I agree with that and have had the same reaction numerous times to the point of gagging.

But I think Dave, you may have made one mistake though it is a noble one to have made (because you have such high standards) - that film music in the past was any better. No, even in the heyday of Hollywood - the studio era with composers like Korngold and Steiner being lured to Hollywood (from Austria of course) there were many trite composers as well. It is just that we don't hear them today. (Thank God.) But we do hear the trite ones of our era. So we hark back to Golden Times. Now I know you don't think simplistically (based on your very intelligent posts) but don't you think maybe you're being influenced by this factor? It is after all something some of the greatest artists, writers and philosophers of any era do.

I go by the Theodore Sturgeon (the great sci-fi writer) rule: 99% of everything is crap.

William,

I agree and am aware that lesser composer's and artists have worked in Hollywood as in all mediums of art throughout time. My point is that you wouldn't have a King Kong or Robin Hood or Wizard of Oz put into the hands of someone who didn't know the difference between good and bad music. It just wouldn't happen. It must be systemic. Old school Hollywood producers and studio heads knew the difference between the two. Now we have directors that don't know (and directors that do to be sure such as the Coen Bros.) Spielberg knows (whatever one thinks of John Williams content the man is a 1st rate musician) Scorcese knows, Di Palma knows, Copola knows.

I would like to know of an example of a major Hollywood release from way back where the composer displayed no knowledge of rudimentary compositional technique while still keeping the listener so bored as to reach for his hanky.

btw I think far more interesting music is being done in smaller films. My breach is against 80 piece orchestral nonsense which is looming larger all the time.

DC

William,

I agree and am aware that lesser composer's and artists have worked in Hollywood as in all mediums of art throughout time. My point is that you wouldn't have a King Kong or Robin Hood or Wizard of Oz put into the hands of someone who didn't know the difference between good and bad music. It just wouldn't happen. It must be systemic. Old school Hollywood producers and studio heads knew the difference between the two. Now we have directors that don't know (and directors that do to be sure such as the Coen Bros.) Spielberg knows (whatever one thinks of John Williams content the man is a 1st rate musician) Scorcese knows, Di Palma knows, Copola knows.

I would like to know of an example of a major Hollywood release from way back where the composer displayed no knowledge of rudimentary compositional technique while still keeping the listener so bored as to reach for his hanky.

btw I think far more interesting music is being done in smaller films. My breach is against 80 piece orchestral nonsense which is looming larger all the time.

DC

Dave,

I see what you mean about the major releases today vs. the old studio system. It's true and very disturbing, but maybe the explanation ultimately lies with the ascendancy of pop music over everything. If a star like Britney Spears (not primarily a musician but rather a fashion model with modest vocal ability) can be manufactured by record producers and become a huge hit, it shows a profoundly different mentality (or lack thereof). Maybe this has carried over into film scoring - money above all.

William,

I'm coming round to that same conclusion. The level of musical craftsmenship has dropped across the board: Pop, Broadway, Rock et. al., (with exceptions to be sure) are not what they once were.

I just read in the paper of an orginization called Society for the Rehumanization of Music which is descibed as, "an advocacy group for better music" (Los Angeles Daily News.) This in reference to Pop/Rock. How about that title!

In regard to film I was just musing over the fact that many film directors come from commercials and MTV videos. So Bingo there, as far as your point.

Now to contact that society. [:)]

Dave

Ok.. personaly im stupid at compositional techniqes. I go by ear... so by you standards I suck. So I guess since my standards to technique are so low, that I actually enjoy modern filmmusic. Im not talking about media ventures, but Horner, Williams, J.N. Howard, etc... I love their work. I guess its becuase I'm a sucker for themes, and to my ear I find the themes and compositions of our time much more moving and beautiful than golden age filmmusic. But as I said, I enjoy it obn a whole other level than you guys... My perspective is different. I listen more as a filmgoer than as a craftsman.

PS: I hate pop music

Christian,

Do you drink wine?

I have had a few glasses along the way. But that doesn't make me an expert on wine. In fact it's entirely possible that I would love a certain vintage that a wine expert (someone who has spent their whole life learning about wine) would not like at all. That's fine for him and fine with me.

How could I take issue with him if he criticizes something that I'm extremely fond of? He knows what he's talking about. (In fact I wouldn't know if he didn't know what he was talking about because I am not an expert.) All I would know is my personal taste (uninformed as it is.)

I can promise you I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and go right on drinking the wine I like and recommending it to other's even. I also would not be troubled if he went to a wine forum complaining about the quality of wine declining steadily into cheapness and sighting the brand I drink as a prime example.

The philosophical question is: is it noble of him to do this? If he so appreciates good wine and is familiar with it's history and wants the whole world to know "the best wine" and not become too accustomed to cheap wine. Is this a good or bad thing?

I rest my case... now for a good bottle of Ripple.

DC

I don't think somebody sucks if they go by ear. That's the way I go.

I don't know about the overall standards being lower for film music, but there certainly are too many of "the lydian score" and "the Irish folk melody score" being done.

Maybe it's because the budgets are really high, prompting the film companies to overuse focus groups, which are only going to react well to familiar things, which means the risks get minimized by repeating what has worked before.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

Maybe it's because the budgets are really high, prompting the film companies to overuse focus groups, which are only going to react well to familiar things, which means the risks get minimized by repeating what has worked before.

I think this is a big factor in popular and film music. There's lawyers making these decisions. If something sells it creates a formula which is then copied. It doesn't matter whether it's high quality but high sales.

But this still doesn't excuse the director for not discerning between quality music and very average music. It's no accident that Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells (both candidates for best director that ever got behind a camera) used Bernard Herman who's considered by many to be the best ever in his field.

