[but maybe they'll put it up on VSL if the clip(s) are good enough.] quote

I'm sure they will be. OK. See you later.

On the subject of the continual low rumble in the recent scores of Howard Shore...

My feeling is that its constant presence can be explained the simple equation

Deep = Big = Loud = Good

Personally I think we should invent a new category for LOUDEST SCORE and award it to him automatically every year.

Greetings from sunny Scotland.

I can't comment on the details of Mr. Shore's work not haven't heard the score alone. However there is no doubt that for quite some time (since synthesizers were introduced into the orchestra) sound efx have found their way into the fabric of the score. This combined with an emphasis on efx from the sound department has indeed cluttered up the sonic elements of film in general.

This is why the silent era is being appreciated and longed for more and more by purists. The visual with music is the foundation of the art. The crushing, numbing effect of loud noise may have it's place here and there but it should never have become the norm. Since studios want the "blockbuster" more than anything else no doubt explains this irritating phenomenon's prevalence.

Dave Connor

today we have wonderful film music scores, from godenthal, jerry goldsmith, thomas newman, silvestri, James Horner(even if he 's inspired a lot by classical pieces, his scores for Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind were simply amazing, for me ...) james newton howard and of course the incredible Hans Zimmer(his themes are fuck*** simple but incredible effectives), i love Crimson tide , the thin red line ...
i think imho there are a lot of film scores that are even better than classic orchestral piece...


funny topic...

ps : (you can't even compete with that "bad composers", so don't criticize them...)

I'm not aware of many competitions being held between film composers so I'm not planning to compete any time soon.

To criticize bad music however is certainly warranted as is criticizing bad food. Mac Donalds is hugely successful but that doesn't mean their food is any good it just means it's popular and consumed more than good food.

Some of the composer's you mentioned have written terrible music and lowered the standard of the art. It's healthy when this is pointed out in any art even if it's futile. Pop music as well is in a very bad state. Creativity and invention is at an all time low (in favor of personality and appearance.)

Thank God for free speech.

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

I'm not aware of many competitions being held between film composers so I'm not planning to compete any time soon.

To criticize bad music however is certainly warranted as is criticizing bad food. Mac Donalds is hugely successful but that doesn't mean their food is any good it just means it's popular and consumed more than good food.

Some of the composer's you mentioned have written terrible music and lowered the standard of the art. It's healthy when this is pointed out in any art even if it's futile. Pop music as well is in a very bad state. Creativity and invention is at an all time low (in favor of personality and appearance.)

Thank God for free speech.

Dave Connor

rohhh don't say that ! [:)] i never said you can't speak freely

what do you mean by "they have lowered the standard of the art" , do you mean it's a bad music ? (english isnt my native language , i don't understand all subtleties of this language)

Carter,

My free speech remark was a response to, "Don't criticize them." I was merely saying that anyone should be allowed to criticize art (think critically) anywhere anytime. It's actually an important ingredient. It also means that someone who makes critical remarks can fairly be criticized as well. Many great composer's were criticized in their day which show's how wrong people can be. I just wouldn't want to live in a world where any voice was not able to speak right or wrong. Which is an over reaction to your intended point no doubt.

My point is this: Film music has produced some of the best composers in any medium. It is now producing some of the worst. I wish it wasn't true but it is painfully true. So am I being overly critical or just stating the obvious?

I appreciate your concern that I may have misunderstood your remarks.

Best wishes
[:)]

Dave Connor

I disagree with the statement by Carter about James Horner - his music is truly plagiarized, not merely inspired, from classical music. It is point for point, note for note, orchestration for orchestration STOLEN. You want some proof - I'll give it to you.

I dislike most of today's film music (not all - just most) and I DO put my own music up for comparison. Also, you have not heard Dave Connor's music, so how do you know that he cannot be compared to the good/bad ones? Answer that please. There are many people right here who have a lot of talent even if they are not yet famous.

Though conversely I agree with Dave that it is wrong to create "competition" between composers. In fact, it is stupid. Each composer, if he is any good, creates his own world which is judged on merits it creates for itself.

I DEMAND THAT PAUL ENTER INTO THIS DISCUSSION!!!! DO YOU HEAR THAT PAUL? I REFUSE TO LET PROBLEMS CREATED BY SOMEONE ELSE STOP YOU FROM POSTING HERE! YOU ARE BANNED FROM RETIRING FROM THIS FORUM.

