@jammusique_7634 said:

Hi Mike, Compliments for your orchestration and execution abilities. Can you say anything about your programming "methodes"? Do you play all the parts? Do you play your reduction and then do beat mapping from that and then maybe copy stuff down to the the individual parts? And how do you handle your crossfades for say "sus wo/vibr" to "sus w/vibr. for example? Any tricks you're willing to share with the plebs? All best.........

I play all the parts, yes - I do not play from a reduction, as I rarely do reductions.  I have just always composed and orchestrated simultaneously, right into the score. It slows the process a touch at the composing stage, but speeds it up at the mock-up stage, because there's no extra orchestration step needed.

Performance-wise, I have very few tricks.  All my samples are with vibrato, and they're all modwheel-controlled volume, usually across 3 dynamics.  I like to have explicit control over "breath" at all times, and I don't hit a single note without at least SOME "push" or "pull" on the modwheel.  So nearly every brass attack, for example, starts with my modwheel all the way down, and then I slam it forward if it's supposed to be a fast attack, for example. it's tricky to describe, but my left hand is just constantly riding that modwheel in sometimes radical arcs.  But it solves all kinds of problems with the samples, feels more natural, and adds a level of randomness to every line that I really feel it needs.

Thanks for the kind words!

_Mike

@syonker said:

If you care to share any information on the detailed process, tool sets, recommended readings/tutorials, etc. please do!

Honestly, I can't imagine anything better than studying scores of the masters.  None of us - certainly not me - is writing at the level of the truly landmark composers.  When you go back and truly break down, say The Rite of Spring (or Appalachian Spring for that matter), there is just untouchably brilliant stuff to immerse yourself in there.  You can study, and you can analyze, but it's my experience that you also have to just live with it 24/7 to let it truly internalize, in a way that your brain will ultimately understand how to add to your own music and control for your own creative needs.  As much as I appreciate the compliments, I hear my own work and I see a galaxy-sized gulf between my work and the work I truly am inspired by.  John Williams is the reason I became a composer, but I think even most of his work pales in comparison to the greats - people he loved too, like VW and Elgar and Shostakovich, et al.  All this computer crap is just us trying to approximate the great orchestral palette with what we've got - we just don't have orchestras lying around.  (Neither did they, really, but that's a separate discussion.)  So rather than getting hung up in the samples and the articulations, I'm always focused first on what it is we have to say.  

_Mike

Mike: 

It seems to me that the great works you describe and other like examples of true compositional greatness were, in most cases, created over extended periods of time. Many of these works took months and even years to write and orchestrate. Even so, they were often revised extensively by their composers.

Certainly, Bach, Haydn, Mozart and many composers of the 16th and 17th centuries worked under tremendous time pressure and had to produce a lot of work in a short period. However, most of the composers of those eras produced only pedestrian work at best. Only the few true geniuses were able to create great works under those conditions. From the 18th century onward, it seems to me that great compositions were mostly the result of a combination of talent, tremendous education and a lot of time.

Of course, it is possible that I am wrong about this but, I don't know how it is possible to create extended works at the highest possible level with a deadline of the kinds most of us work under. This seems true whether you are in Film, Television, Games or in my world of the Theatre. For myself, I completely empathize with your statement, "I hear my own work and I see a galaxy-sized gulf between my work and the work I truly am inspired by." I know for sure that I am not good enough to do great work quickly. Of course, I don't know whether I can produce great work at all. I do know that the only chance for that to ever happen is if I find a way to take more time than I do now.

Be Well,

Poppa 

But of course, the film-going audience doesn't care how long you had or didn't have to write the music.  There are no disclaimers in the credits.  This is true for most any conditions we write under: what we deliver is what we deliver.  It may not always be fair, but I don't maintain any illusion that my audience will be in any way forgiving; they'll hold my music right up against the best stuff, so I have to maintain that as a goal.

_Mike

Mike:

What you say makes sense to a certain extent. Certainly, it is worthwhile to set high standards. Still, I wonder if you are correct that audiences hold film scores up against the very best art music. Frankly, I doubt that. I certainly don't.

