@Christian Marcussen said:

Does it really matter how good at the principals of orchetration ...

Yeah, I think it does.

It matters to most of us because of our particular interest. But I think it also matters to a film going audience with no formal training in music in a sublimanal way.

For example, one of the best 'sections' of music in a film for me, comes towards the end of Shawshank Redemption; the bit where Morgan Freemans character is going up to the stone wall under the tree to find the tin box etc. Thomas Newman's score and orchestration combined is absolutely brilliant IMHO. Completely defines the scene without distracting you from whats happening on the screen.

I may be wrong, but had that piece of music been badly scored, it may not have worked so well as it does and been noticed negatively by an audience not versed in the principals of orchestration, even if they couldn't explain why.

Yes, the music they do works and they're probably highly sucessful because a lot of them have good orchestration and thematic techniques.

Better than any of us - even combined?

You've just gone to the top of the popularity poll.

Congrats [[;)]]

@Another User said:

They are highly successful - and more so than any of us will likely be - even combined.

If you must hate me, then atleast quote me correctly... I NEVER said they were better... I chose my words very carefully...

My appologies Christian [:D]

@Christian Marcussen said:

Does it really matter how good at the principals of orchetration they are? I mean.. it apeartently matters to you guys, in terms of listening experience... but as a filmcomposer it matters not. They are highly successful - and more so than any of us will likely be - even combined. The music they do works, and they have a keen sense for themes, and how to really boost the emotion the filmmaker wants to display...

Christian,

By "highly successful" you must be referring to working on many big films that are themselves commercially successful. I am talking about how well they are succeeding musically not commercially.

Here's a perspective that may clarify things. I have the recording of Alexander North's score to Stanly Kubrick's 2001 - which was thrown out by the director. In this case you could argue that the score was a total failure. Artistically it failed to please Mr. Kubrick and commercially it failed to even make it into even one theatre. Musically (in every way) it is a stunning success. I would rather listen to this score than dozens of wildly successful present day film scores.

My point is, that the day of the majority of film scores being musically sound has passed. What's worse than that, is if up and coming film composer's don't even recognize it due to there own lack of training.

Mr. Elfman (who no doubt benefited hugely from Steve Bartek's brilliance) as I stated, "whatever his methods" (relying upon a good orchestrator to help with fundamentals and more) does not let his scores out with musical weakness right and left. That's probably a good idea if someone is lacking in musical training.

Finally, I am trying to stir the pot here a little so that younger guys - I'm 48 - will perhaps consider the merits and ramifications of my point. In Mr. Newton Howard's favor he is getting by pretty OK on talent alone and has improved in counterpoint and so on. He can aslo be extremly effective on every level (The Sixth Sense.) Honestly though, he should know that parrallel octaves are monumentally unsound unless used with high intention: (Beethoven's 9th opening figure)

One should consider the legacy being left by such masterful musicians as Jerry Goldsmith and Ennio Morricone. I want to follow in their footsteps.

Very fun all this,

Dave Connor

Finally, I am trying to stir the pot here a little so that younger guys - I'm 48 - Dave Connor[/quote]...

I know he won't mind me saying this, but he's actually 48 tomorrow. Happy Birthday in advance if I don't catch you later.

Paul

Dave,

How does one get ones' hands on North's original 2001 score? This isn't something commercially available on CD is it?

Fred Story
Concentrix Music and Sound Design
www.concentrixmusic.com

Peter Pan which I have seen 3 times now is one of the best films I have ever seen. I gave it a 9.98 one of the highest scores i have ever given a film. I had 3 qualms with it.

1) There seemed to be a lack of money spent on shots containing the alligator. There was something missing there.
2) I did not like the grandma's silly acting. Everyone else was so genuine.
3) I also didn't need the father to be Captain Hook. It was so "Jumanji". Ech. But this point is negated by the fact that the father did a superb job as hook.

I thought HOOK by Spielberg was hollywood rubbish. The score was very good but I didn't care for it. It is just pretty music.

