William,

I agree totally with your post. It's true there are guys who are so talented that somehow they avoid the many pitfalls of part writing, voice leading, orchestration etc. I was once asked by a friend to examine an orchestral arrangement he had done (via midi.) Not one error in any fundamental aspect. I was baffled. It's so easy to stumble somewhere. In fact it wasn't just sound it was very good, very creative.

As far as the rest of us: I guess if you're not a genius, take a few lessons.

Dave Connor

"I was once asked by a friend to examine an orchestral arrangement he had done (via midi.) Not one error in any fundamental aspect. I was baffled."

Dave,

Who was that? Just curious...

William,

Tom Keane my good friend and neighbor. He's worked (written for or produced) everyone from the Black Eyed Peas to Celine Dion to Burt Bacharach to Streisand. He wrote "Through The Fire" with David Foster and also co-wrote "Will You Still Love Me" Chicago. He's developing and producing young hip hop artists now. His brother John M. Keane is the composer for CSI. Talented guys. Tom is a gifted classical pianist as well.

When I examined his orchestral arrangement I expected to find a few problems because as you know, one must be very careful to see if all the ideas laid in are working with each other. Usually by default there's a handful of voice leading problems when someone uses their ears and drops in a nice line here and there. Any line must relate to another simultaneous line well, or you have problems. Not a single problem. This guy has golden ears. I always have to sweat a little.

DC

Appreciation of music should be subjective
Analysis of music should be objective

Music has always had context; film music is no different, but Opera is intended for a stage and demands consideration of the story, Symphonies are intended a concert hall and Chamber music was, well, intended to be realised in an intimate setting.

This does not mean you cannot take an Opera and have it performed by a bunch of soloists in a concert hall, or that symphonies cannot be recorded. However, the intention with which the music was composed remains.

However, it may not matter to you - everybody appreciates music in their own way, and I often enoy listening to film music on CD. However, if I'm going to analyse it (objectively), I have no choice but to consider its original context.

With regard to errors, yep, craftsmanship does not appear to be a priority at the moment for a lot of successful composers in the film music profession. It's a shame but, as long as the music is valid in its context (supports the film, does not disturb me whilst I'm watching the film etc.) I can cope with it. As long as I'm intending to appreciate the film, rather than analyse the music. This is usually not such a huge issue these days, since the music is often so low in the mix (below the effects) that the intricacies of the orchestration are hidden, so in the auditorium at the cinema you often cannot hear very well how the voice leading is working. So in that context, it may not be a problem - subjectively.

It's all a matter of context, and for what purpose you are considering the music.

Feel free to disagree violently.

I agree with what you're saying. The original impetus for the music is the most determining factor, especially with film music, and if it is successful in that regard, then it is good from an objective standpoint. Not necessarily good to listen to isolated, but good in achieving its purpose.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, sometimes simple, even simplistic music can be absolutely perfect for a scene, whereas a brilliantly developed symphonic movement filled with masterful counterpoint and excellent voice leading can be completely inappropriate and nothing more than a demonstration of irrelevant skills of a composer completely out of touch with the film.

I agree as well and in fact have been musing on the very points you made. Particularly that music should serve the picture and therefore is constrained even in a musical sense (lack of development or even lack of interest so as not to call attention to itself and conflict with picture.) The latter (static i.e. uninteresting music is more recent, as film music has moved away from it's operatic heritage.)

The two issues I do have are these:

Music that is so poorly constructed that it draws attention to itself. (Please understand I'm watching the film, not focusing on the score and then get pulled out by some colossal musical gaffe. Maybe I'm the only one in the theatre that happens to, but as a composer I'm trained to respond to music.)

Music that is so insipid and unimaginative due to either laziness or carelessness or complete lack of talent in understanding the difference between good and bad.

I know there are deadlines and all. I just don't know how someone can write absolute drivel and not expect a howl from some quarter.

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

Music that is so poorly constructed that it draws attention to itself. (Please understand I'm watching the film, not focusing on the score and then get pulled out by some colossal musical gaffe. Maybe I'm the only one in the theatre that happens to, but as a composer I'm trained to respond to music.)Dave Connor

Completely good point Dave. We've talked of this before. 'Lay' audiences can be affected by this in my opinion. They may not realise the reason why suddenly, they are glancing around the cinema in a distracted fashion. But I 've seen it happen and indeed, looked for it in a sixth sense sort of way, and its not necessarily because the film is bad. Anal? Definately!

