# Smalley's "Composing for Film"-Short Review



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 29, 2007)

Jack Smalley's Composing for Film from my perspective.

First, where is Batz to edit my writing when I need him!

I have now had Jack Smalley's book for a bit under 2 weeks and have been through the book. I could use to go over a few sections a bit more to get stronger footing but I feel I have a fairly good grasp of the the text.

Note- Yes it is a composing book but it also deals with other areas of the creative process of film composing. 

Like many books which come from teachers with experience, this book is a collection of lessons. There are really no planned assignments though. Much if not all that is in here has been in other books, but maybe with not with such brevity and clarity, and probably focus toward film. The book is really a tool chest of how to deal with the music in scoring. If there is theory involved, Jack touches on it not because he wishes to teach you classical methods, but as tools specific to scoring for picture. Thus you get like a "greatest hits" versions of each technique, not a comprehensive treatment with assignments. He encourges you to take the techniques further on your own. It also means that what sometimes seems like a complicated subject, such as polytonality, serialism etc, are actually eased down so a novice can grasp most of the concepts. While books like "On the Track" are far more thorough on things like budget considerations and dealing with directors etc, "Composing for film" is more about the mechanics and tools of scoring to picture. 

The book comes from a different place in that it suggests 3 basic themes as examples through the whole book and proceeds to show you how to exploit them. The musical examples are basically simple to get the point across, and most people will not be intimidated by them. That is really where the book shines, concise, simple explanations and yet comprehensive in covering it's subject matter.

For the relative beginner it will introduce many techniques in a non threatening way.
For the intermediate it will fill in some blanks and show a different way of approaching problems you may already have solutions for.
For the advanced composer it is a concise place to have ideas organized. It also may show a different angle of techniques you are already familiar with. 
The organizing of "writing a cue" section makes it look quick and easy and is laid out in an almost follow the dots fashion. 
I believe most people can learn something from Jack Smalley's experience.

One note to all, though he is known to be a great orchestrator this book contains very little about the subject. There are no real scores to speak of either. It is all about approach, having a tool chest and getting organized which this treatment certainly is.

I will not make a comment on the price page ratio issue. I am judging the book on it's own merit, price excluded.

Craig


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks for the review, Craig! 8) 

I've always wanted a source loaded with standard scoring tricks, like:
- - - _To make a melody sound sweepingly romantic, toss in an interval or two of at least a 6th._
Or:
- - - _Cues are more "magical" sounding if you use that scale that has the sharp 4th in it (I can never remember the name of that scale.)_
Or:
- - - _For a military sound, use lots of 4ths and 5ths._

Does this book cover basics like that?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Dec 29, 2007)

Hey Mike,

While not a a dictionary of ideas it covers this topic fairly well.

Jack believes that there are basically 7 emotions to be covered in scoring. He shows some ways to get there. He explains also how he goes about choosing emotional material being a love theme or a villian theme etc. 

The scale you refer to is a mjor scale with a raised 4th or lydian mode btw.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks Craig and rJames for the reviews. 

The impression I get is that this book is cheap at twice the price. I , for one, can't put a price on this kind of invaluable information. 

I hope Mr. Smalley can stop in and say hi sometime.


----------



## Jaap (Dec 30, 2007)

Thanks for this review. Was just about to consider buying this book and this helps a lot!


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 31, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Sat Dec 29 said:


> Thanks for the review, Craig! 8)
> 
> I've always wanted a source loaded with standard scoring tricks, like:
> - - - _To make a melody sound sweepingly romantic, toss in an interval or two of at least a 6th._
> ...



Oh Lord, Mike, you want a "paint by the numbers" book?

I don't know any good film composer who thinks in those terms frankly.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 31, 2007)

Personally I see nothing wrong with attaching emotional labels to techniques - as long as they're seen as what they are: just as guides to get there and realizing that its really in the orchestration and writing technique (and not in the label). Whatever works.

I just bought Smalley's book based on Craig's recommendation. if you get it from Film Score, it reads like you're going to be doing an instant download but actually I found out later that Jack is sending a hard copy book. 

I think continual study of the craft of writing is essential which is why I'm eventually going to be dusting off the books again and restarting my EIS lessons next year as well when time permits. I've started writing professionally in 2007 so subsequently have been getting a lot of helpful ideas and advice from Craig and others regarding harmony and instrumentation. I'm also leaning upon Principles of Orchestration and end up listening to countless scores to get ideas as to why things work they way they work. Having the vocabulary to recreate and expand upon approaches is a key help so I'm looking forward to checking out Jack Smalley's new book as a further leg up to help out when mired in crunch time.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 31, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Mon Dec 31 said:


> Mike Greene @ Sat Dec 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the review, Craig! 8)
> ...



Knowing the rules doesn't make it paint by numbers. It might help you when you paint yourself into a corner, though. "Why doesn't this sound romantic? Maybe it's because I have too many consonant leaps in the melody. I should change those to scalar motion, or change those leaps to hit the 9ths or 13ths of the scale..." etc. It might seem mechanical, but it almost has to be to teach anything. You can't teach by saying, "I don't know, it depends." You give general rules, and then the students either follow them or don't. 

I really like this book. As a composition book (how to compose) it's one of the best and most original I've read. It has almost nothing on business or technology. The chapter where he breaks down a scene and fills in elements was very interesting.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2007)

Mike, that would be Lydian - the fourth of the seven Greek modes, i.e. F to F in the key of C.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 31, 2007)

Oh, Craig already splaned.

Well, I can confirm that he's right.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

synthetic @ Mon Dec 31 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Dec 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Greene @ Sat Dec 29 said:
> ...



There ARE no general rules for writing romantically, heroically, comically poignantly, etc. It isn't about the intervals or scales that you use it is about your mind, your heart, and your technique. Talk to guys who have done this successfully and they will tell you that we just don't think about it that way.

You learn how to do this by:

1. Listening to the music and/or watching the film of those who do it well.

2. Constantly studying different kinds of music so that your musical vocabulary keeps expanding.

3. Doing it a lot.

I really like and respect Mike so I am not taking a shot at him. And I know he is a hard worker and that is not laziness that moved him to ask the question. Nor am I stupid enough to try to piss off somebody that big 

But there are no shortcuts for this. I know we live in an Apple Loops world but at the end of the day it is still about effort, time, experience, and talent.

If anyone ever writes such a book I hope to hell it is a flop.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 1, 2008)

Jay, if I may gratuitiously add to your list...

4. Extrapolate some "things that work", not for paint-by-numbers, but as a crystal-starting seed, especially when deadlines loom and inspiration is on its coffee break. (Indeed Jack Smalley's book discusses several 'geometric shapes' to craft melody lines appropriate to given moods.)

Which I think was the point of Mike's list. Not to be _content_ with a "bag o' tricks", but to have in one's musical arsenal some useful generalizations about musical form.

(And none of this is intended to argue with Jay: won't even try to, because according to his signature, his Logic is Certified.)

-Peter


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

ComposerDude @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Jay, if I may gratuitiously add to your list...
> 
> 4. Extrapolate some "things that work", not for paint-by-numbers, but as a crystal-starting seed, especially when deadlines loom and inspiration is on its coffee break. (Indeed Jack Smalley's book discusses several 'geometric shapes' to craft melody lines appropriate to given moods.)
> 
> ...



I don't mean to be argumentative here, really.

But as far as things that work I have never found any that translate from project to project. Within a project, absolutely, I find some things that work from cue to cue but every time I sit down to score a film or TV show, it is a whole new ball game for me, which is why I love it.

The first TV show I scored I was a co-composer with my friend David Michael Frank. The contractor was Jules Chaiken, who was a biggie. When I was out conducting my cues Jules remarked to David that for a relatively inexperienced composer my inner line writing was very good, a comment which David was nice enough to pass on to me.

The reason was that I had 2 years of species counterpoint study where I had to write within that discipline, obeying all those rules, and yet still could get graded down if the teacher didn't feel that each line had melodic interest.

There are no shortcuts for that IMHO.

But clearly, it is different for some others here so whatever works for you is fine.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 1, 2008)

Interesting... Thank you Jay - I certainly appreciate your voice of experience.

-Peter


----------



## Thonex (Jan 1, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Oh Lord, Mike, you want a "paint by the numbers" book?
> 
> I don't know any good film composer who thinks in those terms frankly.



I do. I have a very small bag of tricks because my knowledge is so very limited. I only know 4 chords:


Major
Minor
Augmented
Diminished

I feel this bag of tricks has pretty much covered me for most of my scores.

Oh.... wait... you said "good film composers"... never mind :lol: 

T


----------



## aeneas (Jan 1, 2008)

Thonex @ Tue 01 Jan said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Lord, Mike, you want a "paint by the numbers" book?
> ...


I agree - good composers are those who do not think in those terms. Furthermore - best composers are those who don't think at all about terms, any terms.

I don't know any good composer who has written a book that is worth reading. Also, I don't know any good composer who has become good buy reading books. So, from these two premises, I gather that good composers have nothing to do with reading or writing books.

Who needs terms, words, books? Being a composer, good or bad, writing music, good or bad, is all about sculpting the air. 

my two 'Zappa-borrowed' pence

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... zappa.html


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 1, 2008)

ComposerDude @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Interesting... Thank you Jay - I certainly appreciate your voice of experience.
> 
> -Peter




For anyone that is a beginner in music or has grasped the "art" of learning- don't take Asher's or aeneas comments seriously.It's just bad advice.


I'm astounded that so called pro's miss the point of a book from a guy like Smalley. It's just a guide to be supplemented w/ experience. No more no less. And Mike's comments are completely appropriate. How anyone could take his comments as a desire for a paint by numbers book is just weird. There is nothing wrong with giving examples in this way. It's a basic building block/technique of teaching. A good teacher would say"yes'try this. own it then let it be a part of your intuition someday" 

Learning Jazz is very much this way. Learn it. own it. forget it. 


I've spent a good deal of my professional life unlearning what some teachers taught me and thankfully I now know what is crap and what isn't.


If this is the "voice of experience". Then I'll pass.


----------



## Thonex (Jan 1, 2008)

aeneas @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> I don't know any good composer who has written a book that is worth reading.l



Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov ?


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2008)

Mike, none of these people have any idea what they're talking about. This is what you need to know:

happy = major
sad = minor

That's it. Clearly, Smalley also has no idea what he's talking about, and I wouldn't bother listening to anything he has to say.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

artsoundz @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> ComposerDude @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting... Thank you Jay - I certainly appreciate your voice of experience.
> ...



Whoa, where did I say anything critical about Smalley's book? I did not. You need to read more carefullly.

I only gave my opinion that the idea that i.e. using trite interval/trait descriptions was not a good way to learn. And I stand by that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 1, 2008)

On a slightly more serious note, I do have to say that the best scores usually do much more than only setting a mood. If you think about Patton, for example, Goldsmith came up with three themes for Patton's personality (believes he's a reincarnated warrior, religious man, military man). How do you fit that into moods?

I'm sure Smalley is just setting some basic guidelines, because music is much more subtle than that. Otherwise it would be like saying "I've identified seven things you can say, and these are the words you use."


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Regarding the Mike vs. Jay issue; while it is true that you don't want to get overly formulaic or specific about attaching extra-musical connotations to this or that, it can be perfectly helpful to make certain generalizations about _some_ things. This is not unknown to composers, past and present. Psychoacoustics is very real.
> 
> Since Mike brought up one of the modes, you can take that as an example. The best way of looking at the seven diatonic modes is in terms of brightness vs. darkness. This is standard stuff. The rule of thumb is that the more sharps/less flats a diatonic scale has relative to its Ionian, the brighter the sound - all other things being equal. And the further you go in the opposite direction, the darker the sound.
> 
> ...



1. This is NOT a Mike vs. Jay issue. I like and respect Mike. 

2. What you are describing is indeed valid but it is lot more sophisticated than what Mike asked about:
- - - To make a melody sound sweepingly romantic, toss in an interval or two of at least a 6th. 
Or: 
- - - Cues are more "magical" sounding if you use that scale that has the sharp 4th in it (I can never remember the name of that scale.) 
Or: 
- - - For a military sound, use lots of 4ths and 5ths." 

If you want to learn about colors/moods you would learn more by listening to "Daphnis and Chloe" 3 times than you would ever learn by that kind of stuff.

And Mike is not a beginner. He is a successful composer. 

Also, I don't believe in training beginners to think in terms of musical cliches in the hope that eventually they will discard them. (I am not saying that is what you are advocating.)


----------



## Thonex (Jan 1, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Also, I don't believe in training beginners to think in terms of musical cliches in the hope that eventually they will discard them. (I am not saying that is what you are advocating.)



Well.... that said, you don't teach a 5 year old kid to read by starting them off with Shakespeare. You start of with "Dick and Jane" and eventually (hopefully) they discard them. :wink:


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> aeneas said:
> 
> 
> > [snip]...the best composers are those who don't think at all about terms, any terms.
> ...



I do not go as far as Aeneas did. Of course, composers use their intellect as well as their emotions.

I am saying that good film composers do not think, "OK, I am going to write this in a minor key using primary chords because I want the audience to cry."

Or "I am going to write a heroic theme so I will make sure I am using a lot of perfect 4ths and 5ths."

Or "I want this to sound jazzy so I must remember to throw some altered voicings in against some modal melodies."

We have listened and studied enough music that that stuff is in our DNA so it comes in where it is needed. Nobody taught me that. I learned it by listening to great music and watching good films with good scores.

