@William said:

" ...a trite stereotypical "urban" sound for the supposed (in)existential - but really hackneyed - issues and suicidally boring characters they explore..."  errikos

Oh, so that is all independent movies? Thanks for clarifying that for me.  And get back to me when you score your first mainstream film  - I assume it will be exploring the existential anguish of a large CGI robot.

[sigh!] Misunderstanding again... I was referring to the directors that I had the misfortune of meeting. Be that as it may, it would be very far from me to assume or bestow artistry, philosophy, and vision to a producer or a director simply because they do Independent Film... There are incredibly huge amount of arty-farty people in the Independent industry surrounding the gifted and the visionary, always pooh-poohing Hollywood for its "commercialism", while they themselves tell the same stories again and again, use every cliched, and contribute nothing at all; i.e the exact counterparts of the CGI robot scenario. At least if I ever did the music for that I'd be rich!

Let's face it, as bad and worse as Hollywood is getting to be, there aren't exactly too many Viscontis, Fellinis, Truffauts, or Hitchcocks working in Europe today for every composer... I know you'll say these are big names and would be categorized as European Cinema directors, not Independent, but (I could very well be mistaken) I don't see too much insightful cinema today. The political messages are In Your Face, there is unbearable catechism in the dialogues addressing an apparently uneducated audience, exclusively late20th-early21st century sensibilities even in period pieces(!!), etc. But, I have to agree that it is in Independent Cinema that a lot of creative chances are taken, and that is great for us. I was just wishing for directors with some considerable musical horizons. In that vein, I am happy for all of you who are working with such great visionaries who also understand good music, because I insist on what I said about the musical requirements I have come across (urban crap for crap plebeian characters, or the obligatory acoustic group "sad song", preferably with sultry teenage-early20s female vocalist).

@Errikos said:

[sigh!] Misunderstanding again... I was referring to the directors that I had the misfortune of meeting. Be that as it may, it would be very far from me to assume or bestow artistry, philosophy, and vision to a producer or a director simply because they do Independent Film... There are incredibly huge amount of arty-farty people in the Independent industry surrounding the gifted and the visionary, always pooh-poohing Hollywood for its "commercialism", while they themselves tell the same stories again and again, use every cliched, and contribute nothing at all; i.e the exact counterparts of the CGI robot scenario. At least if I ever did the music for that I'd be rich!

Let's face it, as bad and worse as Hollywood is getting to be, there aren't exactly too many Viscontis, Fellinis, Truffauts, or Hitchcocks working in Europe today for every composer... I know you'll say these are big names and would be categorized as European Cinema directors, not Independent, but (I could very well be mistaken) I don't see too much insightful cinema today. The political messages are In Your Face, there is unbearable catechism in the dialogues addressing an apparently uneducated audience, exclusively late20th-early21st century sensibilities even in period pieces(!!), etc. But, I have to agree that it is in Independent Cinema that a lot of creative chances are taken, and that is great for us. I was just wishing for directors with some considerable musical horizons. In that vein, I am happy for all of you who are working with such great visionaries who also understand good music, because I insist on what I said about the musical requirements I have come across (urban crap for crap plebeian characters, or the obligatory acoustic group "sad song", preferably with sultry teenage-early20s female vocalist).

 Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. I was going to write something similar last night to be honest. A lot of younger directors tend to think of music in films as a music video and want songs. I know this is a sweeping statement but from my experience it's very popular at the moment. Thankfully I'm not having to do that too much in the current movie (one song and a couple of pieces of source music).

@bluejay said:

 Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. I was going to write something similar last night to be honest. A lot of younger directors tend to think of music in films as a music video and want songs. I know this is a sweeping statement but from my experience it's very popular at the moment. Thankfully I'm not having to do that too much in the current movie (one song and a couple of pieces of source music).

A short note to say that I do enjoy songs in movies very much (and I have written not just a few myself for theatre), but only so long as the songwriter is a talented one or I get restless until it's over. There is a huge difference there too, a lot of excellent symphonic composers are mediocre songwriters and vice-versa. Mancini and Barry are the first to come to my mind as being great in both areas, less so Goldsmith, Randy Newman and Shaiman. Some would argue for Horner due to the big hits of "An American Tail" and "Titanic". I'll take no part here, but perhaps it is interesting (and if I remember my 1990's figures correctly) to consider that he got paid something like $1.5-2,000,000 for the source music for T. and made something like $45-50,000,000 from the song (much more since...). If you guys can write a good song by all means go ahead - I actually try to convince directors to commission one from me every time, if it complements the film and it's great, at least it could possibly pay for that new studio and equipment you've been wishing for, if not the house... Best of luck!