JNH's score on the other hand never got in the way and brought the film to new levels. For instance "A kiss is a powerful thing" section, where he resorts to synthesizers to bring the film to a new level was ingenious. And all the while using the same three note motif used throughout the film but most poignantly found at the very beginning of the film.

Evan Evans

[quote=PaulR] I know he won't mind me saying this, but he's actually 48 tomorrow. Happy Birthday in advance if I don't catch you later.

Well thank you good sir. Looks like I'm in for a philosophical lesson in how quickly tomorrow becomes today. [[;)]]

Dave

[quote=Fred Story]Dave,

How does one get ones' hands on North's original 2001 score? This isn't something commercially available on CD is it?

Fred,

Yes it should be available at the usual outlets. Jerry Goldsmith conducted this somewhat recent recording (he loves North's music.) I must tell you that as usual the music is just great and a must for all North fans.

I actually have an mp3 that my brother downloaded from somewhere. So let me know if you can't find it and I'll look into that. I imagine you would want the CD as do I.

Dave

[quote="evanevans"JNH's score on the other hand never got in the way and brought the film to new levels. For instance "A kiss is a powerful thing" section, where he resorts to synthesizers to bring the film to a new level was ingenious. And all the while using the same three note motif used throughout the film but most poignantly found at the very beginning of the film.

Evan here is of course confirming my earlier point that JNH's strength's are in things that are keyboard oriented in nature.

I can't imagine Evan teaching a class in orchestration where he would suggest doubling the Tuba with the Oboe in the former's lower register. Fundamental errors of that kind will get the attention of those who have even a cursory knowledge of musical principles. JNH has gotten my attention in this way many, many, times. But as I said he has also held my attention with wonderful work.

I am not ranting against JNH if you read my balanced posts. I am encouraging musicians who aspire to whatever heights in film or concert music not to be caught up in sound only but sound writing as well.

Cheers,

Dave Connor

P.S. Evan you mustn't disappear like that again for a good long while as it's far too distressing to your comrades here who miss the "caffeine" you provide
(in jolts to be sure.) [:)]

I guess I raved about that "2001" score elsewhere, but it's true it is a masterpiece - a piece of film music that is better than most symphonies. And it was rejected by Kubrick. That should be an inspiration to any musician who ever felt ignored or mistreated.

I also agree about Elfman who is one of the few of the newer bunch of film composers who has done something significantly different from Williams - especially in his humorous, ironic, Satie-like approach. Probably in his case, I do think it is some kind of genius that has allowed him to go beyond his lack of formal training since that is apparently the case.

But Dave (happy birthday!) has a good point about the lack of serious study among composers who do nothing but pop stuff then make a lot of money and presto-chango! You're a film composer! Not in my book. You're one if you are as expert as Herrmann as a conductor/orchestrator/ melodist, as experienced in the use of symphonic development and the leitmotif (attention, Dietz) as Korngold and Steiner, and as original in the invention of themes as Raksin, de la Rue, Rosza, Newman, Waxman, Tiomkin not to mention Jerry Goldsmith. In other words, though there is a pop aspect to it, film music has truly evolved into an art and is far more than the the flash-in-the-pan mentality it is often viewed with.

Unfortunately as I noted elsewhere so much of it is stuck to god-awful films. Sorry Evan, but I would not touch that Peter Pan turkey with a ten foot baster. If only composers could generate their own movies to their own scores (my approach, but never mind that - it tends to produce schizoid delusions in its practitioners).

William,

You said what I meant far better. I havn't seen Peter Pan - probably will after all this. Maybe I should report back to the forum on my impressions. I think this type of discourse is healthy. I remember when great musicians would point out flaws in other musicians that I really admired. I always came around to their view upon maturing. You can tell when someone is sprouting sour grapes, or envious, and knocks a musician of quality for no good reason. But there is a difference between say John Coltrane and Kenny G don't you think?