The analogy is that of a basketball player like a Michael Jordan who spent so much time as a young man practicing his moves and shots on a court that when as a pro he stepped on the court he could simply create. 

Hard work is required. Good books are great. Good training is great. Sheer talent helps.

Simplistic formulas are not.

That's my opinion and others are free to reach different conclusions.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

Thonex @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I don't believe in training beginners to think in terms of musical cliches in the hope that eventually they will discard them. (I am not saying that is what you are advocating.)
> ...



I am not aware of any 5 year olds that are serious budding film composers.

When they enter Junior High they used to start teaching "Romeo and Juliet." I hope that is still true.

I am guessing by then they have become are that Dick and Jane is not the pinnacle of literary achievement.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## rJames (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks Scott for your response to Aeneas' ideas about "book learnin'" (love the way you put it)!

In response to Jay's more recent posts. BTW I totally respect Jay's knowledge and experience that is lightyears more than mine.

I would beg to differ that some composers don't go , "OK, I'm going to use minor key and primary chords cause I want the audience to cry."

jack's book, IMHO, says exactly that.

Because he says to start is most important. To block out the major moments gives you a framework. "The notes are not important." (although he is not quoting Aeneas)

Primary triads in a minor key ( or blantant themes of a hero or villan) in a blocked out score do not define the final score.

They become guideposts. Moments to get to and move away from...

and with a modern B or C movie that has budgeted NO time and NO money for the score, this kind of thinking is what is called for.

I believe this is one of the pillars of EIS. Spud said, "write like mad." I'm pretty sure he just wants us to go for it...start writing...it WILL evolve. Keep an eraser handy!!! It doesn't even matter if you have a piano nearby...just write...you can always change it!

I believe that Jack's book is ALL about "simple steps."

He even defines what type of theme fits a villan, a hero, a romantic figure...

I'm telling you, it is a very GENERAL guide. Personally, I don't think he means to take it too literally. I think he is saying..."think about it like this."

It is thought provoking.

A minor triad or two does not define a key for me. Alter a non-chord tone and you have a whole new feel (even though you have blocked in a minor key)

I think that the great movie composers have probably just subliminalized (that's probably not a word is it?) this function.

I hate it when a composer (at a seminar for instance) says that his method is to watch the film a few times and then just write what comes to him.

Really helpful.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Ashermusic said:
> 
> 
> > I do not go as far as Aeneas did......
> ...



Yes, i understood that, Scott. I just wanted it to be really clear where he and I differ.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 1, 2008)

rJames @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Thanks Scott for your response to Aeneas' ideas about "book learnin'" (love the way you put it)!
> 
> In response to Jay's more recent posts. BTW I totally respect Jay's knowledge and experience that is lightyears more than mine.
> 
> ...



I haven't read Jack's book so I cannot comment on quotes taken out of context.

And while you may "hate it when a composer (at a seminar for instance) says that his method is to watch the film a few times and then just write what comes to him" if he is well trained and experienced to boot that IS probably what he does, as it is what I do.

No shortcuts.


----------



## rJames (Jan 1, 2008)

Many people attend seminars to learn.

In any profession, to say that you just look at the issue and figure out an answer, is useless.

That was my point.

Many composers will give a thorough answer to the question of how they score a scene. If you've done something so many times that it becomes as natural as breathing, I guess you'd have to deconstruct your (not your's but any composer's) own process. But that would take some thought.

I assume that every composer would have a different answer as to the best way to go about scoring a scene. 

With a little introspection, I think any composer could write an outline of how it is done that might be more helpful than, "I watch the scene, until the music comes to me." That answer just defines the shortcut. The real path is being followed at an autonomic level.

I wonder if that process just gives us little regurgitated segments and memories of movie scores that the composer has seen in his or her past?

And I mean that as a serious point, not as a snub or insult to anyone who uses the method of just waiting for, "inspiration."


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 1, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> And Mike is not a beginner. He is a successful composer.


Yes, but no one has ever accused him of being a _good_ composer!

I think everyone, including Jay, understands what I really meant with my overly simplified examples. And even in overly simplified terms, I'll take any and all tips.

It IS handy to know tried and true tricks of common heroic or romantic or sad melodies. Doesn't mean we always use them and stick to formulas, but they're handy to know if we're not in the mood for constantly reinventing the wheel.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 1, 2008)

rJames @ Tue 01 Jan said:


> "The notes are not important."


Did Jack Smalley really say that in this book? If he did, then IMO the book is worth 80 bucks only for that short statement.

BTW, I have carefully read all the posts in this interesting thread, and one thing striked me: all comments, and I mean ALL comments, they do exclusively refer to notes. I find that totally unbelievable! Because, as film composers, you guys surely must know that, when scoring movies, the moods and atmospheres are created, first and foremost, by 
- layering sounds over time (rhythm), 
- by altering and combining their intensities (dynamics),
- by combining their 'colors' (articulations/timbres/textures).
Are you saying that you are scoring the scenes of a film by using those 12 silly notes? Do you really believe the myth about sharps/flats = brighter/darker? Do you really believe that minor/major = sad/happy? Do you really believe the myth that notes can express moods? That you are creating emotional responses by using intervals?

This is beyond belief: how can professional filmcomposers be so obsessed with notes? No matter how I turn it and look at it, it appears to me plain as daylight: among the four elements of music, pitches/notes are the least important element, when it comes to filmmusic. Here is another thing to consider: filmmakers and audiences do not respond to notes and their derivatives - audiences and filmmakers emotionally respond to precisely the other three elements that everybody here seems to completely overlook: rhythms, dynamics, and timbres/colors/textures. That is, it appears so, at least from my limited/biased observations.

my two 'dynamically-colored-rhythmical' pence

edit - 
Of course, notes are not to be thrown in randomly. They should not disturb the film, that's all about them. Notes are the easy part. What is much harder is to find the appropriate combinations of rhythms, dynamics, and timbres, that would support the pictures and the story. And the director's taste and vision, above all.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 1, 2008)

..........


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Wed 02 Jan said:


> you are absolutely rock-solid right about everything (etc.)


You think so? Well, think again, because, apparently 
_"Your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that your knowledge and awareness are a perfect reflection of reality."_ ( - Scott Rogers, opening a can of semantic worms)

If you find anything false/ridiculous in the opinions expressed in my previous post, please point it out - also, the reasons for your thinking they are false/ridiculous. To the point, please, and not to the person. It will be appreciated.

My best assumption is that you thought I was talking about music in general, when I was talking specifically about film music, i.e. scoring film scenes.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 2, 2008)

..........


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

Scott Rogers @ Wed 02 Jan said:


> so you should be satisfied with that.


It rather looks like you are. 

(however, a number of things remain very unclear, like: what do you call 'dance', what is 'foolish', also - what should I teach who. Considering those, and other bland statements, left behind, your 'moving on' appears like a consistent decision.)

Thanks for your responsiveness, or should I say - openness.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 2, 2008)

rJames @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Many people attend seminars to learn.
> 
> In any profession, to say that you just look at the issue and figure out an answer, is useless.
> 
> ...



Of course, you are correct and if one is going to teach one must thinks these things through thoroughly.

Frequently, however seminars are not really about teaching, they are about making an opening statement and answering questions.


----------



## rJames (Jan 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Jan 02 said:


> If you find anything false/ridiculous in the opinions expressed in my previous post, please point it out -



If you don't know what, "the dance" is that Scott is referring to, then you are not reading (or understanding) your own posts.

Your statement above is the invitation to the dance. (As if I had to point that out)

By now, I think most of us realize that you are doing a research paper for your sociology class and don't give a hoot about music.

Please, don't bother asking me to dance.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

rJames @ Wed 02 Jan said:


> aeneas @ Wed Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > If you find anything false/ridiculous in the opinions expressed in my previous post, please point it out -
> ...


While, of course, you are - better than I am.



> Your statement above is the invitation to the dance. (As if I had to point that out)


No, my statement/invitation was a reaction to Scott Roger's attempt to ridicule-without-pointing-out-what-is-to-be-ridiculed.



> By now, I think most of us realize that you are doing a research paper for your sociology class and don't give a hoot about music.


I don't know who is 'us' and what 'us' do 'realize', but I am sure that I do not care for writing (or reading) any paper. Also, I fail to see what 'sociology' could possibly have to do with my post about the proportion among the four elements of music and how that proportion relates to film scoring, to Jack Smalley's book, or to this thread. As about what I do (or do not) give about music, you don't have the slightest idea. You, like Scott Rogers, just seem to enjoy personal attacks, so you nourish and provide yourself with presumptions that enable your attacks. Try to focus on the topic, that's a good way to keep the discussion healthy.



> Please, don't bother asking me to dance.


Again, semantics - 'understanding', 'us', 'realize', 'sociology', 'dance'... [sigh] If by 'dance' you understand: refraining from getting personal, also presenting rational òú   kÉú   kÊú   kËú   kÌú   kÍú   kÎú   kÏú   kÐú   kÑú   kÒú   kÓú   kÔú   kÕú   kÖú   k×ú   kØú   kÙú   kÚú   kÛú   kÜú   kÝú   kÞú   kßú   kàú   káú   kâú   kãú   käú   kåú   kæú   kçú   kèú   kéú   kêú   këú   kìú   kíú   kîú   kïú   kðú   kñú   kòú   kóú   kôú   kõú   köú   k÷ú   køú   kùú   kúú   kûú   küú   kýú   kþú   kÿú   k  ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k ú   k 
ú   k


----------



## rJames (Jan 2, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Jan 02 said:


> rJames @ Wed 02 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > He wrote, "The Notes Don't Matter!"
> ...



I already told you my answer to that question. 

It is meant to be provocative and is in *bold*.

You can buy the book to discover your own answer. You've already spent more than $80 in time in responding in this thread.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

rJames @ Wed 02 Jan said:


> It is meant to be provocative


Are you saying that he actually doesn't believe that, and his statement is only ironical?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 2, 2008)

ComposerDude @ Wed Jan 02 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > ComposerDude @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> ...



Thank you for the kind words and I fully recognize that there are many paths to getting a satisfying result. I try to share what my experiences have taught me and the conclusions I have reached but I fully respect the right of others to disagree, particularly those who have proved that they can deliver the goods.


----------



## rJames (Jan 2, 2008)

I believe it is a dramatic statement to get you thinking.

We've all heard the idea that there are a hundred ways to score a scene correctly. (or whatever that quote is)

There is a premise in the book which I am not going to give away here. But in addition to that idea, the point is to move forward. The PARTICULAR notes are not important. (that is my assumption)

If you've ever listened to music you know that some sequences of notes are more pleasing than others. And that some sequences of notes help a scene and that other hurt a scene.

In EIS we pay particular attention to the ever present overtone series. If you stack up too many sets of overtones (by having too much diversity in the bass) your sound will get muddy. Other (vertical) combinations of notes will clash directly or their overtones will clash.

So, choosing the right notes is always important. (in my opinion)

I might even go so far...(just had a flash of inspiration) that the choice of notes, horizontally, may very well fit the idea that the choice is of no (probably more like of LESS) importance.

But once you start filling in vertical...note choice becomes paramount.

And because of persistence of vision and of hearing, the horizontal will have vertical implications.


----------



## Synesthesia (Jan 2, 2008)

I cant seem to work out how to set the 'ignore' function of this board.

Would anyone be so kind as to jot a quick 'how to' up please?

Many thanks!

Paul ~o)


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

rJames @ Wed 02 Jan said:


> So, choosing the right notes is always important. (in my opinion)


That is my opinion too. It is important and easy in the same time. As I said, notes are not to be thrown in randomly, they should not disturb the scene. But - once you have decided about them, or you just will decide about them as you go scoring the scene - then comes the really important part: how to combine rhythms, dynamics, and timbres, so that they will support the scene? That is what my emphasis was put on. Comparing to that, the notes' choice seems way easier, or, as you said, of LESS importance.

I understand what you are saying about the vertical and horizontal aspects of pitches. That's easy to take care of, when you are not trying to write symphonies for high-brow scholars. While scoring a scene for a director, once you have chosen your idiom: modal, tonal, serial, whatever - going ahead with the notes is extremely easy. What is really hard is to combine rhythms, dynamics, and timbres, so that the music will really serve the scene (according also to the director's taste and vision, hopefully). The notes do not serve the scene, it is the other three musical elements that are the real means for achieving that. That is what I was talking about.

I really don't need to learn how to use notes, and, possibly, everyone else on this board knows more than enough about notes. 

Now, notes apart, what does Jack Smalley say in his book about the other three musical elements and about how he does use them when he's composing for film?


----------



## bryla (Jan 2, 2008)

:roll: 



aeneas @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> I don't know any good composer who has written a book that is worth reading. Also, I don't know any good composer who has become good buy reading books.



Do you know Hindemith's books? They are quite good


----------



## linwood (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey Jack,
did you ever think when you wrote this book a bunch of old ladies would rag on about it like this?


----------



## aeneas (Jan 2, 2008)

And who's this genderless mummy performing its clairvoyance skills?

Seriously, if you have nothing to say on the topic, open your own thread about whatever your interests might be.


----------



## linwood (Jan 2, 2008)

Jack and I are having a moment.....butt out.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 2, 2008)

"Notes Don't Matter!"

is in bold

"The art of composing music, as in all artistic endeavors, starts with concept. It isn't about finding the right notes, but coming up with a concept about how the music should sound and what it should do."