" ... sigh..."  - errikos

thanks for that arrogant addition to your post.  You are so afflicted with the stupidity of others, aren't you?  Did it ever occur to you that misunderstandings might possibly be caused by yourself, and not the other person?

BTW Hitchcock is hardly a European director.  Don't bother responding with another subtle put-down.  This has lost interest for me.

@William said:

" ... sigh..."  - errikos

thanks for that arrogant addition to your post.  You are so afflicted with the stupidity of others, aren't you?  Did it ever occur to you that misunderstandings might possibly be caused by yourself, and not the other person?

BTW Hitchcock is hardly a European director.  Don't bother responding with another subtle put-down.  This has lost interest for me.

I must respond, you didn't PM me but replied in open forum.

1) Of course I am so afflicted with the stupidity of others, aren't you?

2) Did I say that the misunderstanding was necessarily your fault? The 'sigh' was not a sign of arrogance but of frustration; I would have preferred a verbal discussion with all you guys. That would have caused much fewer of them...

3) Hitchcock, as I am sure you well know, carved a great career for himself in Britain before he moved to Hollywood, but since you are referring to his collaborations with Herrmann then I suppose you're right.

@pscart said:

Greetings All, I have to put my two cents in here. I was also very disturbed by the 'Team Score' idea. etc.

Without the lighting designer and the technical crew there can be no movie (the gaffer gets very little - I know, better than nothing, but I personally have never once worked on a project for nothing in my life; next to nothing, yes...). The composer is part of the creative team and enjoys his name on the opening, rather than the closing, credits (along with scriptwriter, director, etc.). Whether he would prefer the money to the glory is a different question.

Without the composer the director can dress his film with public domain music, or use those nice (sic.) GBytes of ready made libraries from assorted tracks sold to those companies by composers. Now I don't wish to start a philosophical debate here, I am 100% certain that there are people on this forum that do actually sell their music this way. In my own, personal, individual, humble opinion (are these enough disclaimers to avoid offending everyone?), this practice may help pay the smaller to medium bills for a time, but in the long run it is like shooting oneself - and a host of others - in the foot. An industry already replete with directors mostly uncultivated in the musical arts, is slowly flooded with these products of ready-made musical tracks of mostly mediocre quality, for every kind of scene. How many (the question is how many, not whether any) directors will choose to joust with and, most importantly, pay a composer and maybe musicians, for music they may not even like in the end, when they can have a few cartons of these musics and knockthemselves out trying stuff, and trust me they will eventually find something they'll like in these! Where I live, there is not one long time TV series that uses a composer save for the title track. All source music  - no exception in 7 main TV stations (and there are plenty of smaller outfits) - comes out of those carton boxes. A Garage Band mix of the tracks that come with the software, would be considered original music.

Hitchcock was certainly not European. People from England are generally, not under any circumstances, Europeans.

However, Hitchcock was enormously influenced by European films and directors and I believe in his formative years of learning the trade as it were, he spent time in a Munich studio. And quite naturally Hitchcock's films took on many international guises through the years with very American influence like Strangers on a Train to extreme French influence with Psycho. And he had his wife to check all the scripts. The scripts were something that were written and checked over and over again. Detail.

The amount of talk about filmscore music these days is mind boggling in it's banality. There are no really interesting scores out there and haven't been probably for years. That's because if you're lucky you may get one good film a year - if that! Films are dumbed down for dumbed down, uneducated people mostly today. These are the people that go to the cinema and pay money - and then religiously buy the DVD - and then sell it on ebay. These people wouldn't know good music scores or film content if you threatened to have them tortured. Lack of education means lack of imagination and the whole thing has just filtered through the system from the film makers to the audiences. There's been talk about the most recent Batman film - didn't care one way or another about the score because the film was crap. Yes - I thought the film was tripe.

This talk about Herrmann is wishful thinking on the part of musicians interested in film and all it's aspects. People like Herrmann & Hitchcock come along once in a hundred years. Along with some of the other great writers and directors. If I was living in LA as a filmscore writer I would just take the money and not worry about whether anything is going to be any good or not - just take the money.

To compare people like Hitchcock and Herrmann with what you have today is crazy in the extreme.

 Sorry Errikos - I am a paranoid, but agree with your very good point about how the short term gain is the long term loss. 

yes, as PaulR demonstrates repeatedly the English are not to be classed as Europeans.  I am also in the minority on Dark Knight which to me was a Johnny One-Note film with no production design and a terrible library music score.

Concerning Herrmann, the only one approaching him in these days is Jerry Goldsmith who already died.  Goldsmith was actually better than Herrmann at melody, though Herrmann is the composer whose music more than any other is the essence of the films he scored.