As I said before, the best directors of our time tend to use the best composers:
Schaffner used Goldsmith (Planet of the Apes/Patton/Papillon) Kubrick used North (Sparticus) Leone used Morricone (Westerns) and John Sturges (The Great Escape/The Magnificent Seven used Elmer Berstein.

I honestly think that by posting this question I'm starting to understand the concrete reasons for this issue. It's a combination of overcommercialism by the powers at be and underachieving by the creative people

Dave Connor

@William said:

I don't think somebody sucks if they go by ear. That's the way I go.

I don't think somebody sucks unless they actually suck. It's the end product that counts. Danny Elfman has been roundly criticized for a lack of education but his scores don't lack, they're delightful. There are guys with superb educations that just don't have the gift as well.

I don't think that people who have dedicated themselves to understanding what sucks and what doesn't should have to apologise for it.

DC

@Christian Marcussen said:

I actually enjoy modern filmmusic. Im not talking about media ventures, but Horner, Williams, J.N. Howard, etc.
PS: I hate pop music

Christian,

Do you know there are people in the Classical music field that do not think that film music is music at all? (all film music from the beginning of filmmaking.) Can you imagine what they think of samples?! Music that is not real people but computers and samples!

My point is that all things are relative. Someone will always love something that someone else will hate. Don't worry about it. I don't. Enjoy the films and music that you like. No one's putting you down for that. Maybe your taste will change maybe it won't. Don't worry about what other people think unless you value their opinion enough to reconsider you own.

Please understand that I don't have "standards." What I have is a pair of ears. You don't like what you hear in Pop music and I don't like what I hear in a lot of film music. That's OK. We're free to think the way we want. No one should feel put down by differences of opinion or taste. No one should feel intimidated by the stating of either as well.

Dave Connor

P.S. There is still wonderful work being done in major motion pictures such as "The Road To Perdition" which I believe is Thomas Newman

I think your getting me wrong... reading my post it does sound like im offended a bit maybe? I'm now... by saying my standards are lower I dont mean it as a snide remark, but rather... you enjoy things on a whole other level than me. For instance I cant hear that J.N.H has poor compositional technique... All I hear are beatuful themes...

but as you said, its about taste. But I do hoever understand your point of view as a craftsman... becuase your skilled in that you hear all the flaws made by someone who isent as well versed.

Anyway, just wanted to clear up that im not the slightest offended, and I find it an interesting discussion.

Ps: You say you dont think something sucks, unless it actualy sucks. Thing is you definition of what sucks has a standard... namely that if it isent well composed (craftmanship) then its lesser music. From my perepctive this does not matter...

@William said:

If a star like Britney Spears (not primarily a musician but rather a fashion model with modest vocal ability) can be manufactured by record producers

Don't embroider it William.She's cr@p. [:)] There have been a plethora of girl and boy groups in this country now for ages and nearly always singing cover versions. If it was the music the record buying people were interested in, they would surely buy the original. The original version by pure definition will always be better. Always. So why do record companies insist on this cynical approach. It has to be (a) money and (b) the inability to write 3 minute classics anymore. Most kids today will probably not be able to tell you who wrote and performed the original and they probably don't care. Its about fashion at this level. Ask any of them if they've heard of the Brill Building (excuse my spelling).

How this affects up and coming younger musicians? Its worth bearing in mind that a lot of the pop classics were written in the sixties. A lot of it was dreadful too. In those days an artist had to sell around 60 to 80 thousand copies a day to get to numero uno. These days it seems its still the numbers game with a slightly different slant. Record companies throw as much shite at the wall as they can and sees what sticks. They did the same in the sixties, only the overall quality of musicianship and writing was better.

It doesn't matter what anyones personal tastes are, it only matters to them, but sooner or later you have to have objective musical benchmarks whether you write pop music, music for films/tv or music for toys.

If we disregard film writers of 50 years ago, we may as well disregard pop stars of the past, like Mozart for instance.

Thomas Newman certainly did write the score for The Road to Perdition btw Dave.

@Christian Marcussen said:

You say you dont think something sucks, unless it actualy sucks. Thing is you definition of what sucks has a standard... namely that if it isent well composed (craftmanship) then its lesser music. From my perepctive this does not matter...

CM,

A "standard" to me is somewhat artificial. An imaginary line that no-one can cross. I don't have this. An "informed sensibilty" perhaps but you have that too - everyone does. For example:

Let's say some girl that is singing at a party (horribly flat to the point that you can't recognize the tune) and everyone is looking at each other smiling and laughing about it. Is that because they all have the same standards? No variation at all but 30 people happen to have identical standards? Or is the girl just hideously flat? You see? It's not about standards it's about a girl who can't sing.

Now, JNH is a very talented guy. He CAN sing. But when he goes totally off key - I hear it. It's not my standards, it's him going flat.

PaulR hit the bottomed line on this, "sooner or later you have to have objective musical benchmarks whether you write pop music, music for films/tv or music for toys."

Well, there's a bunch of pop stars who go flat now and then and film composer's as well I suppose.

Glad you're not upset btw.

Thanks Paul for confirmation on TNewman score

DC

without the intention to offend somebody - _i_ am CM [;)]
christian

cm,

I know you are cm so I wrote CM. [:P]


dc

[:D] sorry for having disturbed your conversation ...

cm,

You're the least disturbing person on the whole forum.

I thought about you when I wrote CM but I didn't think you would be sneaking around this part of the forum.

Now I know you're everywhere [+o(]

Dave

Hey CM

Have you ever read 1984? [:P]