In response it seems Jack thinks themes (the notes) are not what makes scores great but how the themes are treated dependent on the scene of the film. 
He also has some ideas of how to get in the ballpark of creating a usable theme. How one treats the themes is by rhythm and harmonic content under the theme which shades how one emotionaly relates to the film. this is definitley a focus in the book. I think if Jack excluded the theory of notes and how it relates to film he would have a bunch of books collecting dust.


----------



## Scott Rogers (Jan 2, 2008)

..........


----------



## linwood (Jan 2, 2008)

I bid this forum a farewell.


----------



## rJames (Jan 2, 2008)

I didn't take offense Linwood. I assume it was a joke...otherwise...butt out! (and take Jack with you.)

We wouldn't want to have Jack's perspective ruin all of our opinions of what we thought he meant.

BTW I still call him Mr. Smalley.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 2, 2008)

I have had an issue in myself how I should post when using the name Jack Smalley.

I have in the past always conversed with Mr Smalley as Jack, but it seems less dignified for a man who has his experience and teaches at USC. I have not really come up with a comfortable solution. Maybe I will just stop posting.


----------



## artsoundz (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> Ashermusic @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > And Mike is not a beginner. He is a successful composer.
> ...




That's all I'm sayin' but in truth- Jays first response assumed more than what you were sayin.If I read his post right ,he absolutely didnt get what you were saying, Mike. But whatever....And if a book comes out by a pro that has a bunch of tips- I'll buy it- use what I can and move on to the next source of inspiration. This process has thankfully allowed me to work full time as a composer for over 15 beautiful years and 2 ugly ones.

Oh- Jay- I apologize for getting a bit warm-My response was probably more directed to someone else than it was to you. I do think you may not be as experienced teaching very young minds as you are a composer. You would be surprised to learn "trite" examples can be a great starting point for newbies. 

But ya know, guys (and gal), I'm dissapointed that a simple thread that makes us aware of a new book by a seasoned pro is getting so much ridiculous unfocused attention. 

I guess I wouldn't blame Mr. Smalley for not dropping in. A (possibly) missed opportunity.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 2, 2008)

[quote="artsoundz @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:04 pm"

Oh- Jay- I apologize for getting a bit warm-My response was probably more directed to someone else than it was to you. I do think you may not be as experienced teaching very young minds as you are a composer. You would be surprised to learn "trite" examples can be a great starting point for newbies. 

[/quote]

Cool. I was taken back a bit by how strongly you reacted.

I still feel the same way about how you teach would-be film composers but I certainly respect your right to disagree with me.


----------



## poseur (Jan 26, 2008)

aeneas @ Tue Jan 01 said:


> I don't know any good composer who has written a book that is worth reading.


interesting viewpoint on "good composer",
if seemingly..... errrmm..... either poorly-informed,
or broadly prejudiced.

paul hindemith?
steve reich?
terry riley?
aaron copland?
edgar varèse?
leonard bernstein?
luciano berio?
karlheinz stockhausen?
harry partch?
toru takemitsu?
lou harrison?

we can't learn enough, imo, ever,
unless our "learning" somehow creates false barriers
around the quality & shape of our output.

the first thing i learnt (from a composer listed above) is
that any & all rules & theoretical backdrops can _serve_ us as
starting points, triggers & guides-along-the-way
for creative, intelligent, committed & passionate composition.

d


----------



## aeneas (Jan 26, 2008)

poseur @ Sat 26 Jan said:


> aeneas @ Tue Jan 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know any good composer who has written a book that is worth reading.
> ...


Both, actually. That's the fate of all viewpoints and all knowledge - they're all poorly-informed and broadly prejudiced. Why? Because, as you correctly said, "we can't learn enough." - that's why. We're doomed to know very little and to have a narrow perception of reality, but we're blessed to be able to make music, instead.

Just to make a bit clearer what I call a 'good composer': a composer who writes 'good scores'. By 'good scores' I understand scores that I like. What I like is all that counts, of course - I guess that's how it works for everyone, isn't it?

Considering the topic, I must say that reading books is important, especially books wrote by composers - not for the books' sake, but for the occasion to enter a bit inside of a composer's mind and see things from his/her perspective. Supporting living composers would be another reason. Also, for the info too - knowledge is important, even if info is never enough, is sometimes confusing, and often redundant.

my two 'agnostic' pence


----------



## bryla (Jan 26, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> Just to make a bit clearer what I call a 'good composer': a composer who writes 'good scores'. By 'good scores' I understand scores that I like. What I like is all that counts, of course - I guess that's how it works for everyone, isn't it?



Well you have to have respect for composers and musicians that have madean impact in history whether you like them/their music or not. That respect could be showed in listening to them, reading their books, and transcribing their stuff... Maybe after some time you'll like it


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 27, 2008)

I don't know who you are really poseur/d, but I like you, the look of your posts and (more importantly) their content. 8) =o


----------



## poseur (Jan 27, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> I don't know who you are really poseur/d, but I like you, the look of your posts and (more importantly) their content. 8) =o


thanks, ned --- i'm a working 'poser, producer & recording musician:
i've been accused of thinking too much.
of taking my art & craft a bit too seriously, sometimes:
ha!
from past forum experience w/the nature of my opinions,
i suppose i've become a bit..... errrmm..... "shy".
though i haven't seen him in about 2 yrs,
i'm a friend of jack smalley's.
i'm glad to be here, glad to take part in the community!
(craig sharmat introduced me to the site,
a few months ago, fwiw).

d


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 27, 2008)

bryla @ Sat Jan 26 said:


> aeneas @ Sun Jan 27 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to make a bit clearer what I call a 'good composer': a composer who writes 'good scores'. By 'good scores' I understand scores that I like. What I like is all that counts, of course - I guess that's how it works for everyone, isn't it?
> ...



I agree Bryla but you will not find a lot of support for that thinking on the web. I was raised to respect accomplishment as an end in itself whether or not I liked the product but in today's world the prevailing attitude is generally that everyone's opinion has equal weight, regardless of their education, accomplishments or lack thereof. In other words, "If I like it, it is good." instead of "It may or may not be good, but I like it." 

My late songwriting collaborator, Paul Jabara, who won an Oscar and a Grammy, used to say to me in frustration that we should write a song called "Everybody Is An Authority On Everything."

Pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 27, 2008)

bryla @ Sun 27 Jan said:


> Well you have to have respect for composers and musicians that have madean impact in history whether you like them/their music or not. That respect could be showed in listening to them, reading their books, and transcribing their stuff... Maybe after some time you'll like it


I am of the same opinion. However, 'respect' and 'like' are, to me, different things. One can have respect for a person, even if one doesn't like that person. Example: I respect GW Bush although I don't like him. OTOH, one can like (or dislike) a piece of music regardless of how much one respects the person who composed it. Example: although I was never able to like any of the pieces he wrote, I really do have a lot of respect for Monsieur Pierre Boulez .

But my personal criterion for 'good music' is this: music that I like. Period. If you imply that I have to call 'good' a piece that I don't like, well, I will simply refuse to call it that. That would not be honest. Also, if you imply that a piece is 'good' because other people like it while I don't -- again, other people's tastes are not valid criteria for me. What's good for me is what I like, simple as that. That doesn't imply disrespect for anyone and for anything. Also, from my observations, that seems to be the way most people think.

"Maybe after some time you'll like it" -- this reminds me of someone who said to me something like: "lock me up in complete isolation with Mein Kampf for a few years, and I will come out a nazi preacher." So much about how time and 'selected' exposure can shape our tastes and views.



Ashermusic @ Sun 27 Jan said:


> I agree Bryla but you will not find a lot of support for that thinking on the web. I was raised to respect accomplishment as an end in itself whether or not I liked the product but in today's world the prevailing attitude is generally that everyone's opinion has equal weight, regardless of their education, accomplishments or lack thereof. In other words, "If I like it, it is good." instead of "It may or may not be good, but I like it."
> 
> My late songwriting collaborator, Paul Jabara, who won an Oscar and a Grammy, used to say to me in frustration that we should write a song called "Everybody Is An Authority On Everything."
> 
> Pretty much sums it up for me.


Right, that's pretty much how it is nowadays, and this is not necessarily a negative thing. I love the Post Modern paradigm, although I wouldn't hijack this thread and turn it into a 'pomo' discussion. Just a few points, triggered by the quote above: I think (and I believe that many others do) that pomo's dismissal of authority, although it may look bad to some, it is a good thing, overall. First, it shuts down critics as 'leaders of opinion'. 
Second, it gives equal opportunities to everyone to express themselves in an environment free of cultural prejudices and high-brow pretensions. 
Third, it opens up the frontiers to an Universe of new possibilities of combinations, in all arts. 
Fourth, it connects people, by exposing them to each other's cultures, by letting them borrow from each other's cultures -- therefore making people more open to accept differences, to consider those differences as 'richness' and 'opportunities', as opposed to 'barriers' and 'reasons to fight'. 
Fifth, postmodernism doesn't say that "everyone is an authority", but exactly the contrary: "no one is an authority" (those statements may appear the same, but are really opposite -- the former says 'war' while the latter says 'peace'). 
Sixth, I have always thought that anyone who 'sees' himself as an authority on whatever subject, he has a serious 'eyes' problem. 
Seventh, ... ok, I promised, so I'll stop right here.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> [quote:c079e0304d="bryla @ Sun 27 Jan, 02:45"]
> 
> Fifth, postmodernism doesn't say that "everyone is an authority", but exactly the contrary: "no one is an authority" (those statements may appear the same, but are really opposite -- the former says 'war' while the latter sayò#¼   m—â#¼   m—ã#¼   m—ä#¼   m—å#¼   m—æ#¼   m—ç#¼   m—è#¼   m—é#¼   m—ê#¼   m—ë#¼   m—ì#¼   m—í#¼   m—î#¼   m—ï#¼   m—ð#¼   m—ñ#¼   m—ò#¼   m—ó#¼   m—ô#¼   m—õ#¼   m—ö#¼   m—÷#¼   m—ø#¼   m—ù#¼   m—ú#¼   m—û#¼   m—ü#¼   m—ý#¼   m—þ#¼   m—ÿ#¼   m˜ #¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜	#¼   m˜
> #¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜ #¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜#¼   m˜ #¼   m˜!#¼   m˜"#¼   m˜##¼   m˜$#¼   m˜%#¼   m˜&#¼   m˜#¼   m˜‚#¼   m˜ƒ#¼   m˜„#½   m˜'#½   m˜(#½   m˜)#½   m˜*#½   m˜+#½   m˜,#½   m˜-#½   m˜.#½   m˜/#½   m˜0#½   m˜1#½   m˜2#½   m˜3#½   m˜4#½   m˜5#½   m˜6#½   m˜7#½   m˜8#½   m˜9#½   m˜:#½   m˜;#½   m˜<#½   m˜=#½   m˜>#½   m˜?#½   m˜@#½   m˜A#½   m˜B#½   m˜C#½   m˜D#½   m˜E#½   m˜F


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 27, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Jan 27 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun 27 Jan said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the opinion of an educated and experienced professional, whether it be music, art, food, or kitchen tables, is intrinsically more valuable and should be weighed more heavily by others than that of a non-educated and/or non -experienced non-pro or semi-pro.
> ...



1. Sorry but music is as much a craft as it is an art.

2, As for the Beatles, while they were not trained musicians they studied every American R 'n B and rock 'n' roll record they could get their hands on and worked like dogs playing 8 hour nights in clubs to become craftsman. They also were frequently dismissive of groups they thought were inferior to them craft-wise.

3. If nothing is mediocre then northing is great or lousy. That attitude leads to mediocrity and if you cannot see that the culture today is more stupid, crude, and mediocre than years ago then you are either in denial, stupid (which I do not believe you are), or so committed to this misguided extension of egalitarianism that it renders you incapable of objective evaluation.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 27, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Sun 27 Jan said:


> it renders you incapable of objective evaluation.


When it comes to judging, I am a subjective person, truly incapable of objective evaluation. Just like everybody else. o 

Peace, brother, and rest assured that I see your point and respect it, even if I don't think your point of view gives you any reason to be so tough about what doesn't sound well to your ears. But our differences are not a reason for me to fight for.

Shanti


----------



## dcoscina (Feb 14, 2008)

aeneas @ Wed Jan 02 said:


> I find that totally unbelievable! Because, as film composers, you guys surely must know that, when scoring movies, the moods and atmospheres are created, first and foremost, by
> - layering sounds over time (rhythm),
> - by altering and combining their intensities (dynamics),
> - by combining their 'colors' (articulations/timbres/textures).
> ...



This is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. Your criteria that you describe for the "proper" way to apply music to film is fine and dandy if you subscribe to the Media Ventures/Remote Control ideology but it doesn't cut it for oh, let's say Erich Korngold right up to John Williams (a nice 60 years of film scoring y'know).

Your idea of "layering sounds" is exactly why we're in this mess right now. The atrophication of musicality in current film scores is due to two things:

1. Not enough grounding in formal music principles. It worked pretty damn well for guys like Max Steiner, Franz Waxman, Bernard Herrmann , Alex North, Jerry Goldsmith, Leonard Rosenman, all the way up to Elliot Goldenthal. But now we have the landscape of film composition littered with guys from pop/rock background that simply don't know close to enough about orchestration much less voice leading to write effective music. And I'll give you an example of why NOTES are IMPORTANT. 