(A Senior Member has the power to ban another member from retiring, as per VSL FORUM NETIQUETTE CODE #23959685712-adhql165-3 sec. 1753.a)

@Morpheus said:

Deep = Big = Loud = Good

Very true. Although, as Dave stated, the opposite is wrong, too. My problem is that there seldomly is any variety.

Yesterday I showed my work to an established film composer who said that the problem with my music is that it doesn´t hold *one* emotion. A succesful score builds up *one* emotion in seconds and holds that for a more or less long time. In my music however I´m constantly searching for contrasts and varieties to one emotion. (which always was a central point for me in any music). This composer told me that it even would be dangerous to show my work to a director because they would be irritated. Well, and as far as I got to know directors, I believe he might be right.

I´m not decided yet if that indeed is a prerequisite for filmmusic since the emotion is given by the film and contrasts thus are also given by the film or if that is a limitation of our current art thinking. I mean in almost every art it is currently about opening one drawer and not moving anymore. Generally actors seem to do the same. The development of an emotion lost its interest.

What are you guys thinking about that topic? I´m currently a bit lost about all that.

Greetings from lovely München,
- Mathis

mathis,

I feel your pain [[;)]] All melodic or developmental composers (as opposed to say - colorists) must tread very carefully in the popular film idiom - generally speaking. As I've mentioned in other posts there has been a general shift toward the "static" in a lot of popular film music. I don't say this is entirely bad as overly tuneful music can sound trite and dated in the wrong context. However, bad music (lack of invention, musical depth, even lack of true simplicity) never works anywhere, anytime. So if a director's desire is actually, "Write me some witless awful music" then you're in trouble.

OTOH consider it a musical challenge to satisfy the visual content of the film with original interesting music that doesn't develop or behave in a traditional way. Bernard Herrman, Gerry Goldsmith, Jerry Fielding, Ennio Moricone are all masters at subtle emotional and psychological shifts portrayed musically.

Don't lose hope. Rise to the occasion and display the brilliance you're so capable of.

Dave Connor

Mathis

The person who told you this is a hack. I know he is one because I've been told the same thing by a similar "expert." I wrote a score for a feature that was an attempt at interweaving musical development with thematic development in the film itself, but they are not interested in anything like that. It is meaningless to them. They only want surface effects. Like what you pointed out - the low rumbling. They LOVE that.

According to this mindless approach, contrast, which is the essence of the art of music, does not matter. Film music has to be uniform and homogenized like milk. It is then poured on the film at certain points by the director.

Pay absolutely no attention to this person and you will be true to yourself as an artist. Listen to him and you will be giving up your own art. Your music is really good and shows an original approach. You must not surrender your own abilities or talents to commercial compromise.

incredible Hans Zimmer(his themes are f****** simple but incredible effectives), i love Crimson tide , the thin red line ...

I agree about The Thin red Line - actually about the only Zimmer score I get on well with (Jeff Rona was fairly busy on this too I think?).

The other Zimmer moment I like is the violin descant in the main Gladiator theme - ripped off from Mahler which very funnily keeps pointing the harmony towards new keys and then swerving away. Anybody know who did it?

all the best from Scotland



[/b]

Thank you, Dave and Bill, for your encouraging words.

Many greetings from The Hague (need some sleep after long travel...)
- Mathis

Mathis,

I think it's very appropriate you posted that person's criticism on this thread - his attitude is the answer for Dave's original question.

I also liked the score to The Thin Red Line. Very effective and unusual score that captured the directors multi layered psychological and emotional vision. Consider once again that great dircetor's have a way of getting good performances from every one including composers. Terrence Malick is a brilliant director who got much more out of Zimmer than his usual fare.

Dave Connor

Another thing, Mathis - this "Film Composer" expert assumes that one element from the music to add to the film is all that is needed. Why? Why can't film use a complex interplay between multiple elements within and without the music that contrast and amplify each other?

The answer is because that's complex, and commercial people don't want complexity. It is dangerous, and they want safety above all else.

Good morning!