Dave,

thanks for birthday salutation - I'm right popular around here it seems. [:D]

Two filmscore writers/composers mentioned in this thread by Dave and William have included one of my three personal favourites. Ennio Morricone and Franz Waxman.

Two of their pieces of music immediately spring to mind and their usage within the framework of a film.

The first one, I think the piece is called La Resa Dei Conte from For a Few Dollars More by Ennio Morricone is well known and incredible. How he intergrates the pocket watch theme and climaxes with the inclusion of a church organ is beyond me. Its the bit where Indio played by Gian Maria Volente has a sort of duel with one of his men. One of the most defined western scenes ever, completely highlighted by the mucical composition of Morricone. One of the best theme/orchestrators ever and I believe he fell out with Hollywood over union rates. maybe someone could correct or clarify on that.

The second one, is the opening music to Hitchcocks Rear window by Franz Waxman, made in 1954, before Hitchcocks' established relationship with BH.
The music is 'jazzy' and again, for me defines the rest of the films aura, claustrophobic and voyeuristic. He'd done a jazz type score for a film 2 or 3 years earlier called A Place in the Sun for which he was awarded an Oscar.

As composers, they seem to be eons apart in style, but had great facility to put music to film, thus enhancing the audiences viewing experience with their brilliant writing and orchestration/thematic techniques.

Any thoughts?

This is a good thread and I'm enjoying it. I loved Evan's review of Peter Pan although I have'nt seen it yet. I can't wait to see Grandma's silly acting. [:D]

[quote=PaulR] I may be wrong, but had that piece of music been badly scored, it may not have worked so well as it does and been noticed negatively by an audience not versed in the principals of orchestration, even if they couldn't explain why.

Are we all in agreement that shoddy workmanship in either orchestration or composition detracts from the ultimate quality of a film? And just because the layman doesn't neccessarily detect it (although PaulR makes a very good point about that above) that we as music writers should be able to detect it? (which is fundamental to my original point.)

Ring that bell and chime in fella's

DC

I agree about Morricone - it is amazing how much he did with seemingly simple effects. He had an extremely original approach, in that it was very different from the somewhat turgid orchestral treatment common before him. One of the most startling examples that comes to mind was those strange guttural male choir effects in the Leone films. I think he had more influence on contemporary film music than many people realize.

Which reminds me of my favorite of the Italians - Nino Rota. His music for Fellini is some of the greatest film music ever composed. Listen to the score of Juliet of the Spirits for one. But his concert music was equally good - unlike a lot of film composers (such as Herrmann - though Herrrman did some great chamber pieces like the Souvenir de Voyage). Another more recent Italian I really like is Pino Donnagio, who is generally known for his Brian de Palma scores, but the best one I've heard is the score for "Don't Look Now" - one of the greatest psychological-supernatural films and for which he created a melancholy, neo-baroque Albinoni-like score for strings, guitar, harp, percussion and pipe organ that adds immeasureably to the ambiance of the film.

On the subject of lousy orchestration it's true it can almost subliminally affect the audience. Though most of the time I don't think that happens. Most film music is either merely functional or basically irrelevant. In other words, usually it is just pablum that goes with the scene like a more of less effective sound effect, but never does anything really expressive. And only the finest composers raise it from that mediocre level. Very rarely do I notice truly terrible film music. Most of the time it is simply forgettable.

Today we are living in a time when almost every film composer copies two people - John Williams (who copied Korngold) and Bernard Herrmann (who copied no one and is the most original American composer in any medium of the twentieth century - except maybe for Duke Ellington). Film music right now is starting to sound - to me at least - as uniform and by-the-numbers as the saccharine, overly romantic, Liszt-Rachmaninoff-Tchaikovsky style of the 1940s studio films. The most important thing that a composer today must do is to stop copying these people and do something original. That's one reason I like Elfman because though he is influenced by Herrmann, (as in the "Batman" score for example the intro being close to a re-write of "Journey to the Center of the Earth") he has somehow managed to create something different and recognizable as his own.

[quote=Christian Marcussen] Sad that you are so well versed in the principals of orchestration, that it can pull you right out of a movie.