Michael Giacchino's ROAR which is music that accompanies the end credits to Cloverfield, is populated with a simple theme but one that is developed throughout the course of the piece to dramatic and climactic fruition. Consequently, even non-film score fans are clambering to get a legitimate recording of it. So do not presume to think that notes are not important

2. The over-use of technology. Once again, your shopping list of what makes a film score good is predicated on a POV that is technology-centric. Sometimes those attributes do work in some films. John Williams' Close Encounters largely has textural emphasis UNTIL the finale where he brings out an amazing impressionistic-driven piece that cements the drama. But throwing up a video in front of your keyboards and playing away to it while recording on Cubase or Digital Performer or whatever isn't necessarily composing. It's improvising. Composing is the art of editing, manipulating, and finessing raw musical ideas. David Raksin said this in the Bernard Herrmann bio and Raksin had his shit together when it came to composition. He taught film scoring at USC probably longer than most of us have been alive.

Anyhow, I totally agree with Scott's position on this. At some point within the last 10 years, we've seen a divergence in the attitude towards applying higher principles into music for film. It seems that the populist mentality where "everyone and anyone" is a great composer is pervading everywhere. While I do not dismiss latent talent in most people. like Scott and Jay indicated, to be a solid composer you must have some grounding in formal principles.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 14, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Wed Jan 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I find that totally unbelievable! Because, as film composers, you guys surely must know that, when scoring movies, the moods and atmospheres are created, first and foremost, by
> ...


Well, here is what I consider a good answer to 'ludicrous': 


Scott Rogers @ Tue 01 Jan said:


> Your conclusion is based on the faulty premise that your knowledge and awareness are a perfect reflection of reality.


You apparently missed my point: my position was never that notes are to be thrown in randomly. As I have insisted, it is all about context. In most music books, notes take about 80% of the content, which I find disproportionate. Rhythm, dynamics, and timbre, are largely overlooked - that is one of my oldest frustrations. Also, that is PRECISELY what I was complaining about here - neglecting those three important elements of music, especially when it comes to filmmusic. IMO, when scoring for film, rhythms, dynamics, and timbres, combined, are more important than notes. Notes are important, of course. But the other three elements are important too, don't you think? So I was just objecting about treating rhythm, dynamics, and timbre as as footnotes. (no pun intended) I was standing for a more balanced treatment of the four elements of music, in filmscoring. 



> Your criteria that you describe for the "proper" way to apply music to film is fine and dandy if you subscribe to the Media Ventures/Remote Control ideology but it doesn't cut it for oh, let's say Erich Korngold right up to John Williams (a nice 60 years of film scoring y'know).


To my ears, in his cues, John Williams use notes just as well as he uses, rhythms, dynamics, and timbres.



> Your idea of "layering sounds" is exactly why we're in this mess right now.


IMO, this is what filmscoring always was: layering sounds against moving pictures. Layering orchestral sounds, layering electronic sounds, layering whatever sounds the filmmaker thinks it would work with his film. I don't see how 'we' (who?  ) can be in a mess. This is a 'scoring for film' discussion, right? Film scoring is a collaboration between the filmmaker and the filmscorer, with a very clear goal in mind: to make that particular film look/sound right to the filmmaker. That's the only goal. That's the only criterion. You think there are any other criteria to judge filmscoring? Like, some general criteria, which would apply to all films and all scoring jobs??



> The atrophication of musicality in current film scores


You are seeing something that I don't see. I do like almost everything that I hear in films, with very few exceptions of maybe one cue here, one cue there...



> is due to two things:
> 
> 1. Not enough grounding in formal music principles. It worked pretty damn well for guys like Max Steiner, Franz Waxman, Bernard Herrmann , Alex North, Jerry Goldsmith, Leonard Rosenman, all the way up to Elliot Goldenthal. But now we have the landscape of film composition littered with guys from pop/rock background that simply don't know close to enough about orchestration much less voice leading to write effective music.


First and foremost, scoring should serve the filmmaker, period. Filmscoring is not bound to serve formal music principles, or any other principle. If the filmmaker likes the cue, then the cue is good. You seem to imply that well scored cues are well scored because some formal music principles are applied there. Well, I'm not so sure about that. Old orchestration principles and old voice leading principles don't necessarily apply to new films and new filmmakers. Those old principles do not assure 'effective music'. An effective cue is what the filmmaker says it is effective for that scene. There are no general rules, really. BTW, who are u to generally judge what 'effective music' is? Can u decide that for me? Can u decide that for filmmakers?



> And I'll give you an example of why NOTES are IMPORTANT.
> 
> Michael Giacchino's ROAR which is music that accompanies the end credits to Cloverfield, is populated with a simple theme but one that is developed throughout the course of the piece to dramatic and climactic fruition. Consequently, even non-film score fans are clambering to get a legitimate recording of it. So do not presume to think that notes are not important


I have already addressed that, repeatedly: notes are important. Only that the other three elements of music - rhythm, dynamics, and timbre - combined, are, IMO, more important than notes, when it comes to filmscoring.



> 2. The over-use of technology. Once again, your shopping list of what makes a film score good is predicated on a POV that is technology-centric.


Incorrect. In my books, what makes a filmscore 'good' is: the filmmaker likes it. 



> Sometimes those attributes do work in some films. John Williams' Close Encounters largely has textural emphasis UNTIL the finale where he brings out an amazing impressionistic-driven piece that cements the drama. But throwing up a video in front of your keyboards and playing away to it while recording on Cubase or Digital Performer or whatever isn't necessarily composing. It's improvising. Composing is the art of editing, manipulating, and finessing raw musical ideas. David Raksin said this in the Bernard Herrmann bio and Raksin had his [email protected]#t together when it came to composition. He taught film scoring at USC probably longer than most of us have been alive.


I do respect composers, I do respect music teachers, and I do respect you. It's only that I respect the filmmaker more that I respect anyone else. He or she is the only authority able to judge my music.



> Anyhow, I totally agree with Scott's position on this. At some point within the last 10 years, we've seen a divergence in the attitude towards applying higher principles into music for film.


To me, the highest principle when composing a cue for a scene is this: would the filmmaker like it?



> It seems that the populist mentality where "everyone and anyone" is a great composer is pervading everywhere.


That is correct. Anyone able to please the director/producer of a film is the best composer for that film. Just that I wouldn't call that mentality 'populist' but rather 'individualist'.



> While I do not dismiss latent talent in most people. like Scott and Jay indicated, to be a solid composer you must have some grounding in formal principles.


You may have whatever you think you may have - if the filmmaker doesn't like what you do, then - 'grounding' or not, 'formal principles' or not - what you have is nil. Also, IMO, to be a 'solid' composer you only need to score the film in a way the filmmaker would like.

Bottom line: nowadays, filmmakers are less and less interested in notes-based music, while more and more interested in music that makes good use of rhythms, dynamics, and timbres. From what I have seen, those three elements do impress filmmakers and audiences the most. Notes are easy to come up with. Important, but easy. What's really hard is to interweave the four elements of music appropriately to the picture (meaning - to the filmmaker's vision of the movie). That's the way the job is done. That's the way film composers do earn their checks. Not by applying some 'fundamental' theoretical old principles, but by doing the type of job they are paid for.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 14, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> Arguing that the only proper judge of a score is its filmmaker is like arguing that the only proper judge of food is its consumer. Therefore if the taster likes it, a McDonald's cheeseburger is as "good" as the best prepared dish with the highest quality ingredients.


I find your analogy a bit forced - preparing sandwiches for many, unknown, people is quite different from preparing a number of cues for one, known, filmmaker (often under his/her supervision). When it comes to food, to each one its own - there are cheeseburger consumers and "paupiettes de sole farcies aux crevettes" consumers. :D Who are you to judge which ones are more worthy than the others? Just pick up what fits your own taste and refrain from judging others' - that would be only civilized.



> Obviously as a film composer my first job is to please my client but if he/she thinks it is great and I do not then it is not, for me.


You are not paid for delivering something you would like. You are paid for delivering something your client would like. Filmscoring is work for hire, isn't it? So you are only scoring for your hirer - and not for yourself, for your fellow composers, for posterity, etc. Make your filmmaker happy, I think that's pretty straightforward.



> And if he/she thinks its great and I do not and other composers I respect do not, and I am convinced that jealousy is not a factor, then I will not consider it good.


If that is so important for you, then don't write something that you wouldn't like. Just leave the others alone to write whatever they, and their hirer, will consider fit. It is not your, or anyone's, call to judge, especially as broadly as you do. When it comes to scoring for film, everything is between the filmmaker and the filmscorer, period. Nobody asked you, or anyone, to like his or her score. If you don't like a particular score, you can say it loud of course. But it will be too late, for the filmmaker already likes that score - that's all that counts, and you can't change that.



> The belief that there are no objective standards from a craft point of view in any arena leads to a lowering of the quality of work.


Why do you need to ask about craft? The filmmaker never asks about craft - only for delivering the goods he/she expects, within the deadline. It's either you do it or you don't. Of course, some sort of craft is always implied, by default, in any delivery. It's just that no one asks for details about it. If the final product is good, then it's there. 8) 

Also, no - IMO, in filmscoring there is no place for any preconceptions, for any "objective standards" - just for individual, subjective standards. The only standards that count are the filmmaker's. Think otherwise, at your own risk. :wink: 



> It is IMHO not a coincidence that most of the scores in films that I see with young composers that I think work both for the picture and musically are done by trained craftsman like Thomas Newman, Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, etc. And the ones who aren't are usually smart enough to hire those that are to help them.


From this I understand that you like some scores signed by those composers. There are many other film composers, with at least as many credits as the ones you mentioned. The fact that you like the others less doesn't say anything about their capacity to deliver what they are asked for.



> As I have said previously, this perverse expansion of egalitarianism that you apparently endorse


Make no mistake, I only endorse two things here: 
1. doing the job the filmmaker expects, and 
2. treating the four elements of music in a more balanced manner than they usually are treated in music books.
I am sorry that you see that as a "perverse expansion of egalitarianism", for I am not aware of any perversity, any expansion, and any egalitarianism here, what so ever.



> has led to a culture that is demonstrably more stupid, crude, and crassly financially rather than artistically driven than years ago.


I don't know what "culture" you are referring to. I was addressing only the afore mentioned points: doing the job one is paid for, and treating the four elements of music in a more balanced manner, when scoring for film.

What's so bad about that, beats me.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 14, 2008)

aeneas, a composer who only holds to the standards you outlined in your previous post is little more than a whore.

Good composers take pride in their craft and pleasing the client, while primary, is not enough. We also need to walk away from it feeling that we have also written music that both served the picture and was executed with a fair degree of talent, artistic intent, and craftmanship.

If you cannot understand and accept this then you will never become a good composer, only perhaps a successful one. If that is all you aspire to, well then, fine. 

I recommend that you aspire to be both.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 14, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> aeneas, a composer who only holds to the standards you outlined in your previous post is little more than a whore.


According to the same logic, a cameraman that only holds to the standards and directions of the Director of Photography, is little more than a whore. The dozens, sometimes hundreds, of actors that only hold to the standards and directions of the Film Director, they all are little more than whores. Generally, according to your logic, film making is little more than a filthy brothel.

You really do make some weird analogies, first with food, now with sex. As I see it, film making is not prostitution. Is more like sailing a boat. Leadership is to be respected. The director is the captain - you either follow his leadership, or you're overboard. Is self-pride worth that?



> Good composers take pride in their craft


Who cares about that, other than themselves?



> and pleasing the client, while primary, is not enough.


Not enough for what? For delivering the goods?



> We also need to walk away from it feeling that we have also written music that both served the picture and was executed with a fair degree of talent, artistic intent, and craftmanship.


"We also need"?? No. "You also need"!! :D If you treasure that feeling, then do treasure it. Just don't judge the ones who don't care much for vanity. In fact, all scores, even the scores that you don't like, are full of talent, artistic intent, and craftmanship - whether you accept it or not. You really can't measure talent, artistic intent, and craftmanship - objectively. Can you?



> If you cannot understand and accept this then you will never become a good composer, only perhaps a successful one. If that is all you aspire to, well then, fine.
> I recommend that you aspire to be both.


You think self-pride to be the way to become a "good composer"? Well, don't bet too much on it. However, I'm not very sure what you call a "good composer". If a "good composer" is a composer that you like, then alas! my chances to become a "good composer" are kinda slim. If a "successful composer" is one who delivers the goods as expected, then yes, I am striving for as much "success" as I can gather. Although I acknowledge that there are composers lucky enough to be liked both by their respective filmmakers AND by you. To hope for both, that would by too much for me, I chose to limit myself to filmmakers. But thanks for the recommendation! BTW, you surely must be a "good composer" - I bet you do like your music. 0oD


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 14, 2008)

To be good at anything requires your taking pride in it. 

I suspect you believe this too but as usual you are more intent on arguing than acknowledging it so I am done with you.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 14, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> To be good at anything requires your taking pride in it.
> 
> I suspect you believe this too but as usual you are more intent on arguing than acknowledging it so I am done with you.


No, in my books, to be good at anything requires that people that are important to 'you' to like what 'you' are doing. Pride won't make you "good", will only make you appear "good" to yourself. That's extremely easy, and low.

But is it so important for you that I subscribe to your worldview? Stick to your view and leave others stick to theirs. It is not your call to convert 'fools' like me to your 'righteous path'. Also, - "done with me"?? Wow man, I'm crushed.  "As usual"? What "as usual"?? Also, what are you implying about "my intent"? You mean, my HIDDEN intent? It is not very civilized to make assumptions about strangers. IMO, you seem to have a raw and narrow (kinda 'narraw') ego-centrist worldview, excuse the word "ego". o


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 14, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 14 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu 14 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > To be good at anything requires your taking pride in it.
> ...



For reasons that are unclear to me I am going to make one last effort. 

