@William said:

The single most significant factor in the failure of 99% of the movies being made right now is the weakness of the script, original story and basic conception. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Great to read that!!
I enjoy reading scripts, because there I see what the writer/director once imagined. Then you see on film what resulted out of it. That´s your starting point.
If you don´t know the difference between a script and a film, you´re wrong in the business. Of course filmmaking is about creating a film, not a novel. But the script is, where it all starts from. The idea that one should be able to hear if a composer has read the script before composing, sounds completely absurd to me. Sorry, Evan.

I´d liked to write more about it, but too less time right now. End of the week..

Bests,
- Mathis

evan,

thanks and my apologies for being touchy.

William,

Oh ok. No problem. For some reason a lot of people have "come down" on me as late, and I actually don't know why. I really love all people.

In another forum, I was discussing that VSL uses "time stretching". Actually I was merely voicing my personal disdain about it, and for some reason people actually "came down" on me. Not sure why. I never understood it. And they never explained.

Anyway, if there's ever a opportunity for you to tell me why I upset you, please do. I am a very open person. Completely open. However I make room for my individual artistry and sometimes people take that as my being pig headed, arrogant, or one sided, when really I am just talking about "me". I still acknowledge, respect, and cherish, all other wondrous things that exist in the universe, sometimes more at the subatomic level than the personal level! [:)]

Evan Evans

@mathis said:

I enjoy reading scripts, because there I see what the writer/director once imagined. Then you see on film what resulted out of it. That's your starting point.
If you don't know the difference between a script and a film, you're wrong in the business. Of course filmmaking is about creating a film, not a novel. But the script is, where it all starts from. The idea that one should be able to hear if a composer has read the script before composing, sounds completely absurd to me. Sorry, Evan.

mathis,

That's ok. I actually 100% agree with the two of you about 99% of the time the script being so important to whether a film gets made, and gets made well. And I still press that the composer ought to not read it before and during writing. It's ok to marvel at it when you're done with your score though. [:)]

I see it most people's way, I just have a small tiny little difference in that specifically the composer, who is the emotional narrator via an invisible abstract hidden underneath the film, should not attempt to parlay any meaning inherent in the script only. This becomes clouded once the script is read, and so the composer, as per my way, should not read the script.

It is maybe a cutting edge thought. One which encounters resistance. But I have never been ordinary, and my ways have always tried to be the best ways. Sometimes people say, "there is no best way". Some sort of defense mechanism protecting their ego from letting them know their "way" is wrong. But when it comes to film scoring, at least as I've broken it down, it is all explainable, interconnectable, and quantifiable. This is something I think is unique to me and it is the basis for my book on the subject. My gift has been to "see" the abstract of the art of film scoring, demystified and quantified mathematically, scientifically, and philosophically.

That said, I do not purport at this time to be definitive in what I say about NOT reading a script. Certainly there are exceptions. However, they are "known" to me, and it is possible, but I am reserving the complete description for my book, to explain all the varieties of one would encounter now and into the future. I would say that 95% of the time you are better off without having read the script, perhaps more like 96% or 97%. Although that seems like absolute certainty, consider that over 6000 films are made each year. This means 180 films per year "may" benefit by having the composer read the script.

And also let me say that, in my encounters and experiences, more than half of the scripts had nothing more to tell me than was inherent in the film already.

Evan Evans

[quote="evanevansI am reserving the complete description for my book [quote]




Be careful. Remember what happened the last time you mentioned your book.

@evanevans said:

, it is all explainable, interconnectable, and quantifiable. This is something I think is unique to me and it is the basis for my book on the subject. My gift has been to "see" the abstract of the art of film scoring, demystified and quantified mathematically, scientifically, and philosophically.

Wow, impressive! So that means there´s nothing more to explore for anybody else?
Should we others now stop to explore the everyday new discovery of the mythological world of audio-visual relationship?

I always thought though that it is about discovering it again and again from the ground up, since it never will stop to surprise you.
And concerning my wisdom: If you stop discovering things, you stop being creative.

I read somewhere (record jacket, maybe?) that EM's score for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" was written in its entirety for a different film which was never released. The music was simply "placed" into TGTBATU.
I knew the soundtrack for "Once Upon a Time in the West" for about 10 years before I saw the film. When I finally saw it I was completely blown away by the usage of the music in the film. Really "odd" choices that worked so brilliantly...

But my all-time favourite EM score is "Investigation of a Citizen Under Suspicion"
I still haven't seen the film, but the score is a model of economy and imagination.

That's interesting. I like Morricone a lot, and what you say reminds me of what I heard Jean Cocteau did with George Auric's music on Orpheus or Beauty and the Beast. He used cues that were written for one section in a completely different part of the film. If you've seen those films, it obviously worked brilliantly. Though he didn't do it on all of them!

Which reminds me of a form of cinematic vandalism that has been committed by an overrated and pretentious composer - Phillip Glass. (Has anyone heard that atrocity of an "opera" he wrote? Or the single worst film score I have ever heard - his screechy string quartet for the Lugosi Dracula that completely ignores the film from the first frame to the last?) This person had the gall to remove Auric's beautiful, elegant, magnificent score from Beauty and the Beast and put his own boring, droning crap to that film. This should be illegal, though the owners of the rights had the bad taste to permit it.

I like to see a script. It's one way to judge where the strengths and weaknesses of a story are. And you can do a lot to tie a movie together with music, so that can be useful information IMO.

But mostly I like to see a script because it gets me excited; it's something real about the project, probably there are no cuts to see yet, and it starts a conscious and subconscious process of thought...maybe I'll have an idea for a theme, a rhythm, instrumentation, sounds...soemtimes these get abandoned; but getting started is the key for me.

However, talking with the director is probably even more useful, whether you read a script or not.

Interesting what you say about Morricone's methods, ee. I can well believe that, because his music is not really about hitting cue points....more about themes which establish a strong mood. Oh man, what a mood...that guy is a master of melody. His recent 3-CD release is lovely, various reworkings of themes with just piano, just chamber, and orchestra performances.
And the title !!: " I, Morricone".
[H]

Nigel


Nigel.

But actually, evan, I read your post again, and you're right: it's much better to get your response (which will become your music) from the film/picture itself. If it's available.

Staying away from the temp track makes sense too for the very same reason. I admire your courage in insisting on that.

Nigel

I agree - as usual in a contradictory way - with both Nigel and Evan on this. The script can be a source of pure, undiluted ideas that a composer may actually use to influence the final film version. As in (the most famous example) Herrmann actually changing THE MIND OF HITCHCOCK- does anyone realize what an achievement that is from a composer? Hitchcock is the greatest cinematic mind along with Fellini, Bergman and Tarkovsky who ever lived, and Herrmann actually changed his mind about how to score things. No one else could do that.

However, Evan is absolutely right about the film being a "text" in itself and it may be completely different from any prior conception. This happens all the time. So you have this as a potential dilemma that can only be resolved in a practical way. And that is never easy.

@Another User said:

get started, keep going, and deal with the pressures and vagaries of this often thankless task.

Getting started! Yes, because this is the most difficult part of the process for me I end up postponing BECAUSE of the "keep going" part then I compose like mad and start running out of steam then client changes things *again* & *again* & *again* which brings me back to the "vagaries" part and then I HAVE to start over where the procrastination starts all over again

My compositions sometimes sound like circles. [[;)]]