Christian,

Sorry I didn't see your post before so I have answered here.

It's the principles of composition that I was referring to and of course I'm not sad that I learned them (since I'm a composer.)

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. If I hear a composer make a mistake in the movement of voices (notes) that a beginning composition student should be cured of after about two months of private lessons, I hear it immediately because it's so fundamental.

Does a drummer know when another drummer is rushing terribly? Does a bass player know when another bass player is too busy and not playing enough of the root of the chord so that you can't tell what the harmony or rhythm actually is?

There are very basic principles in all of music that are not subjective but objective (except when deliberately violated for effect such as detuning a piano.) No concert pianist wants to play a piano that is way out of tune. Who wants to hear that? If a piano went suddenly out of tune in the middle of a concert it would pull everyone out of the music causing them to wince with anxiety.

I have winced a number of times during many of JNH's films.

DC

@William said:

On the subject of lousy orchestration it's true it can almost subliminally affect the audience. Though most of the time I don't think that happens.

Two points about this:

one is that PaulR emphasized that unique orchestration can have a very powerful effect and that bad or ineffective orchestration/composition will be noticed by the audience on some level. I agree.

two is that I agree that most orchestration in film is sound and even good because there are very good orchestrators working in film. The point I have been making here all along is that bad writing cannot be saved by being blown up into a big orchestral score.


DC

@PaulR said:

Two filmscore writers/composers mentioned in this thread by Dave and William have included one of my three personal favourites. Ennio Morricone and Franz Waxman. As composers, they seem to be eons apart in style, but had great facility to put music to film, thus enhancing the audiences viewing experience with their brilliant writing and orchestration/thematic techniques.

This is the positive side of what I've really been talking about. These two composers both have major writing chops and come from eras where that was the rule and not the exception. I don't think it's nitpicking to say that composers like these set a standard that should not be ignored by all who would aspire to or are currently practising the same profession.

DC

I have a little [[;)]] question for composers who write small parts instead on writing directly for an orchestra: what do you do? Do you always write first for piano? but I assume there is always some orchestration idea, right? there are notes that on piano does not have the same effect as in a woodwind, or for strings, and of course that do not have the same articulations... so I guess one has already in mind a type of sound, timbre,colours, ambience he wants to do... then what do you write on the piano? just the harmonies? conduction of voices? everything on 4 voices?

Thks, I am currently scoring a short film and I am a bit curious about that since I have always chosen some things on the piano but when a sketch is already written I then write/orchestrate "on the road" which leads me sometimes to good and original things but other times it just leads me out of the original idea and sometimes a bit lost too [[;)]] though it'd work anyway...

Thks, regards,

Ivan.

[quote=Tycheth]I have a little [;)] Do you always write first for piano?

Ivan, writing on a keyboard is OK if you are a keyboard player of course. A lot of writers don't have keyboards as their first instrument. Maybe, brass, bass or strings, naturally.

Do you always write first for the piano? This question sort of came up in another thread and was touched upon by William and Nick. For myself, I play parts out on a keyboard but not necessarily with a piano sound.
You may already have the 'sounds' in your head and be working from an orchestral template (say, on your computer screen), build the parts up one by one. For myself, I try to maybe imagine how a wind or string player for instance, might physically play a given section. On a computer, its never going to be perfect in terms of articulation etc. but technology will move forwards I guess.

I try to stick to an instrument template chosen from the outset if I can and not add extra instruments. I hardly ever achieve that though.

Good artists, painting a picture always seem to know when to stop adding more and more layers of paint. Many good musical pieces, short or long, become muddy because the writer may not know when to stop adding more instruments.

Mozart is for me the best at keeping it simple on the score, but thats a whole different ballgame. He had perfect pitch and could probably do the whole deal in his head and then onto paper.

Ivan you make an interesting post that is worthy I imagine of much discussion, but perhaps this is the wrong thread.

A new thread on this subject would be good.
[:)]
Paul