There are a number of biographies and autobiographies of film composers who almost every working film composer views as great: Bernard Herrman, Henry Mancini, Franz Waxman, Alex North, David Raskin, etc.

They did picture after picture after picture so clearly they cared about pleasing their clients. But if you read these books you will learn that to a man they also clearly cared about what they thought of their own work, the opinions of their respected peers, and the craft of creating music for film.

Do yourself a favor, perhaps actually sit and think about whether there is merit to this for fifteen minutes before you go into automatic rebuttal mode. This forum is not a high school debating team.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 14, 2008)

Aeneas, SHUT UP!!!!!!!

(if you please)

You now have Jay all wound up over this *inane* argument!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 14, 2008)




----------



## aeneas (Feb 14, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> For reasons that are unclear to me I am going to make one last effort.


Thanks, that's generous. 



> There are a number of biographies and autobiographies of film composers who almost every working film composer views as great: Bernard Herrman, Henry Mancini, Franz Waxman, Alex North, David Raskin, etc.


I refuse to discuss models. 



> They did picture after picture after picture so clearly they cared about pleasing their clients. But if you read these books you will learn that to a man they also clearly cared about what they thought of their own work, the opinions of their respected peers, and the craft of creating music for film.


They so clearly did what they so clearly did. Good for them. So, if I don't subscribe to their views, I'm doomed, right?  



> Do yourself a favor, perhaps actually sit and think about whether there is merit to this for fifteen minutes before you go into automatic rebuttal mode. This forum is not a high school debating team.


You see, that is not a very cool way to talk. That is talking down. That is assuming that you know better. You actually have no data and no reason to believe that your position is higher than mine, also no reason to believe that you do know better than I do what is good for me and what isn't. 

If I am "rebutting" anything, rest assured that I am not doing it "automatically". Also, rest assured that I do think, even if that is not very apparent to you. If I am "rebutting" anything, that would be: vanity, pretensions of objective judging, applying theoretical principles where they are not called for, imposing your values, talking down, high brow attitudes, weighing with the wrong units, personal assumptions, also maybe few other things.

You don't know anything about me. You don't know how many and what books I have read. Even if you think that you did read more and "better" books than me, that shouldn't make you believe that you are superior to me in any way. That should make you more humble, more tolerant to other worldviews. Also, if your worldview is different than mine, that doesn't make it superior, only different.

You consistently refused to address my main point: treating the four elements of music in a more balanced manner than they usually are treated in music books. You have chosen to pick on my secondary point: that, FOR ME, when scoring a film, only one thing does matter - to deliver what the filmmaker expects. This is obviously a PERSONAL point of view. You may say you believe there are also other things that are important TO YOU, and I never contested your right to stick to your values. Just don't talk as if you know better than me. Because you don't. I know better than you what is good FOR ME, make no mistake about that. Talk down to your children if you want, but not to strangers, alright?

_"they also clearly cared about what they thought of their own work, the opinions of their respected peers, and the craft of creating music for film."_

Why would it be important FOR YOU that I display self-pride, that I seek the appreciation of my peers, and that I make big fuss about my craft? Again, why would it be important FOR YOU that I subscribe to your worldview? Do you want to save me from ruin, or something? I'm doing quite alright, thank you for assuming otherwise. You are not in the position to judge what I am or what should I become. Mind your own business and leave others mind theirs - would that be fine with you?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 14, 2008)




----------



## Mike Greene (Feb 14, 2008)

aeneas @ Thu Feb 14 said:


> I have already addressed that, repeatedly


If Aeneas has ever made a true statement, this one is it.

Doesn't even matter what "that" is, he's most certainly addressed it repeatedly.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 15, 2008)

More, Nick, more! :lol:


----------



## Hannes_F (Feb 15, 2008)

Hahaha ...


----------



## aeneas (Feb 15, 2008)

Mike Greene @ Fri 15 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Thu Feb 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I have already addressed that, repeatedly
> ...


You are blinded by hatred, amigo.



Ashermusic @ Fri 15 Feb said:


> I do know more than you about film scoring as is evident from this discussion.


If that's the "evidence" that you gather from this discussion, then that's it: the "evidence" that you gather from this discussion.



> I am also smart enough to know that I do not know as much as Bernard Herrman, Hank Mancini, David Raksin, et al did, while apparently you are not smart enough to know that you do not.


If "knowing that you don't know as much as those composers" makes you smart, then I am happy for you. There was a guy who knew that he knew nothing, and he was probably the smartest guy ever born.8) What saddens me a bit tho' is the relation you seem to make between: 
A - how smart I might be
and
B - your personal impression that I presume knowing as much as those composers.



> You may be bright but you have no wisdom.


It depends on your own take on "bright" and "wisdom".



> I only hope it is because you are still quite young because if you are not, you are truly hopeless.


Well, you are rambling in the dark here. Considering that man is 'ripe for death' from the moment of his birth, then "young" and "old" don't mean very much. Also, I don't see anything that would make myself more, or less, hopeless than yourself.



> Now I really am through with you.


And now I'm really down and completely crushed.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 15, 2008)

dcoscina @ Thu 14 Feb said:


> Have you ever noticed that there exists a strange correlation between those who have some background training who also subscribe to the idea of good and badly composed music (or music that has either intrinsic value compared to other music that doesn't) and those who come from little to no training who defer to the credo that "all art is subjective and in the eye of the beholder"?


IMO you are making a valid point here: that academically untrained people often scorn academically trained people. I'd say that the opposite is just as valid. That is - from what I've seen elsewhere, and even no further than from the general implications of your whole post (you really seem to scorn academically untrained people). Two points: 1- scorning people on that basis is immature, IMHO. 2- In this context of filmscoring, "academically-trained/academically-untrained" would hardly be the point. I think that it is pretty obvious that academic training has very little (if anything) to do with the capacity to score for for film. Forget "good scoring" vs. "bad scoring" (deciding that is the filmmaker's call, not yours). Simply put, the proportion of academically trained filmcomposers is rather small. For filmmakers, there's only one thing that counts: that the filmscorer delivers. And that seems to be unrelated to academical training.

There is also another valid, IMO, point you are making: that academically trained people tend to hold to the view that there is "intrinsic value in music", while academically untrained people tend to hold to the view that value is "in the eye of the beholder". I have often seen that difference of mentality in those two categories of people. But let's consider it this way: First, I personally know a few PhD people, teachers in academia, who hold to the idea that beauty is "in the eyes of the beholder". Second, the aforementioned views are both beliefs, they are not truths. Third, if one individual adheres to the "intrinsic value of music" view, and another individual adheres to the "in the eye of the beholder" view - would that mean that one is wrong and the other is right? Hardly, IMO. Those are just beliefs. You just hold to the one that is more appealing to you and, preferably, respect those who hold to the other belief. There are equally valid arguments on both sides. If you can't see that, then you probably hold a bit too tight to your belief.

My own belief says that, when it comes to filmscoring, there is no "good and badly composed music" in itself. And I have many strong arguments to sustain that. It's just that my arguments come from within my system of reference, which is not necessarily yours. You may have just as many equally strong arguments that would prove there absolutely IS "good and badly composed music". But your arguments will come from your system of reference, which is not necessarily mine. There is no objective 'court' that could decide who is wrong and who is right.

Similarly, you may have strong arguments that would irrefutably prove that this statement: "value is subjective and in the eye of the beholder" is a stupid statement, or simply not true. But that would be valid only from within your system of reference. I can prove with indubitable arguments that "value is subjective and in the eye of the beholder" is a fundamental fact. But that would be only valid for the people that have already adhered to that system of reference.

My point is: no one can convince anyone else of anything, unless they have already adhered to the same system of reference. More concrete, what I'm saying is: academically trained people have no reason to believe that their academic training would make them better filmscorers than academically untrained people. Or, even simpler: a filmscore is good if, and only if, the filmmaker decides it is so.

Also, in academia you surely must have come upon the idea that everything is function of something else, which is function of something else, which is function of... etc. etc. ... That's how everything functions (pun intended). If you don't think that everything is relative (music included :wink, then go ahead and think in absolutes. Just don't scorn the people who subscribe to the "relative" idea, for you might offend some guys you really don't want to offend. Fundamentalisms are not well seen, especially in academia.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 15, 2008)




----------



## nikolas (Feb 15, 2008)

aeneas:

So basically, everything is good since everything depends on a personal system of values and nothing can be tought, thus all education is rubbish. 

This is what you're saying in your last post? Cause this is very much what I'm getting. Your own personal system of beliefs, values, etc... 

Certainly film music is not dependant only on education, and there are many things that many people simply can't do! (I'm one of them probably, no matter the education I have in music). 

This Smaley book sure brings up a loud debate doesn't it? :D hehe!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 15, 2008)

rJames @ Fri 15 Feb said:


> Aeneas, you make extreme arguments. It seems to many of us that they are just for fun or entirely misguided.


To me, that means this: that is the way it looks like from your point of view.



> In your posts from a few months ago you said (I'm not quoting and will not go to the effort of finding the post) that notes don't matter. You did not qualify it by saying, as you now do, that they have their importance as does rhythm, texture, etc.
> 
> So, that's an improvement.


So you think that I once believed that notes don't matter AT ALL, and then my view had improved, when I REALIZED that notes do have some importance, AFTER ALL. Well, think again.



> Your argument that seems most specious to me now, is that the director or producer of any particular project is the arbiter of what is good.


You think my argument is deceptive? Well, if it doesn't align to your own worldview, I guess that's what it MUST be. However, in my system of reference, if all the composers in this forum say that a particular score is bad, and the filmmaker (whom it has been written it for) says it's good, that that score is good. I am sorry that you guys can't accept the filmmaker's point of view as the ONLY valid one, when it comes to the score he paid for.



> He (or she) is only the arbiter of what they want. Not what is good. Good for them, yes. Good for you, yes (because this allows you to finish the project and move on to new work.) But these people are not the arbiter of what is good.


From your pov, they are probably not. I'm fine with that. It's your right to find value in a score, beyond the filmmaker's taste. But it's your subjectivity vs. his/her subjectivity, and nothing more than that.



> Good is subjective, as you point out. The definition of "good" is redefined by perspective.
> 
> I'm sure you can see that most posters in this thread are talking about "good" as withstanding the test of time.
> 
> BTW "withstanding the test of time" is a well known method for determining quality.


To me this is another way to say: "So the filmmaker likes it now. But let's wait for a few decades and see if he/she will like it then." That's the test of time you are talking about? 



> The music in "Gidget Goes Hawaiian," was good for what it was. But it probably will not stand up over time as will many of the works of the composers mentioned by Jay.


Then, are you saying that the value of that score (or any other one) is function of the number of people that like it, over a few decades?



> The quality of filmscores (as an objective quality) will not be decided by the director of, "My favorite family Vacation," nor of "Star Wars."


So it will be decided by who? Who is entitled to decide about the "objective quality" of those score (or any other ones)? By the people who like the over a few decades? Is that "objective quality" function of the number of those people? 



> The reason why books on filmscore do not focus on rhythm or texture (and I haven't enough of them to know if this is even true) is probably easier to understand in hindsight. i.e. they just haven't been written that way.
> 
> 
> Most likely there is some intrinsic reason that is beyond my (and your) grasp. Otherwise...they'd be there.


Oh, so the reason, however unknown, must be a VALID one. Otherwise, it'd have been otherwise. :roll: 

Yes it is true: all the books that aim to train people on music focus on notes in a rough proportion of say 80%. Theory of music focus on notes in roughly a similar proportion. You take for granted thare must be a good reason for that. Me, I don't care about how good or bad is the reason behind this. I just observe that, in music, there are four elements: notes, rhythms, dynamics, and timbre - mirroring the four qualities of sound: pitch, duration, intensity, and spectrum (harmonic content). Back to music, I think the focus on notes is disproportionate, especially when it comes to scoring for film. Why those elements are not treated equally? Here I admit that the discipline of orchestration takes care of timbre. Still among the other three elements, the emphasis falls far too heavy, IMO, on notes. There are some books on rhythms, but they all deal with high-brow mathematical calculus in modern concert music. Rhythms (= layering sounds over time) are very important in filmscoring. In no way are they less important than the notes used, IMO. Also, dynamics are very important, especially in filmscoring. In no way are they less important than notes, again, IMO. 

So why the guys who aim to teach music and filmscoring do disregard dynamics and rhythms? You say they must have good reasons for doing that. You seem to agree that notes really are THAT important in music and filmscoring. I don't think they are THAT important. I think we are dealing here with an undue exaggeration. Think of it: filmmakers and audiences strongly respond to dynamics and rhythms. If you change (as in 'smartly' change) the notes in a cue, while keeping the rest of elements (rhythms, dynamics, instrumentation), I think that cue will have similar chances to impress the filmmaker. Notes are important, in the sense that they should not be thrown in randomly. But the other three elements AT LEAST equally important. That is my belief, anyways. You may scorn it, because apparently doesn't comply with your worldview. In my experience, filmmakers don't care much for notes. Notes are the last thing they are concerned about. But they strongly respond to my instrument choice, my dynamics choice, and my rhythms choice. Probably the filmmakers you have been working with are note based.

I wish you will have as many and as well paid gigs as possible. In sincerely do. After all - objectivity, test of time, etc. these don't mean much. Do they? Good luck in both pleasing your filmmaker and standing the taste (pardon, test) of time. 0oD


----------



## nikolas (Feb 15, 2008)

> So why the guys who aim to teach music and filmscoring do disregard dynamics and rhythms?



Who said they do? 

