

Composing is a venerable art that didn't start 10 years ago, and will long outlast this version of the techno trend. You have to study and practice every day, to get it.

Bach is relevant. So is sigur ros. But we don't have time to study everything, so you have to choose. The timeless master, or the cool sounds of our time.

Even a work-a-day musician doing commercial music can learn from and pay respect to the new and old masters of composition. Most of us haven't invented a single musical technique, we owe a debt to people like Beethoven, Stravinsky and Ligeti who did. Or equally important, masters who are a culmination of an era, like Gershwin or Williams.

I love sound design. It's not music. Randy Thom once told me that that they strive to be musical but they aren't composers.
I love engineers, but music is more than sound.
AND A MOCKUP AINT AN ORCHESTRA.





Composers learn from experience with live performers, samples can't give you that vital feedback. They turn you into an engineer. 
Dare to write a tune, and develop it. It feels good, ya know?

End rant, thank you.








PS I'd like to discuss how a Bach cello suite, a JW epic orchestration, and a Uematsu synth score can all work in a scene about exploring new lands.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Ashermusic @ Fri May 27 said:


> Richard, EVERYONE here knows whether or not they have a reasonably solid understanding of theory, harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration. I have no interest in singling people out.
> 
> Kudos to you for "always trying to improve those skills." I am as well as it is a lifetime homework assignment.



Weeeeeelllllll.....

I've said this before about my own situation, but here goes. I'm very poor on academic theory. With music it's been ear and learning by doing. It's got me a fair way - listen on my site for where I'm at, warts and all (it's not necessarily a wise idea to write stuff like this in a forum like this!). I know I'm exceptionally bad at learning artistic stuff in a formal sense, however 1-1 tuition on my weak areas is far more interesting to me, especially with someone with whom I have a rapport. But the thing is... I'm sorta aware that I'm doing stuff like counterpoint and of course orchestrating, I just don't break it down formally in that way and - crucially - really don't like the thought of smashing whatever method I do use by breaking it down more formally. I just try and get out what I hear in my head. Some of my more learned friends are fascinating to listen to as they hear my stuff and describe it musically "ah, you're using such and such..." I usually have no idea!

I think here though is another of those areas where there are two probably not reconcilable camps. For some formal learning is not really optional in order to be taken seriously, for others it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you get there. Obviously I'm in the second camp. I'm aware of my weak areas but also I like working - and learning - in my own way. And I do mean learning... I definitely want to constantly improve in every regard, I never for moment think "that's it I'm happy with where I am". I'm probably just a stubborn bastard at heart, and want to learn in a more esoteric way that works for me.


----------



## rgames

Ashermusic @ Fri May 27 said:


> Richard, EVERYONE here knows whether or not they have a reasonably solid understanding of theory, harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration. I have no interest in singling people out.



I think we can discuss without singling anyone out for writing "bad" music or "music that lacks craft".

For example, I still don't know what you guys mean by "lacking craft." Is it the lack of more complicated rhythmic and harmonic structures? Or is it the lack of more complicated forms?

If so, then I don't see how the arguments stand. I already gave the example of Glass and other minimalists - aren't they heralded as having outstanding craft? And what about, say, Beethoven's 5th - the first movement is pretty rhythmically and harmonically simple. I think we all agree that Beethoven is not short on "craft", right?

Now, if you want to say that some music you like and some you don't, then that's a fair assessment because it's subjective. But if you want to claim that certain music is better or worse because of the composer's technical capability (i.e. craft), then there should be some objectivity behind it.

That's the part I still can't grasp.

It almost seems like you're saying "Yes, some great composers use simple structures, but it's because they choose to - they could use more complicated structures if they wanted to."

rgames


----------



## JohnG

I was taught that JS Bach was disappointed in the lack of rigour and complexity of his children’s compositions; portions of this thread read like that to me.

Each generation of composers / poets / artists / sculptors must challenge or even destroy the old way of doing things. Every time, such challenges provoke outrage, umbrage, even a sense of horror as revered learning, scholarship and icons are ignored, questioned, or even – sacrilegiously – mocked. In every era, one can read scathing criticism of “the new generation of know-nothings and care-nothings.” 