Personally I actually feel quite confident with my music and the approach to it (after some afterthought). The problem nevertheless starts with my idea of making a profession out of it. This guy is well into business for a long time, mostly advertising. Honestly I never really liked his music but I am jealous of his business. (very honest.... [:D] )
Currently for me it comes down to a basic question: Should one try to appeal as general expectations as possible or should one develop his own idea of music and wait till the right director comes and wants *your* music (always talking about filmmusic here). Of course I always would vote for the latter one but in a situation like mine where I have to face severe financial problems and am eager to come into business it´s difficult to trust idealism.
This guy starts his showreel with a more or less literal copy of John Williams style. Is this clever or silly? It seems hard to find an answer to that.

Have a nice day,
- Mathis

One possible answer can be summed up in a word...

Familiarity.

The masses seek the familiar. It's one reason for the current trend in licensing popular songs for advertising instead of creating memorable original music. Especially in the area of 'jingles', it would appear that the golden age of the catchy tune written for the ad is behind us. (There are always exceptions, of course. The current McDonald's campaign 'I'm Lovin' It' here in the U.S. is a pretty good example.)

Several years ago, if an ad agency used film music as a temporary score for a TV spot, it was almost always Danny Elfman. Lately it's almost always Thomas Newman. And they don't WANT me to be original...no matter how much they SAY they do. (Again, there are exceptions...and I dearly love these clients.) What's the reason?

Familiarity.

William is right. They don't want to take chances. Again, they SAY they do...but they don't really. The mentality seems to be, "Here's a sound that's proven...let's do that." And in this era of media saturation, time is money. It costs more to establish an original sound in an ad campaign than it does to cut right to the chase with something the audience already knows.

I think this mentality bleeds into the film world, too. The only film I was ever fired from was partially because I continually resisted the director's insistence that I stay dangerously close to the temp music...all of which was from one well-known A-list composer. Of course, when I tried to diplomatically suggest that I WASN'T this composer, that he had hired me to bring MY voice to the film...well, let's just say he was insulted that I would suggest he thought otherwise. Yet, all subsequent direction led cue after cue right back to the temp music. (I ended up getting fired because this process ended up taking so long, we ended up woefully behind schedule and I had committed to another project. It was a relief.)

But you know, as I write I wonder why I'm taking the time to weigh in on this subject. I wonder if we have any power to change the situation. Speaking for myself, I win some - I lose some. At the end of the day, at least I have a happy client. And as long as I don't allow myself to step over the line (I just lost a pretty major ad campaign because I wouldn't rip off a tune the client didn't want to pay the licensing fee for), I still get to write music every day for a living. And I have enough clients who really WANT to know what I think to keep it challenging and stimulating.

Things could sure be worse.

Fred Story

Dear Fred,

thanks for your writing and your insights. B.t.w. the guy I spoke to was in fact one the guys which are responsible for the McDonald´s world-wide campaign, 8 months of hard work... [[:|]]

To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I hope not to sound too lamenting. It´s not that I moan about current music business (although there´s enough to moan about), it´s about the personal music vs. music as a service problem. I feel currently a bit lost between these too worlds. As an expression of art my current composing is too commercial and for the commercial world it seems to be too arty. A bit strange situation and I feel I have to decide. at least for a certain period.

Out of the window I see a duck with 11 chicks, that´s my favorite number! [:D]

Bests,
- Mathis

Fred, it sounds like you've got a situation that allows you to do good music. But I had that "copycat" situation happen to me more than once. The first time I didn't lose the job. I wrote some insipid pablum for it. But to me it wasn't worth the money. The worst music I've written has been for lousy jobs like that.

Mathis, this guy had a carbon copy of John Williams and if you had given him the same he would have loved it. In other words, if you negated yourself and became someone else he would have loved it.

You must stay away from anyone who thinks that way. I didn't used to, but nowadays, if someone approached me with money and wanted what somebody else did - I would tell them in no uncertain terms what I thought of the whole stupid concept. I was recently fired from a job for that. But it no longer matters to me, because those jobs are never worth whatever you think you'll get from them.

I am so sick of John Williams copies. And all the rest of the copies. As soon as someone - anyone with the slightest originality - comes out, maybe Elfman now after John Williams, then he too is copied.

Don't be one of the copies - be the original that they try to copy.