You see, just because something does not exist in books, does not mean much does it?

Dynamics: Loud, soft, in between. Reference between instruments of the orchestra. 1 trumpet = 16 violin (supposedly, etc ). 

I can't really see a lot to teach about dynamics... It mingles TOO WELL with everything else to be taught seperately.

Rhythm: Let's take time signatures. How many film music pieces have you heard that are in 23/16s? Cause I only know one! (Pic nic at hanging rock main theme!) How many do you know that utilise succesfully the 5:4 ratio, over a triplet and blah blah... I know none. 

Most western music, sadly, is based in either 4/4 or 3/4. Harmony, counterpoint and fugue are all taught in the baroque/classical way, so it's no wonder that people rarely get away from that. Chances of using a whole note next to 1/64th are rather slim. Unlike using C next to a B for example...

I will solidly agree that filmmakers do not care much for notes! Same way that a LISTENER does not care about your spelling. The end user does not care either. Who on earth ever cared about the notes in a flim, besides us freaks? 

Still there is something telling me that without close attention to pitch organisation everything will crumble... And unlike dynamics, and less rhythm there are tons of different things to teach about pich organisation! Different techniques, different harmonic appliancies, different approaches, different... etc... 

Reason that they don't care about notes (the filmmakers) is that chances are they are correct! :D Not to mention that going "This flute like thing (meaning the clarinet) is a little loud" seems rather valid, while "this note over here above the other seems 'wrong'" seems less... valid somehow... 

(btw instrumentation? You mean orchestration, right?)


----------



## rJames (Feb 15, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 15 said:


> To me, that means this: that is the way it looks like from your point of view.



Everything I look at is from my point of view.



> So you think that I once believed that notes don't matter AT ALL, and then my view had improved, when I REALIZED that notes do have some importance, AFTER ALL. Well, think again.


I didn't say you "believed" it. But rather that you "said" it.



> However, in my system of reference, if all the composers in this forum say that a particular score is bad, and the filmmaker (whom it has been written it for) says it's good, that that score is good. I am sorry that you guys can't accept the filmmaker's point of view as the ONLY valid one, when it comes to the score he paid for.



This is where you and I differ. And it is quite apparent from your posts that you are inflexible. If I were a filmmaker and everyone around me said that something sucked but I thought it was good, I would re-evaluate my position. Look for more input. By your logic, whatever I think is right.

Do you know that some filmmakers even hire people who know more about music than they do? It happens in other endeavors as well. Its almost like some people don't have faith that they are right about everything. I know that is strange to people like you and me!




> From your pov, they are probably not. I'm fine with that. It's your right to find value in a score, beyond the filmmaker's taste. But it's your subjectivity vs. his/her subjectivity, and nothing more than that.



This is the point of this thread. Glad you see it!



> To me this is another way to say: "So the filmmaker likes it now. But let's wait for a few decades and see if he/she will like it then." That's the test of time you are talking about?


No, that's not it at all.



> Then, are you saying that the value of that score [Gidget goes Hawaiian](or any other one) is function of the number of people that liò,i   oÐA,i   oÐB,j   oÌ],j   oÌ^,j   oÌ_,j   oÌ`,j   oÌa,j   oÌb,j   oÌc,j   oÌd,j   oÌe,j   oÌf,j   oÌg,j   oÌh,j   oÌi,j   oÌj,j   oÌk,j   oÌl,j   oÌm,j   oÌn,j   oÌo,j   oÌp,j   oÌq,j   oÌr,j   oÌs,j   oÌt,j   oÌu,j   oÌv,j   oÌw,j   oÌx,j   oÌy,j   oÌz,j   oÌ{,j   oÌ|,j   oÌ},j   oÌ~,j   oÌ,j   oÌ€,j   oÌ,j   oÌ‚,j   oÌƒ,j   oÌ„,j   oÌ…,j   oÌ†,j   oÌ‡,j   oÌˆ,j   oÌ‰,j   oÌŠ,j   oÌ‹,j   oÌŒ,j   oÌ,j   oÌŽ,j   oÌ,j   oÌ,j   oÌ‘,j   oÌ’,j   oÌ“,j   oÌ”,j   oÌ•,j   oÌ–,k   oÌQ,k   oÌR,k   oÌS,k   oÌT,k   oÌU,k   oÌV,k   oÌW,k   oÌX,k   oÌY,k   oÌZ,k   oÌ[,k   oÌ\,k   oÐƒ,k   oÐ„,k   oÐ…,k   oÐ†,k   oÐ‡,k   oÐˆ,k   oÐ‰,k   oÐŠ,k   oÐ‹,k   oÐŒ,k   oÐ,k   oÐŽ,k   oÐé,k   oÐê,k   oÐë,k   oÐì,k   oÐí,k   oÐî,k   oÐï,k   oÐð,k   oÐñ,k   oÐò,k   oÐó,k   oÐô,l   oÐ£,l   oÐ¤,l   oÐ¥,l   oÐ¦,l   oÐ§,l   oÐ¨,l   oÐ©,l   oÐª,l   oÐ«,l   oÐ¬,l   oÐ­,l   oÐ®,l   oÐ¯,l   oÐ°,l   oÐ±,l   oÐ²              ò,l   oÐ´,l   oÐµ,l   oÐ¶,l   oÐ·,l   oÐ¸,l   oÐ¹,l   oÐº,l   oÐ»,l   oÐ¼,l   oÐ½,l   oÐ¾,l   oÐ¿,l   oÐÀ,l   oÐÁ,l   oÐÂ,l   oÐÃ,l   oÐÄ,l   oÐÅ,l   oÐÆ,l   oÐÇ,l   oÐÈ,l   oÐÉ,l   oÐÊ,l   oÐË,l   oÐÌ,l   oÐÍ,l   oÐÎ,l   oÐÏ,l   oÐÐ,l   oÐÑ,l   oÐÒ,l   oÐÓ,l   oÐÔ,l   oÐÕ,l   oÐÖ,l   oÐ×,l   oÐØ,l   oÐÙ,l   oÐÚ,l   oÐÛ,l   oÐÜ,l   oÐÝ,l   oÐÞ,l   oÐß,l   oÐà,l   oÐá,l   oÐâ,l   oÐã,l   oÐä,l   oÐå,l


----------



## Thonex (Feb 15, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 15 said:


> So why the guys who aim to teach music and filmscoring do disregard dynamics and rhythms? You say they might gave good reasons for doing that. You seem to agree that notes really are THAT important in music and filmscoring. I don't think they are THAT important.



I'm not sure I follow you aeneas. Every music book I have ever looked at that discussed notes.... also covered dynamics and rhythm. I swear I remember seeing a lot of _*ppp, p, mf <fff>p, cres., dim* _ (all dynamics) and also notes.... but not just note heads... there were also beams and rests... and tails... and tempo markings... and time signatures... etc.

In fact... come to think of it... I have yet to find a music book that doesn't cover dynamics and rhythm.

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Can you please explain again?


----------



## aeneas (Feb 15, 2008)

Thonex @ Fri 15 Feb said:


> Every music book I have ever looked at that discussed notes.... also covered dynamics and rhythm. I swear I remember seeing a lot of _*ppp, p, mf <fff>p, cres., dim* _ (all dynamics) and also notes.... but not just note heads... there were also beams and rests... and tails... and tempo markings... and time signatures... etc.
> 
> In fact... come to think of it... I have yet to find a music book that doesn't cover dynamics and rhythm.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. Can you please explain again?


Yes, music books do cover rhythm and dynamics - combined, that's roughly 20% of the book. That is, speaking of quantity. Now, quality-wise: rhythms and dynamics are treated IMO very superficially - they mostly cover: what those symbols refer to, also how to write them. The rest of the book (~80%) will deal only with notes. All musical examples, analysis after analysis after analysis, they are all about notes: intervals, consonance/dissonance, diatonic/chromatic, voice leading, scales, modes, tonality, atonality, melody, counterpoint, chords, harmony, pitch organizing techniques, etc. etc. 

Why don't they analyze scores also from the dynamics pov? Composers do provide full dynamic details in their scores. I assume that the dynamics place in those scores is as well thought as the notes' place. So, why aren't THOSE details analyzed in books? Why they do not care for making a 'dynamics chart' of a score and then analyze THAT chart? Also, why don't they analyze scores from rhythmical pov only? I mean: harmony disregards rhythms and only focus the chords - but why not doing the opposite: disregarding the pitches and look only at the way rhythmical motifs are interwoven? 

That was kinda generally. Now, particularly in filmscoring rhythms and dynamics are even more important, IMO. Notes and intervals do not trigger emotions, nor do they follow the action or tell the story. It's the other elements who do the most of the job: the choice of instruments (timbre), the interplay ò,Š   oÚÏ,Š   oÚÐ,Š   oÚÑ,Š   oÚÒ,Š   oÚÓ,Š   oÚÔ,Š   oÚÕ,Š   oÚÖ,Š   oÚ×,Š   oÚØ,Š   oÚÙ,Š   oÚÚ,Š   oÚÛ,Š   oÚÜ,Š   oÚÝ,Š   oÚÞ,Š   oÚß,Š   oÚà,Š   oÚá,Š   oÚâ,Š   oÚã,Š   oÚä,Š   oÚå,Š   oÚæ,Š   oÚç,Š   oÚè,Š   oÚé,Š   oÚê,Š   oÚë,Š   oÚì,Š   oÚí,Š   oÚî,Š   oÚï,Š   oÚð,Š   oÚñ,Š   oÚò,Š   oÚó,Š   oÚô,Š   oÚõ,Š   oÚö,Š   oÚ÷,Š   oÚø,Š   oÚù,Š   oÚú,Š   oÚû,Š   oÚü,Š   oÚý,Š   oÚþ,Š   oÚÿ,Š   oÛ ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ	,Š   oÛ
,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ,Š   oÛ ,Š   oÛ!,Š   oÛ",Š   oÛ#,Š   oÛ$,Š   oÛ%,Š   oÛ&,Š   oÛ',Š   oÛ(,Š   oÛ),Š   oÛ*,Š   oÛ+,Š   oÛ,,Š   oÛ-,Š   oÛ.,Š   oÛ/,Š   oÛ0,Š   oÛ1,Š   oÛ2,Š   oÛ3,Š   oÛ4,Š   oÛ5,Š   oÛ6,Š   oÛ7,Š   oÛ8,Š   oÛ9,Š   oÛ:,Š   oÛ;,Š   oÛ<,Š   oÛ=,Š   oÛ>              ò,Š   oÛ@,Š   oÛA,Š   oÛB,Š   oÛC,Š   oÛD,Š   oÛE,Š   oÛF,Š   oÛG,Š   oÛH,Š   oÛI,Š   oÛJ,Š   oÛK,Š   oÛL,Š   oÛM,Š   oÛN,Š   oÛO,Š   oÛP,Š   oÛQ,Š   oÛR,Š   oÛS,Š   oÛT,Š   oÛU,Š   oÛV,Š   oÛW,Š   oÛX,Š   oÛY,Š   oÛZ,Š   oÛ[,Š   oÛ\,Š   oÛ],Š   oÛ^,Š   oÛ_,Š   oÛ`,Š   oÛa,Š   oÛb,Š   oÛc,Š   oÛd,Š   oÛe,Š   oÛf,Š   oÛg,Š   oÛh,Š   oÛi,Š   oÛj,Š   oÛk,Š   oÛl,Š   oÛm,Š   oÛn,Š   oÛo,Š   oÛp,Š   oÛq,Š   oÛr,Š   oÛs,Š   oÛt,Š   oÛu,Š


----------



## Leandro Gardini (Feb 15, 2008)

I seriously don´t understand why someone waste so much time complaining about all the methods ever created and don´t spend his time writing a book about his own way of thinking :? !!!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 16, 2008)

leogardini @ Sat 16 Feb said:


> I seriously don´t understand why someone waste so much time complaining about all the methods ever created


Maybe because people like to do what they like to do? BTW - why do you like to do what you like to do? Perhaps, because you like to do it?  

More concrete: I am complaining about some 'methods' because I find them improvable, while I don't feel that it is my business to improve them.



> and don´t spend his time writing a book about his own way of thinking :? !!!


Probably from the same reason YOU don't write books about your own way of thinking. AFAIAC, everything one writes/tells/communicates is only about this: one's own way of thinking. There is no other subject, really. For example, according to your own way of thinking, I should write a book (sarcasm included or not). According to my own way of thinking, I shouldn't. Also, my own way of thinking says that I am in no position to publicly express wonder about why one individual or another doesn't spend their time in one particular way or another.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 16, 2008)

aeneas @ Fri Feb 15 said:


> Now, quality-wise: rhythms and dynamics are treated IMO very superficially - they mostly cover: what those symbols refer to, also how to write them.



Well.... I disagree. To me...every time a book goes into notes... it also goes into note durations ... they are inexorably linked. Durations and rests and accents and tempo all play a role in rhythms. Perhaps if you learn about notes and their note value, rests and their value, you'll get a clearer understanding of just how much rhythm is discussed in every music book.

Dynamics are pretty much the same. Learn _ppp, pp, p, mf, f, ff, fff_ and _cres_ and _dim_ and <> and a few others and you should be good to go. There are plenty of books that go into detail about these dynamic terminologies.

I'm sorry you are having trouble understanding rhythms and dynamics. But I'm certain if you learn the basic vocabulary of rhythms and dynamics that the fog will be lifted for you.

Cheers,

T


----------



## nikolas (Feb 16, 2008)

aeneas: Do you have any of your music online that I could listen to? Your opinions are so LOUD that I would like a bit of backing up please. 