Bad music in TV or film is either an aural 'trained' notification that something isn't working, or a subliminal 'lay' reaction, which leads to loss of concentration. No doubt of it, in my view.

It can't just be because of bad writing either. After all, who gives the final go-ahead on the score? For me, and others may have different views, its when the score is constantly changing its style and does not remain within its original form and ideas. The Mark of Zorro is a good example of this, as I've said before. Music in film or TV is there to enhance the images. It can lift a poorish film and it can bugger up a good one.

@dpcon said:

music should serve the picture

Bingo. This is why I teach that the script should very much be strayed away from with a cross.

It's film music. Not "script music".

Evan Evans

"... strayed away from..."

Is that a Freudian slip?

@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.

This conversation is a very interesting one. I believe the general decline in film/tv music is a combination of elements. These are, diminished budgets, expanse in technology (anyone with a sampler/keyboard), corporate consolidation and greed. Yes, tried and true seems to absolutely play a big factor in it all too. It takes a bold director with some clout (or an absolute independent) to take risks.

In the past, many film composers came from a "classical" background - writing on paper and only having their works performed/recorded by live musicians. As technology/communications and corporate growth have "progressed" (not sure THATS the proper word for it!) markets have shrunk - creating a new arena of musicians to pool from.

Also to, the "groovy" 60's & 70's- classic film scores gave way to studios trying to become "more hip" - Herrmann's "Torn Curtain" score comes to mind.

I don't think change in the film music is bad, I think it is like life - it is always changing and morphing. It always will. Talent will emerge and lack of talent will too. The bottom line is, if we are talking film music - it is about supporting and complementing the story, characters and emotion of the picture. If its electronic, if its acoustic or some combination of the two - issue is to support it.

I also agree with the Elfman remark - his scores ARE creative and give a unique spin to the films he participates in. Now, of course, if he is not crediting his talented team that help bring his sound to life.... thats another issue. The people that choose to work under these conditions make their own choice and to some extent allow people who may not possess all the necessary skills to bring "their sound" to fruition.

I need coffee now.


Shawn Patterson

Shawn,

I agree with your post and welcome change in film and other arts as well.

A change from quality craftsmenship to shoddy work however is never welcomed even if it's a housewife bemoaning the fact that toasters aren't made as well as they were years ago. The toasters are still nice and shiny but they fall apart in a big hurry. So do certain modern film scores.

Cheers (and nice to hear your inciteful thoughts)

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

Shawn,

I agree with your post and welcome change in film and other arts as well.

A change from quality craftsmenship to shoddy work however is never welcomed even if it's a housewife bemoaning the fact that toasters aren't made as well as they were years ago. The toasters are still nice and shiny but they fall apart in a big hurry. So do certain modern film scores.

Cheers (and nice to hear your inciteful thoughts)

Dave Connor

There you go again, Dave... always ripping on poor Zimmer. [[;)]]

S

@SMP3602 said:

Also to, the "groovy" 60's & 70's- classic film scores gave way to studios trying to become "more hip" - Herrmann's "Torn Curtain" score comes to mind.Shawn Patterson

Please ellaborate.

That's a good point smp3602 made - Torn Curtain was originally a tremendous, powerful score (which has recently been re-recorded) for an ensemble of nine horns, six trombones, violas, basses, percussion, and twelve flutes. Nothing else. It was then replaced by Hitchcock who had words with Herrmann right at the rehearsal, because the cretinous production heads were insisting on a more "pop" score. So a pleasant, harmless little composer was brought in to replace Herrmann with something more palatable to morons and studio heads. (Sorry to be redundant.)

@SMP3602 said:

There you go again, Dave... always ripping on poor Zimmer. [[[;)]]] S

SMP,

Actually I haven't said much about Hans Zimmer. It's true he is a practitioner of a new harmonic language in film that many find trite and boring but I can live with a lot of his work.

My breach isn't against a person or persons. I've just sighted some examples of very successful film composers writing awful music. I figure it might help some younger guys to re-evaluate what they're hearing.