At its best, these feelings of outrage show love and reverence for what has gone before, and reflect the earnest belief that those responding feel there’s something important at stake. 

But at their worst, such attacks read like desperate attempts to shore up legitimacy for an established school, using the trappings of learning and academe to enforce predilection and preference. Sometimes we are treated to lip-smacking self-congratulation from the pedantic, complete with patient head shaking at the droll scribblings of the newly popular who “just don’t have the first idea of how to do things properly.” Again, taking the worst interpretation, this can read like a Salieri trying to take down a new, much more successful practitioner who doesn't support his favourite icons – or his music.

I am with Jose here. I think it’s much harder to pull off what today’s presumed Know-Nothings are up to than it might appear. Some of it, naturally, is feeble and trivial, but as Tanuj says a lot of laptops are cheap and plastic but some are excellent. As someone who has spent a lot of time seeking to master such now laughable anachronisms as orchestration (remember woodwinds?), I too feel anxious when I see how close to irrelevant much of what I’ve learned has become. 

But then I think of John Williams, who in the mid 1970s, single-handedly resuscitated the symphonic film score, putting on display the spectacular pyrotechnics that had almost been forgotten in a swamp of feeble pop-ish guitar/drums/bass scores that had seeped across most of Hollywood in the early 70s. Similarly, Jerry Goldsmith legitimised in the commercial entertainment world many techniques of the avant-garde, with “Planet of the Apes” and then with “The Omen.”

So I think it’s not the tools, it’s the practitioner.

Great composers can raise almost any style, investing it with excitement, intrigue, dramatically satisfying form, and so on. James Newton Howard has demonstrated that with scores in almost unimaginably different musical languages – Dark Knight (with HZ), Signs, Michael Clayton, Treasure Planet – and one could cite more.

Yes, his music demonstrates that he’s a scholar, but his scholarship informs something else that’s already there, and that “something else” I believe matters a good deal more than the scholarship.


----------



## Guy Bacos

JohnG @ Fri May 27 said:


> But then I think of John Williams, who in the mid 1970s, single-handedly resuscitated the symphonic film score, putting on display the spectacular pyrotechnics that had almost been forgotten in a swamp of feeble pop-ish guitar/drums/bass scores that had seeped across most of Hollywood in the early 70s. Similarly, Jerry Goldsmith legitimised in the commercial entertainment world all the techniques of the avant-garde, with “Planet of the Apes” and then with “The Omen.”



Interesting. Another interesting fact is that swamp of feeble pop-ish guitar/drums/bass scores that had seeped across most of Hollywood in the early 70s coincided with the opening of the first Wendy's and the chain that followed. A coincidence? I think not!


----------



## noiseboyuk

Boy - John, that was a SUPERB post. Impeccable reasoning and analysis for me.

One additional observation - I think film scores are echoing what has been going on in popular music over the last 10-20 years. The days of polorization and tribalism have gone - possibly for good. Aerosmith and Run DMC made the old enemies of urban and rock kiss and make up nearly 20 years ago, and nothing has really been the same since. Popular music is now a melting pot of everything... nothing is out of place, it's all just different colours in different combinations. Of course, its far harder to innovate, but there's nothing to stop the songs still being terrific.

I think the same with film scores. As you say John, the big orchestral stuff wasn't in vogue in the early 70s, and Williams was a breath of fresh air. But Giacchino, Powell, Howard and many others still have terrific classical chops (let's sidestep if they are better than Goldsmith), so I don't think we're in quite the same position today. But - all of them broaden their palettes too. It's true that nothing quite sounds like a pure Star Wars today, but in part I think its a result of this melting pot of different styles. Actually I think some of Giacchino's work - especially LOST - is perhaps some of the purest orchestral stuff around of late, I don't think there were any synths, loops etc in that whole 6 years of scoring. I don't think he quite gets the credit he deserves here, he's terrific.


----------



## MichaelL

Thank you John. As always, you provide an eloquent and thoughtfully rendered post.