Could you explain to me what exactly is it that you're missing from rhythm? Because dynamics, I'm sorry but while it is important, there's little to learn about it. Loud vs soft, imho (an oversimplification of course, but you understand what I mean). But in rhythm I had a few very nice lessons about patterns, motifs (which are predominatley about rhythm), rhythmic dicté and rhythmic solfege, as well as talk about more contemopary ideas (total serialism, Ligetti stuff, polyrhythm, etc). 

What is it that you're missing? I really don't understand, not trying to piss you off, or get on your back or anything.

As far as I'm concern if we decide to talk about "techniques" and make 2 lists, one for pitch and one for rhythm, which will be the longest? That's my point. 

Then again, while I was listening to Classic FM (which I loath actually, but it's louder than Radio 3, here in the UK), I was listening to some film music, which to me "amazement" (yeah right...) it was dead simple. And while talking to my wife, I got to understand that you don't need a PhD in composition to do film music! Good film music is another matter of course! But the thing is that, indeed you are correct, that film makers will be looking mostly in rhythm (faster slower, hits, etc) and dynamics (loud, soft, etc) as well as various comments in orchestration. Pitch they won't really touch. At least I don't think so.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 16, 2008)

nikolas: if I was not able to make myself clear until now, then I apologize for my limited communication capacities. Here is a clip that might bring a ray of light on what I was trying to say about rhythms and dynamics - along with the music, listen to this guy's comments. Even if you don't understand German, you will probably see the points he was making - almost each of them are either rhythm- or dynamics-related. I have a strong feeling that this guy was having a firm grasp of WHY the composer has put those rhythm/dynamics symbols there. I wish I met him and talked to him. This guy was seeing BEYOND notes - that's obvious in that clip, at least to me. 

There is something meaningful and important about rhythms and dynamics that music books entirely do miss. That sums up pretty much everything I was trying to say in my previous posts. Please do watch the whole clip, it will worth it, every second of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRsdH68ycOE

edit: a (much shorter) 'bonus' clip, this time with English subtitles: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1LK6la5 ... re=related


----------



## Thonex (Feb 16, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 16 said:


> All the music theory books and composition books I have come upon treat Rhythm very poorly. They first explain the duration values, and that's about everything they say about Rhythm. Then, they go in big and long details on note-related topics: intervals, consonance/dissonance, diatonic/chromatic, voice leading, scales, modes, tonality, atonality, melody, counterpoint, chords, harmony, pitch organizing techniques, etc. etc.
> 
> <snip>...
> 
> This "inexorably linked" way of thinking is part of the problem (if not the crux of it), as I see it: everybody seems to take for granted that notes are everything, and rhythm are just attachments to notes: "Rhythms, uhm... they're, uh... uhmmmm... ... implicit. That's it. Implicit. That's what they are. Nothing more to say about rhythms. They're just there by default. So don't bother about them, let's go on talk some more about notes - intervals, consonance, scales, chromaticism, chords, etc. etc. etc."



I think you've been reading the wrong books. If you are interest in rhythm and how it applies to different music, you might want to read books that deal on those topics.

Go to amazon.com and type "rhythm" in their books section. And scan through the pages of hits. There are quite a few. Be warned though.... they will probably have "notes" in them... albeit on a drum stave.




aeneas @ Sat Feb 16 said:


> Oh, so you think you are not having troubles in understanding rhythms and dynamics. I am honestly glad that you think so. Razz
> 
> <snip>...
> 
> This "fog lifted" thing was a low blow. How about the fog YOU're in? Are you even aware of the fog you're in? Or maybe, there is no fog for your piercing mind-eyes... Well, then...



aeneas, sorry you have to lash out like this. You are the one claiming that there is virtually no information out there regarding music rhythm and dynamics. I'm telling you there is. It's poor form to shoot the messenger.

I'm not the one with all the questions here.... you are. I have quite a command of rhythms and dynamics but am always learning more. An open mind is a learning mind. An ostrich is a bird.


----------



## aeneas (Feb 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 16 Feb said:


> I think you've been reading the wrong books. If you are interest in rhythm and how it applies to different music, you might want to read books that deal on those topics.
> 
> Go to amazon.com and type "rhythm" in their books section. And scan through the pages of hits. There are quite a few. Be warned though.... they will probably have "notes" in them... albeit on a drum stave.
> 
> ...


It's you the one who's keeping his head in the sand, not me. Also, your points above are low, weak, and cheap. I'm glad they are.

o/~


----------



## Thonex (Feb 16, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 16 said:


> It's you the one who's keeping his head in the sand, not me. Also, your points above are low, weak, and cheap. I'm glad they are.
> 
> o/~



I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps if you spent half the time reading some of those books I mentioned as you do debating everyone else and being defensive, you might have a much better understanding of rhythm and dynamics.Then you could enjoy the thrill of listening to Stravinsky's Firebird suite while following the score (full of notes and and rhythms and dynamics) and be able to understand a lot of what's going on.

That is, in my estimation, one of the best ways to learn about rhythm and dynamics (not to mention music in general). Of course you have to have the basics and fundamentals down.... again... which are in many books.

Good luck. I hope you find what you are looking for. You just need to be open minded.

Cheers,

T


----------



## aeneas (Feb 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Sat 16 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Sat Feb 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I am very familiar with this topic, however unapparent that might be to you. You have in fact absolutely no idea of what and how many music books I have read.
> ...


One can lead a horse to water... but one can't make an ostrich take its head out of sand.

In response to your incessant teasing/baiting/trolling, and since you seem to be unable to address the point (so you choose to address the person instead), also, since 'ad hominem' and 'straw man' are so deeply rooted at the core of your rationale and mind set, so that you are bond to turn everything into personal - considering all these, I humbly submit my resignation. Man, you're good! Hands down! You win! You truly deserve all the cheers from your peers (which will most likely follow, perhaps accompanied by the 'cherry on top' _gifs_ gifts from Nick Batzdorf). Even more than that - you have also proved that, given that 'I' am incapable to mention ONE SINGLE MUSIC BOOK that 'I' have read, that clearly shows that 'I' have read NONE. You brilliantly proved 'me' to be an impostor babbling about music, trying to fool people here. What rhythms? What dynamics? Everybody here knows enough of that 'shyte'. That's unimportant 'shyte' - otherwise music books would have had more on it, obviously. Man... I am completely and forever crushed by your bright logic, your deep knowledge, and your Holmes-ian flair. You have unmasked an impostor and silenced an annoying off-topic. That's a double bulls-eye! Kudos for that, man!

Before I will bow out (to the relief of all the 'open-minded' people here), I'd like to take something back from this statement in my previous post: _"I am always striving to keep this discussion on a theoretical, impersonal ground, only to have to fight back to a few trolls' undue comments."_ Have to?!? No, I'm taking it back - I don't _"have to"_.


----------



## Thonex (Feb 16, 2008)

aeneas @ Sat Feb 16 said:


> Even more than that - you have also proved that, given that 'I' am incapable to mention ONE SINGLE MUSIC BOOK that 'I' have read, that clearly shows that 'I' have read NONE. You brilliantly proved 'me' to be an impostor babbling about music, trying to fool people here. What rhythms? What dynamics? Everybody here knows enough of that 'shyte'. That's unimportant shyte - otherwise music books would have had more on it, obviously. Man... I am completely and forever crushed by your bright logic, deep knowledge, and Holmes-ian flair. You unmasked an impostor and silenced my annoying off-topic. That's a double bulls-eye! Kudos for that, man!



aeneas, I hope you find what you are looking for.


----------



## Aaron Sapp (Feb 16, 2008)

So do you have a book recommendation, or not?


----------



## Stephen W (Feb 17, 2008)

Hi all, new member here w/ some questions re. this long thread on a "short review" :shock: :

1) assuming one did actually want a book dealing specifically with compositional techniques for film (where the musical goal is to serve the drama onscreen), is this the book to get? (also assò-   pw-   px-   py-   pz-   p{-   p|-   p}-   p~-   p-   p€-   p-   p‚-   pƒ-   p„-   p…-   p†-   p‡-   pˆ-   p‰-   pŠ-   p‹-   pŒ-   p-   pŽ-   p-   p-   p‘-   p’-   p“-   p”-   p•-   p–-   p—-   p˜-   p™-   pš-   p›-   pœ-   p-   pž-   pŸ-   p -!   pÿ-!   p -!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p	-!   p
-!   p-!   p-!   p -!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p-!   p -!   p!-!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

Stephen W @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> if the criterion for judging a film score just is whatever score is selected by the filmmaker, who is the filmmaker? is it the director? the producer(s)? the studio(s)? audience at the test screening :roll: ?... if there is no definitive answer to this question then there is no criterion there (as far as I can see)


That's a judgment call. It's for you to decide what's the best criterion for YOU - your pocket, your self-pride, your career advancement, the people you choose to be your judges, audiences, the test of time, etc.

"Who is the filmmaker?" Well the director of course. I heard that on big budget flicks producers and their mothers sometimes interfere and try to override the director's vision and decisions. Normally, the director is the one with the vision and the decisions. I always stand on the director's side. I believe a filmscorer's primary duty is to musically help the director achieve his/her vision in that given film. Producers, studios, audiences, test of time, etc. - all those are none of my concern and none of my business. I only focus on the director's needs, I offer him/her choices and let him/her decide. And so far it works. So it seems to be a safe bet. 

I agree with your 'conclusion' - apparently there is no objective criterion for judging a filmscore. Maybe there is no NEED to judge filmscores at all (except for Cannes, Oscar, etc. entertaining purposes  ). The score is part of the film, why judging it outside of film? Other people judgments?? Why worry about something that is out of your control anyways? Do your job and move on, let people talk. "Get it done and let them howl."


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 17, 2008)

first... after watching this sometimes blood bath both sides IMO bring valid points. It at the very least has given something to think about. 

the techniques of Hermanns movement of 3rds may be covered in either treatment but as I don't specifically know what that is I can't say. It most likely is in EIS as most theory is covered there, but an explanation of it will bring clarity as to whether either treatment covers it. Often there are names for things that one does not name recognize but still have the knowledge.


----------



## billval3 (Feb 17, 2008)

aeneas @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I always stand on the director's side. I believe a filmscorer's primary duty is to musically help the director achieve his/her vision in that given film. Producers, studios, audiences, test of time, etc. - all those are none of my concern and none of my business. I only focus on the director's needs, I offer him/her choices and let him/her decide. And so far it works. So it seems to be a safe bet.



You say that you offer the director choices. Do these choices ever disagree with the director's initial intention/concept? If so, you are also interjecting your own expertise as a music-maker. 

I agree with your intention of serving the filmmakers needs, but I think that sometimes this might mean going against what the director might initially THINK he needs.

It is true that the director has the final say, but that does not mean we, as composers, do not attempt to assert our own value judgments about what is best for the film, musically speaking.

P.S. Where can we find this book? I want it!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

billval3 @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> aeneas @ Sun Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I always stand on the director's side. I believe a filmscorer's primary duty is to musically help the director achieve his/her vision in that given film. Producers, studios, audiences, test of time, etc. - all those are none of my concern and none of my business. I only focus on the director's needs, I offer him/her choices and let him/her decide. And so far it works. So it seems to be a safe bet.
> ...


I dunno, the choices might disagree, or not. I, personally, don't. o My expertise is a tool, not an interjection. :lol: 



> I agree with your intention of serving the filmmakers needs, but I think that sometimes this might mean going against what the director might initially THINK he needs.


Initially, after a while, later - whatever the director THINKS it's good, then that's good. If he/she then turns around, then something else is good. :D Part of my job is to offer choices and let him/her decide which way to go (then turn around, etc.) That's the way it is. Nothing is good unless the director says it is. Scoring is easy when you have the director on your side. :wink: 



> It is true that the director has the final say, but that does not mean we, as composers, do not attempt to assert our own value judgments about what is best for the film, musically speaking.


Never, never, ever, ASSERT anything, especially your own so-called 'values', in front of a Director. Trust me: you only suggest. That's what works for me: Suggestions. Choices. Options. Let them choose. They feel sooooo important when they say like: "naah, that doesn't work." then: "well, that's interesting..." Let them take decisions, that's what they like most. Then they feel as if it's their music too. In a way, I think it is - the score is part of the film, and the film is THEIR film, also they've been taken some decisions about the music to be used. A scorer is only a scorer. A cameraman is only a cameraman. An actor is only an actor. The director is The Director. The Artist. 
my two pence (besides the checks... 0oD )



> P.S. Where can we find this book? I want it!


http://www.gmdgstore.com/view-FMW1402.html 
8)


----------



## billval3 (Feb 17, 2008)

My point was that those choices you give the director are based on what you know about music and its ability to help tell the story. You're not just a robot giving the director whatever it was that she wanted in the first place.

For that matter, neither are any of the other people you mentioned (i.e. camera operator). They are all making creative choices, albeit in coordination with the artistic vision of the director.

I'm sure there are many directors who have a dictator's point of view, but I like to believe that not all are like that. One of the great things about film, to me, is that it is a collaborative effort.

In any case, I'm glad you directed me to that website. I didn't know it existed.


----------



## billval3 (Feb 17, 2008)

Points well taken. I appreciate your insight.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 17, 2008)

Regarding rhythm in harmony books. 

I've got several hundred years worth of harmony books. None of the cover rhythm in great detail because the great emphasis on rhythm is found in counterpoint first, and sightsinging with conducting second. 