When I was young I thought Return To Forever was the second coming. I read a review in Downbeat where the guy dismissed RtoF as leaden hyperbole. He far preferred Herbie Hancock's Headhunters. I was intrigued that my heroes were being besmirched. It wasn't long until I agreed with the critic (and do to this day.) I still listen to Headhunters (Thrust) and don't even know where the RtoF is. I'm grateful someone more mature then I made an honest critical evaluation in an area where I hoped to one day be and expert. It was helpful and guiding to have that input.

I don't want to bag on anybody really. I have to admit though: an eighty piece orchestra playing a few minor and major chords with no distinguishing melody does break my heart (even though the timpani/cymbal swells always manage to charm so.)

[[[;)]]]

Dave Connor

What Dave says here is exactly what I have noticed repeatedly - the use of a fabulous studio orchestra in film scores to make the most pathetically lame nursery school ditty sound passable. Try playing one of these scores on a piano. You would probably laugh it out of the room. Now try playing a Brahms Symphony on a piano. You would be impressed all over again by the genius of it. And it was originally scored for ORCHESTRA. Not piano. Likewise for a great film composition like Herrmann's. For example "Vertigo." It sounds beautiful on piano. The reason I mention doing this kind of minimizing of the score to one timber is that I believe if you have something stupid-sounding until it is orchestrated, all you are doing is orchestration, not composition. This is the danger with samples, because they offer the composer so many entrancing sounds that he may simply be demonstrating those sounds, and not do anything worthwhile with them.

What an extraordinarily interesting conversation I've stumbled across here. Numerous good points....

A couple of my own:

Recently I was at a talk by Elmer Bernstein where he casually stated that in the old days he would have the orchestra for a week to do a main title cue. I think every composer in the audience died a little at that moment...
What do we get now 2-4 weeks for the whole thing BUT with 790 sets of tiny changes (enabled by our wonderful technology). It is truly a different planet...

Another great point from a previous posting: if it doesn't make decent sense when played on the piano, then it is not the real deal. 90 players churning out dire harmony with no voice leading etc etc is very sad. There is plenty of very colouristic music that is great (Ravel, Messaien, even arguably Ligeti, Grisey etc), but the reason it works so beautifully is because as well as the colours being great THE NOTES ARE GREAT AS WELL!

All the best from the sunny UK...

O.K., to get something scandalous going related to this topic, here is my contribution - what is the worst film score you've ever heard?

I think the worst I've heard is the score to "4-D Man." At least among ones that come immediately to mind. This was a lesser 50s sci-fi film, not too bad really, but not too good either - but it had an incredibly, ridiculously intrusive big band jazz score. Now I agree with Max Steiner that film music should be noticed, but this was grotesquely out of character with the film and served only to show off the cool cats who were playing it fff every time they could.

Another bad score is not one, but several all lumped together - those atrocious early-sampler scores that have been plastered over silent movies recently. Part of this can be ascribed to low technology sampling, but sorry - not all of it. I remember hearing a score to a C.B. Demille silent film, that had an almost completely dry "timpani roll" accomplished by the composer hitting AS FAST AS HE COULD a single note sample. It was close to nauseating. Another characteristic of these silent film scores is that they are remarkably out of character with the original films. There is no attempt at "harmonizing" with the musical practice of the time in any way.

Carl Davis and Timothy Brock have done some brilliant scores recently to silent classics by Harold Lloyd and F. W. Murnau that accomplish this very thing - writing a contemporary score but with a "feel" that does not contradict the silent era.

I'm sure there are plenty of more recent scores to point out.

O.K. - here's another one:

James Horner, "Star Trek II."

When I first saw this film and heard this music I almost puked. (Though not from the film - it's a pretty good one if you like Star Trek.)

Outer Space = Augmented triad played by near-catatonic-by-arpeggio violinists

Khan = Motif stolen from Prokofiev "Alexander Nevsky."

Anything Else = Incredibly, shamelessly plagiarized John Williams-style cliches - you name 'em. They're all here. Every last one of them. This composer is the single most shockingly blatant plagiarist in the history of music, bar none.

William,

You know better than to get me started on that film composer and that film.

My contribution to your post will be to point out the lovely strains of Mahler's 7th that are to be found uncredited in that film as well.

Shameless is right.

Dave Connor

On your earlier post: There's a score that I think was a Titanic failure but I can't remember the name of the film.