Best,

Michael


----------



## Guy Bacos

MichaelL @ Fri May 27 said:


> Thank you John. As always, you provide an eloquent and thoughtfully rendered post.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael



What about my analysis?


----------



## David Story

@JohnG (A superlative composer and good guy, I must say)

An ecstatic reviewer said that the Bartok concerto would soon replace the Beethoven as the standard of excellence. Bartok said: "Who would want to replace the Beethoven?"

It's not if it's new, or hard, or has “something else” that I'm addressing. Though those qualities matter to another topic. And lord knows I don't subscribe to any one school, or do things "properly". I'm indie friendly.

It's showing enough wisdom and respect to learn from the past. And using imagination to see beyond what works today. You have to adapt, imo. Eg, Woodwinds are very popular today, just different ones.

And most important to me here: know art and craft. See the many varieties of those qualities in different musics. Which you certainly do. But many don't.

Without that, you don't respect your colleagues, become dated, and are easily manipulated. Which is the current world. We can do better.

BTW, I interviewed Bear, Michael and Laura, many others. I promote their work. They also share my views on this.


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Fri May 27 said:


> MichaelL @ Fri May 27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you John. As always, you provide an eloquent and thoughtfully rendered post.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about my analysis?
Click to expand...


One would have to consider the impact of Burger King and Bob's Big Boy, for complete analysis.


----------



## dcoscina

Bear McCreary is terrific. A very intellectual yet very visceral composer at the same time. The guy has chops. He's releasing his score to The Cape shortly and I'm really looking forward to it. It's a big old fashioned score with themes and all that.


----------



## David Story

dcoscina @ Fri May 27 said:


> Bear McCreary is terrific. A very intellectual yet very visceral composer at the same time. The guy has chops. He's releasing his score to The Cape shortly and I'm really looking forward to it. It's a big old fashioned score with themes and all that.



Yep, that's gonna be a great album. The circus music is way cool.

Guy's analysis reveals the great hollywood burger conspiracy for the first time. Stay tuned!


----------



## Ed

noiseboyuk @ Fri May 27 said:


> Boy - John, that was a SUPERB post. Impeccable reasoning and analysis for me.
> 
> One additional observation - I think film scores are echoing what has been going on in popular music over the last 10-20 years. The days of polorization and tribalism have gone - possibly for good. Aerosmith and Run DMC made the old enemies of urban and rock kiss and make up nearly 20 years ago, and nothing has really been the same since. Popular music is now a melting pot of everything... nothing is out of place, it's all just different colours in different combinations. Of course, its far harder to innovate, but there's nothing to stop the songs still being terrific.



That reminds me, spend any time looking at fans of rock music for example and they will complain with often equal measure as those in this thread, how bad pop music has become and how great it was 20 years ago. Funny that.

The stuff Mike and others complain about is not unique to music, do they really think it is? Its the same with basically everything... take sound design (in which I think they really have a case to make, back in the day you had no sound libs at all), the same with photography, the same with visual effects (in which you would think Mike would be uniquely qualified to notice), the same with editing (remember an editor needed to actually literally cut film?) and a hundred other things. Everywhere people are complaining that the level of craft or whatever has gone down and everything was better in the old days. In fact I think Mike would be one of the people that is making visual effects worth less in the same way as he is complaining about what is happening with music. Is that ironic?








> I think the same with film scores. As you say John, the big orchestral stuff wasn't in vogue in the early 70s, and Williams was a breath of fresh air. But Giacchino, Powell, Howard and many others still have terrific classical chops (let's sidestep if they are better than Goldsmith), so I don't think we're in quite the same position today. But - all of them broaden their palettes too. It's true that nothing quite sounds like a pure Star Wars today, but in part I think its a result of this melting pot of different styles. Actually I think some of Giacchino's work - especially LOST - is perhaps some of the purest orchestral stuff around of late, I don't think there were any synths, loops etc in that whole 6 years of scoring. I don't think he quite gets the credit he deserves here, he's terrific.