I have a copy of the complete book by Fux in German as translated by Bach's student Lorenz Mizler. When you see how harmony is combined with counterpoint in this teaching approach, or with Cherubini's, you'll see why rhythm is covered in great detail in books where harmony is taught as a chordal structure first.


----------



## synthetic (Feb 17, 2008)

Brindle's book on Composition goes into great detail on rhythm. He drives home the point that rhythm is ultimately more memorable than melody. You can clap the Versailles and guess what it is, but playing the notes without rhythm is gibberish. 

Smalley actually supports this by saying "the notes don't matter."


----------



## aeneas (Feb 17, 2008)

synthetic @ Mon 18 Feb said:


> Brindle's book on Composition goes into great detail on rhythm. He drives home the point that rhythm is ultimately more memorable than melody. You can clap the Versailles and guess what it is, but playing the notes without rhythm is gibberish.


Thanks! Bookmarked. I'll check it.



> Smalley actually supports this by saying "the notes don't matter."


----------



## ComposerDude (Feb 18, 2008)

If the notes don't matter _at all_, see what happens to the mood when you rescore the Dragnet theme from C D Eb C, to G F E G.

-Peter


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 18, 2008)

Craig Sharmat @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I just wish to say how often the editors let alone the director have had a better direction for their project then my first inspirations when watching picture for the first time. The editor and the director have lived with the show or movie a lot longer than I have. Even though I am the "music expert" they are the expert for their project and usually have a better handle on what the music should be than I do. At the very least they have formed a direction. If I disagree and they still have a strong opinion on the music...they are still right 100% of the time. In retrospect I can not remember a project I worked on where the director and editors ideas did not turn out to be good. My initial response sometimes (to myself) is "oh I would not do that". After trying it their way I am not only usually surprised at the results and very happy I was led to do something I had not considered.
> 
> I think I am backing up Aeneas's view points here. If the editor and the director do not like my music and I am head strong about what the music needs to be, i will be fired and this "great music" I believe I created will never see the light of day. as it often turns out I create music I am happy with which would have never seen the light of day if not for the people leading me.
> 
> Ironic



Here is my final take on this:

1. I meet with the director or if is TV, the producer(s). I watch the film/show and either it was temp tracked or they tell me what they think the music should be like.

2. Most of the time I agree as most if them do have good instincts. If I disagree I tell them so and why and ask them to think about it and I will think more also about their reasoning.

3. They either decide to hire me or not. If they decide to hire me it is sometimes because I have convinced them to try it my way. If they insist on their approach I will do it their way unless I am 200% convinced it is wrong, 

But if I still am, here is why I will not: 

The only time I had a score thrown out was a romantic comedy with some attractive young stars and a couple of veterans, a sweet little film. I was already hired and I met with two producers and the director, a first time director separately.

The first one, a woman, asked my plans for the score. I told her that I thought a more modern version of the approach Dave Grusin took for "Tootsie" would work and when she asked me what instruments I would use I told her mostly rhythm, strings and woodwinds. She said she did not like the sound of woodwinds but would I use violin because her father played violin and she liked it. Fortunately, she got busy with another project and I never dealt with her again.

Then I met with the director. He could not articulate what he was looking for, and that I should see "Run, Lola, Run." which I had not seen. So I rented it and my wife and I watched it and while the film and the score were terrific it had of course nothing applicable to a rather conveò-Â   p9h-Â   p9i-Â   p9j-Ã   p9k-Ã   p9l-Ã   p9m-Ã   p9n-Ã   p9o-Ã   p9p-Ã   p9q-Ã   p9r-Ã   p9s-Ã   p9t-Ã   p9u-Ã   p9v-Ã   p9w-Ã   p9x-Ä   p9y-Ä   p9z-Ä   p9{-Ä   p9|-Ä   p9}-Ä   p9~-Ä   p9-Ä   p9€-Ä   p9-Ä   p9‚-Ä   p9ƒ-Ä   p9„-Ä   p9…-Ä   p9†-Ä   p9‡-Ä   p9ˆ-Ä   p9‰-Ä   p9Š-Ä   p9‹-Ä   p9Œ-Ä   p9-Ä   p9Ž-Ä   p9-Ä   p9-Ä   p9‘-Ä   p9’-Ä   p9“-Ä   p9”-Ä   p9•-Ä   p9–-Ä   p9—-Ä   p9˜-Ä   p9™-Ä   p9š-Ä   p9›-Ä   p9œ-Ä   p9-Ä   p9ž-Ä   p9Ÿ-Ä   p9 -Ä   p9¡-Ä   p9¢-Ä   p9£-Ä   p9¤-Ä   p9¥-Ä   p9¦-Ä   p9§-Ä   p9¨-Ä   p9©-Ä   p9ª-Ä   p9«-Ä   p9¬-Ä   p9­-Ä   p9®-Ä   p9¯-Ä   p9°-Ä   p9±-Ä   p9²-Ä   p9³-Ä   p9´-Ä   p9µ-Ä   p9¶-Ä   p9·-Ä   p9¸-Ä   p9¹-Ä   p9º-Ä   p9»-Ä   p9¼-Ä   p9½-Ä   p9¾-Ä   p9¿-Ä   p9À-Ä   p9Á-Ä   p9Â-Ä   p9Ã-Ä   p9Ä-Ä   p9Å-Ä   p9Æ-Ä   p9Ç-Ä   p9È-Ä   p9É-Ä   p9Ê-Ä   p9Ë-Ä   p9Ì-Ä   p9Í-Ä   p9Î-Ä   p9Ï-Ä   p9Ð-Ä   p9Ñ-Ä   p9Ò-Ä   p9Ó-Ä   p9Ô-Å   p9Õ-Å   p9Ö-Å   p9×              ò-Å   p9Ù-Å   p9Ú-Å   p9Û-Å   p9Ü-Å   p9Ý-Å   p9Þ-Å   p9ß-Å   p9à-Å   p9á-Å   p9â-Å   p9ã-Å   p9ä-Å   p9å-Å   p9æ-Å   p9ç-Å   p9è-Å   p9é-Å   p9ê-Å   p9ë-Å   p9ì-Å   p9í-Å   p9î-Å   p9ï-Å   p9ð-Å   p9ñ-Å   p9ò-Å   p9ó-Å   p9ô-Å   p9õ-Å   p9ö-Å   p9÷-Å   p9ø-Å   p9ù-Å   p9ú-Å   p9û-Å   p9ü-Å   p9ý-Å   p9þ-Å   p9ÿ-Å   p: -Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:	-Å   p:
-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p: -Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p:-Å   p: -Å   p:!-Å   p:"-Å   p:#-Å   p:$-Å   p:%-Å   p:&-Å   p:'-Å   p:(-Å   p-Å   p:*-Å   p:+-Å   p:,-Å   p:--Å   p:.-Å   p:/-Å   p:0-Å   p:1-Å   p:2-Å   p:3-Å   p:4-Å   p:5-Å   p:6-Å   p:7-Å   p:8-Å   p:9-Å   p::-Å   p:;-Å   p:<-Å   p:=-Å   p:>-Å   p:?-Å   p:@-Å   p:A-Å   p:B-Å   p:C-Å   p:D-Å   p:E-Å   p:F-Å   p:G-Å   p:H              ò-Å   p:J-Å   p:K-Å   p:L-Å   p:M-Å   p:N-Å   p:O-Å   p-Å   p:Q-Å   p:R-Å   p:S-Å   p:T-Å   p:U-Å   p:V-Å   p:W-Å   p:X-Å   p:Y-Å   p:Z-Å   p:[-Å   p:\-Å   p:]-Å   p:^-Å   p:_-Å   p:`-Å   p:a-Å   p:b-Å   p:c-Å   p:d-Å   p:e-Å   p:f-Å   p:g-Å   p:h-Å   p:i-Å   p:j-Å   p:k-Å   p:l-Æ


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 18, 2008)

Craig Sharmat @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> what a sucky story.
> 
> hope you were drinking heavily.



No, but it nearly drove me to it.


----------



## billval3 (Feb 18, 2008)

I like your three points, Ashermusic. You got to the point of why I was disagreeing with Aeneas. I think a good composer needs people/communication aside from great composing chops. I appreciate Aeneas's cautions about not "asserting" anything. That was probably a poor word choice. Whatever suggestions we make should probably be given with at least a modicum of humility, but that doesn't mean we should not share our expertise.

I think that one of the great aspects of film is its potential for collaboration. I like to believe that many directors share that view, but I profess that I am extremely new to this business so perhaps I am being too idealistic.

Thanks for sharing your story, Asher!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 18, 2008)

Well, Jay, you did the right thing in following the director's vision, but you were not precise enough in your execution. After all, the director is king. Clearly, he knew what was best for his film: pads and Pro Tools. Next time ditch Logic if it's in the best interest of the film and the director.
:roll: 

And now, I'll wait impatiently for aenas to comment...


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 18, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Well, Jay, you did the right thing in following the director's vision, but you were not precise enough in your execution. After all, the director is king. Clearly, he knew what was best for his film: pads and Pro Tools. Next time ditch Logic if it's in the best interest of the film and the director.
> :roll:
> 
> And now, I'll wait impatiently for aenas to comment...



LOL!


----------



## aeneas (Feb 18, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Mon 18 Feb said:


> he is pleased and so that is good.
> 
> 3 days later they are mixing the film and I am there as I always try to be. He shows up for 15 minutes and watches and listens and says, "Well the score is laying in nicely."
> 
> 2 weeks later he calls me into his office to pick up my final check and tells me he has something hard to tell me, that people who have seen the movie do not think the score works, and that he has hired another composer to replace it.


I would have replied something like: Of course, I did the job for YOU and not for them. I did do my job along your own lines and not along theirs which I couldn't know, is that correct? And you said you liked it. Of course not everybody is supposed to like what you do like. If I was working for the guys you now mention, receiving feedback from them and not from you, then they would have probably said they like it, while you wouldn't. So, did I do anything wrong? What exactly, from what I did, I should have done otherwise? Should I have done the job against your lines and directions? Would you have agreed with that?

I really don't see what is the problem here. You have proved yourself flexible, cooperative, and friendly, your results have pleased your boss, and you have got your check. What more could you have done? Pleasing everybody and their mothers? :D


----------



## Thonex (Feb 18, 2008)

aeneas @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon 18 Feb said:
> 
> 
> > he is pleased and so that is good.
> ...



The sad reality may be that the guy who dictated the musical direction and micro-managed everything probably told the "others" that it was all Jay's idea. I'm pretty sure the producer guy didn't have the balls to tell them it was his own direction.

Of course... I'm guessing here.

T


----------



## aeneas (Feb 18, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon 18 Feb said:


> Well, Jay, you did the right thing in following the director's vision, but you were not precise enough in your execution. After all, the director is king. Clearly, he knew what was best for his film: pads and Pro Tools. Next time ditch Logic if it's in the best interest of the film and the director.
> :roll:
> 
> And now, I'll wait impatiently for aenas to comment...


A moderator moderates, a bully bullies. Or, in the words of a very knowledgeable guy here who also deserves a lot of respect for being a champion of personal attacking -



Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat 16 Feb said:


> Punk u r. Bored am I wit u. Anal-yze this: while musicians are the closest to music, directors know nothing.


[picture withheld, those staring eyes says it all]


----------



## billval3 (Feb 18, 2008)

In the end, your name is on the music. You can't simply follow a director's every whims if you know something will not serve the film. 

I appreciated Craig's advice about the filmmaker having "lived" with the film longer than the composer has. I would add that sometimes a fresh perspective is needed. We, as composers, definitely need to keep an open mind, but we also need to contribute our own perspective.

From what Aeneas has said, I think he does this. It's just that he's stressing more of a "the director is always right" mentality. It seems to me that this is probably a good approach in many circumstances.


----------



## Stephen W (Feb 19, 2008)

thanks Frederick for the welcome! there's some really terrific stuff on the demos board & I'm excited about learning from you guys (& gals) here; also thanks to you & Craig for response re. EIS & Herrmann... speaking of where this thread is now & B.H., there's the famous story of the Psycho shower scene where AH told him *not* to score it because the scene didn't need it; BH "knew" he was wrong, scored it & recorded it on the studio's dime (how's that for a ballsy move?) & we all know how that came out 8) ... btw Aeneas, I didn't draw the conclusion you inferred; sorry if I was unclear (I know I left academic philosophy for a reason, now if I could just remember what that was... )... Anyway, ordering the Smalley book today & am definitely in the camp that thinks one can learn or I wouldn't be here [when Ellington said "if it sounds good, it is good" he didn't mean there weren't any principles involved in determining what does or doesn't work & he himself continued to study even when atop the jazz world]


----------



## synthetic (Aug 4, 2008)

It's been six months so I'm bumping this thread because I'm rereading the book. I just reread the chapter on harmonization only this time I understood it. My mind is blown. Not only don't the notes matter, the chords don't matter! Well, within certain guidelines. Anyway, my understanding of harmony was turned upside-down in seven pages. 

Anyway, I think we're save since aeneas seems to have gone. But if this post brings him back then I am really, really, really sorry.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 4, 2008)

Not gone - just using one of his other aliases. :?


----------



## bluejay (Aug 5, 2008)

Yeah, I was just re-reading this last night as well. I agree that the planing technique seems counter-intuitive.

I mean it feels as if Jack Smalley isn't saying this is how you must write film music so much as this is how I write film music and it's a technique that works for me. He accepts it's just one possible solution to the problem. 

Still, it does feel like a structured approach and I bet you can write a lot of music very quickly, especially underscore.


----------