That is not to say that such high quality of writing cannot be achieved under those circumstances since it has, on occasion. I'm simply saying that, as far as I can tell, the greatest works, the ones we admire most, seem to me to have taken time to create.

Be Well,

Poppa

Of course they do; they absolutely do and couldn't help it.  If you don't find a particular stand-up comic funny, you can't make yourself find him funny just by telling yourself, "well, this is just a little out-of-the-way comedy club he's performing in and not Madison Square Garden, so I should expect less."  You don't find them funny, period.  Same with music.  It either moves you or it doesn't, and if the stuff that moves you most is truly masterwork stuff, you're going to feel less from inferior pieces. You're not going to be able to convince yourself that just because it's for a film, or was written quickly, it is as satisfying as your favorite pieces.  That's a totally unrealistic expectation to put on -certainly the average- viewer.  Music is wonderfully pure in this sense.  As it is, most of the best and enduring film scores are ones which approach these levels of compositional virtuosity, which only seems to solidify the point: the better they are, the better they are.  

_Mike

Mike:

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. I understand the concept of unconscious response, etc. But, in my opinion, the average movie goer has not even heard most of the greatest art music. This has been increasingly true throughout the history of film. We can say that, in the silent film era, some art music was played along with the films and some of that audience may have also listened to art music. However, as the history of film, and film music has progressed, the wider film audience consists of people of less and less art music education.

I do not believe you can use the argument that this music exists all around and people are aware of it. In my opinion, the vast majority of the movie going audience does not listen to art music and has absolutely no ability whatsoever to compare or contrast it with film music. They cannot tell the difference between Bach and Bartok and honestly, most of them don't care. I think this is true all over the world. I think it is true in every media genre (TV, Games, Theatre, etc.).

We may want to tell ourselves that audiences can somehow sense the difference and that the greatest of our creations will stand the test of time due to their intrinsic merits. This may even be true to some extent, I really don't know. But to think that people really have a sense of the comparison between a film score and art music, that they put these genres up against one another consciously or unconsciously is wishful thinking. They just don't.

Be Well,

Poppa

I'm aiming for the harshest, most well-informed critic in the audience, not the lowest common denominator listener - who nonetheless seems proportionally moved by better music, even without the benefit of familiarity. I think counting on the ignorance of an audience to forgive the quality of our work is... well, let's just say we have opposing philosophies on the matter.  I sure as hell am not taking that chance.

_Mike

Mike:

You might be misinterpreting my opinion. My primary point was that, as far as I can tell, the music we tend to think of as the great masterworks, seems to take time to create. The discussion took the direction of what audiences think and it appears we have a difference of opinion there. However, I don't mean to imply that the standard to which we aspire as composers should somehow be altered because of either opinion. I believe in striving always for the highest possible level in any work whether it is a 3 pc arrangement of "Kum ba yah," a film score or music one wishes to call "art." In this, I suspect we are in agreement.

Be Well,

Poppa

@PoppaJOL said:

Mike:

 

You might be misinterpreting my opinion. My primary point was that, as far as I can tell, the music we tend to think of as the great masterworks, seems to take time to create. The discussion took the direction of what audiences think and it appears we have a difference of opinion there. However, I don't mean to imply that the standard to which we aspire as composers should somehow be altered because of either opinion. I believe in striving always for the highest possible level in any work whether it is a 3 pc arrangement of "Kum ba yah," a film score or music one wishes to call "art." In this, I suspect we are in agreement.

 

Be Well,

 

Poppa

Mike:

You're quite right. If you look back a couple of posts you'll see I specifically mention Bach and Mozart in exactly this context. They were supreme geniuses who were able to create deathless works quickly. Most composers of their eras, working under the same time constraints, were not able to create works of that calibre.

Please understand, I am not saying anything is impossible or even that I'm right. It's just an observation. You mentioned these wonderful composers whose work I also admire and I made the observation that most of these works were created with plenty of time rather than under the high speed conditions usual to the film industry. I wasn't saying it's not possible to create great music under those conditions. Clearly some people have done so.