I still maintain that aside from the subjective snobbery I had been trying to deal with previously that apparently no one (on the other side) was willing to understand... the reason why we have more bad music and less "sophisticated" music or less "thoughtful" music is because there are more people making music. And thats not just because there is technology that enables people to do so that previously wouldn't have because they didn't have the education or (importantly) the money to do it, its also because there are more projects that require music and not all of them are sophisticated and demand high level "art". Even when the films are good, they still don't demand it all the time. I'll come back to that in a moment... but the point I want to make here is what i have said before... 

Mike.V said that all those old classical pieces had staying power, longevity. Like I asked him at the time, how many composers from Mozart's day do we still listen to? How many from Bach's day? How many were forgotten about? Probably more crucially what *PERCENTAGE *were forgotton about? There were also way less composers back then than there are now. As I was trying to say before, if in 200 years only 2 composers from the last 50 years are still being listened to... is that really that different to these classical composers people use as examples today? 

But quickly, going back to what films require sophisticated music... if you watch something like Fight Club it wouldn't be the same and wouldn't work the same with a traditional classical score from John Williams. Film music demands far more than just well written music, someone like John Williams is so great because he has all those sensibilities PLUS ALSO knows how to write brilliant music. The more you write to picture the more you *should *realise that it doesn't matter if you write something good if it doesn't fit the scene or characters or film* its worthless. * Its far more preferable to have something really simple like a drone or some cliche'd action drums in this case that will fit better in a case like this. If a scene would be best with a electronic score, are some of the people just going to demand to write a symphony instead? I really do get that impression based on their comments and to me that's a really bad attitude for a film composer and if they are successfull anyway its in spite of that. If you are not prepared to throw out or dumb down your music because it doesn't fit the scene because you've written something too complicated or over the top that while musically brilliant doesn't fit whats going on, then you should be rethinking your career in film. Imagine Star Wars with all the tracks in the wrong order, in the wrong places. Same music, but it would be badly written for film. It would be a bad film score. 

I've been a bit all over the place with this post but I can't be bothered to organise it.


----------



## Guy Bacos

David Story @ Fri May 27 said:


> Guy's analysis reveals the great hollywood burger conspiracy for the first time. Stay tuned!



Glad to see this is being taken seriously. 

This actually goes back as far as JFK.

I fear my life may be endangered now.


----------



## dcoscina

Ed, your last post was one that I got. And I will admit that it's not just music that we see corners cut- definitely it appears in all areas, which is also lamentable. And yes, more people can make music. If it makes them happy, I say God Bless. I'd rather have more people making music than doing awful things to each other, that's for sure.

And I hope I didn't infer that non trained musicians don't work very hard because I'm sure they do and trained musicians can be lazy (cough* James Horner *cough). I know Hans Zimmer works his arse off and that Inception and Dark Knight video of his process allowed me to respect him far more than I had before. 

John G's post was also very balanced and measured and rang true. Obviously some of my rants are ego driven, I admit that. It's passion for music and wanting to be inspired myself to do better (cause I certainly can!). By that measure, I have to look to the past for my own music development because I'm interested in becoming a better orchestral composer. I will maintain that film scores these days are not a viable avenue to take if that is one's main purpose. 

If I want to become a better, contemporary film composer, you bet your ass I'd take a Zimmer master class or John Powell class and I would still be interested to hear their thoughts anyhow. Their experience marrying tradition with technology is fascinating. 

So anyhow, good posts Ed and John. Gave me something to chew on this afternoon.


----------



## MichaelL

Guy Bacos @ Fri May 27 said:


> I fear my life may be endangered now.



Only if you actually eat the burgers. :lol: 

To your health,

Michael


----------



## Guy Bacos

I'm suspecting Dave is in on this. His las sentence is very suspicious!!




dcoscina @ Fri May 27 said:


> Gave me something to chew on this afternoon.



Chew? Chew what? A hamburger?


----------



## rJames

dcoscina @ Fri May 27 said:


> John G's post was also very balanced and measured and rang true.



Hear, hear!

Regarding inspiration vs education...

For me, I let my education inspire the cue. I go to the piano and find some interesting relationship to exploit and most times, a melody that works within that relationship. Then I let inspiration finish the cue.

I think I'm dyslexic.


----------