Be Well,

Poppa

" I don't maintain any illusion that my audience will be in any way forgiving; they'll hold my music right up against the best stuff" - mverta

What planet are you from?  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Yeah, right -  everyone at The Dark Knight is wondering "Is this as good as Bach's Mass in B Minor? No, not quite. The counterpoint is not up to Johann's standards." 

Audiences in American cinemas are absolutely, completely subconscious.  They are affected mainly by thumping noises, gunfire and explosion sounds.   The artistic quality of music is an insignificant decoration slipped in by the composer, usually against the producer's wishes. 

 One other thing -

"All this computer crap is just us trying to approximate the great orchestral palette with what we've got -" - mverta

No. That is what YOU are trying to do.  Don't assume that everyone else here is trying to do what you are doing.  This "computer crap" - as you crudely put it  - is a revolution in musical expression that deserves far more serious use than your concept of "faking an orchestra."

...such anger, geez.  I think what Mike was saying was that an actual, real orchestra sounds better and is way more flexible in its sound versus what you can produce using VIs.  And I'm not quite sure what you mean by your comment that we must use this revolution in a 'far more serious' manner.  If I want to produce a 'flippant' score in a most flippant manner, is that not ok with you?

And finally, regarding your previous comments suggesting that American audiences have barely enough sophistication to appreciate explosions, while the Batman score was indeed forgetable, I'd much rather listen to it than to a composer who feels it his duty to remind his audience how ignorant and provincial they truly are.

Oh, and by the way, wasn't it Mozart who composed for the riff raff rather than the highbrow.  Hard to tell, he might have loved composing a move like Batman.  Leave all those Lifetime Channel gigs to that Beethoven guy :)

@William said:

Yeah, right -  everyone at The Dark Knight is wondering "Is this as good as Bach's Mass in B Minor? No, not quite. The counterpoint is not up to Johann's standards." 

You misunderstood.  I'm saying that they're going to be moved by the music or they're not, and are not going to scale their emotional reaction simply because it's a movie they're watching, and not a symphony they're attending.  The burden on a film composer to create great music is as high as it is for a concert composer, usually with more challenges, less time, and more cooks in the kitchen, but the goal is still the same.  The best film music, as I've pointed out, is usually that which is musically most satsifying on its own.  In fact, the measure of a truly great film score - and today a largely unheard quality - is that it manages to serve the otherwise non-musical picture edit, the director's vision, and the drama while somehow simultaneously maintaining complete internal cohesion within each cue, and taken together as a complete 90-120 minute work. It has to be of a completely dual nature, yet simultaneously existing in complete syngery.  When it's done properly, it's a beautiful accomplishment.

_Mike

 Anger? What anger?  This is me being nice.  

Mverta - I did not misunderstand anything. You changed what you said.  And it's still wrong.

"The best film music, as I've pointed out, is usually that which is musically most satsifying on its own." - mverta

Where'd you point that bullshit out?   Some of the worst film music ever written is brilliant musically on its own, but functions badly in the film.   Some of the most banal, simplistic block chords and moronically repetitive themes (i.e. Last of the Mohicans) works perfectly as film music.  

@DMac said:

...while the Batman score was indeed forgetable, I'd much rather listen to it than to a composer who feels it his duty to remind his audience how ignorant and provincial they truly are.

So would most everyone else, which is why the militantly highbrow composers end up languishing in the halls of academia bestowing each other with meaningless accolades for their boring music nobody listens to, while decrying the masses.  Anyway, you get it.

_Mike

@William said:

" I don't maintain any illusion that my audience will be in any way forgiving; they'll hold my music right up against the best stuff" - mverta

 

What planet are you from?  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

 

Yeah, right -  everyone at The Dark Knight is wondering "Is this as good as Bach's Mass in B Minor? No, not quite. The counterpoint is not up to Johann's standards." 

 

Audiences in American cinemas are absolutely, completely subconscious.  They are affected mainly by thumping noises, gunfire and explosion sounds.   The artistic quality of music is an insignificant decoration slipped in by the composer, usually against the producer's wishes. 

@William said:

 Anger? What anger?  This is me being nice.  [...] 

May I please ask all participants in this discussion to stick to a friendly tone and to avoid getting even _close_ to personal attacks. Thanks a lot for your understanding.

Kind regards,