@Errikos said:

Without the lighting designer and the technical crew there can be no movie (the gaffer gets very little - I know, better than nothing, but I personally have never once worked on a project for nothing in my life; next to nothing, yes...). The composer is part of the creative team and enjoys his name on the opening, rather than the closing, credits (along with scriptwriter, director, etc.). Whether he would prefer the money to the glory is a different question.

Without the composer the director can dress his film with public domain music, or use those nice (sic.) GBytes of ready made libraries from assorted tracks sold to those companies by composers. Now I don't wish to start a philosophical debate here, I am 100% certain that there are people on this forum that do actually sell their music this way. In my own, personal, individual, humble opinion (are these enough disclaimers to avoid offending everyone?), this practice may help pay the smaller to medium bills for a time, but in the long run it is like shooting oneself - and a host of others - in the foot. An industry already replete with directors mostly uncultivated in the musical arts, is slowly flooded with these products of ready-made musical tracks of mostly mediocre quality, for every kind of scene. How many (the question is how many, not whether any) directors will choose to joust with and, most importantly, pay a composer and maybe musicians, for music they may not even like in the end, when they can have a few cartons of these musics and knockthemselves out trying stuff, and trust me they will eventually find something they'll like in these! Where I live, there is not one long time TV series that uses a composer save for the title track. All source music  - no exception in 7 main TV stations (and there are plenty of smaller outfits) - comes out of those carton boxes. A Garage Band mix of the tracks that come with the software, would be considered original music.

@William said:

   I am also in the minority on Dark Knight which to me was a Johnny One-Note film with no production design and a terrible library music score.

Concerning Herrmann, the only one approaching him in these days is Jerry Goldsmith who already died.  Goldsmith was actually better than Herrmann at melody, though Herrmann is the composer whose music more than any other is the essence of the films he scored.

Basically Dark Knight falls into the same category as lots of films that dress up gratuitous violence in fancy costumes - only in this instance JNH who I think is a good workhorse film composer got lazy it seems - but had to be a good pay cheque though, and that's what counts.

Yes - Jerry Goldsmith was a fantastic film writer and finally won his Oscar with an insignificant  silly horror called The Omen with, I guess, a pretty good score. But the film is just run of the mill stuff. Go figure. Jerry Goldsmith wrote a very good score later for a banal and overrated load of rubbish called Rambo. This is a classic in so-called film buff history because it graphically demonstrates the absolute lack of knowledge and intelligence the general asshole has about film. Great score doesn't mean great film and Rambo is drivel.

What Goldsmith and Herrmann may have had in common with their writing for me was probably rhythm as opposed to melody and the way they used their writing techniques with rhythmical cues to pace a film properly. And make it interesting at the same time. One is not really supposed to notice film music in the sense that one is listening to a concert or record at home. It's meant to be like a good football match referee - keep the game flowing but the minute you start noticing him - you've got problems.

However, with people Herrmann and Goldsmith, they're not just going to sit there churning out crap just for the sake of it; thus they and others took film music to it's highest level which is absolutely sunk without a trace nowadays. Besides, I hark back to what I said before - why bother when you can take the money from directors with little skill and audiences that pay for it all, with no interest or knowledge in what they've come to watch. Films are just an entertainment as they've always been - the difference seemingly being massive today compared with 40 to 60 years ago in the way they're made and what a director wants to actually achieve.

I would rather watch the whole early series of Columbo than watch most films that come out today. There is always the surprise of course.

Personally, I think you people are selling people like James Newton Howard a little short. I thought the score of the The Dark Knight was junk, too. But don't use this as your basis for what JNH can do. Most of the way through, it was basically a Zimmer sound, with JNH providing some Americana for Harvey Dent, but never getting much room to do anything interesting, as Zimmer was providing most of the music. I think we still get classic movie scores out of composers today. Whether or not we get them as often, I don't know, as I wasn't alive or paying attention during the time of the likes of Herrmann and other greats. The Lord of the Rings scores were only a few years ago, and they really were incredible. We haven't had anything on that level since (that I knwo of), but we have had some pretty darn good music written for movies.

I think that a composer that can work in the artistically stifling Hollywood industry, and still create good music, should be greatly respected. Take, for instance, the score of the new King Kong (which James Newton Howard wrote). While we film music buffs certainly would have liked more freedom from the composer, Howard was still able to create an emotionally moving piece of music. Perhaps others don't see it that way. Many seem to require lots of woodwind flourishes and boom-tzzz in their scores. But that, alone, does not a good score make. The reason that style is so loved is because there were brilliant composers working in it, making it artistically viable. Howard is able to work in the subdued (most of the time) style Peter Jackson obviously wanted, do it in a couple weeks time, and create a piece of music I really enjoy listening to. It has character, it has emotion, it has excitement. All done within some of the most constraining of circumstances.

Also, don't judge Giacchino based on Star Trek. He has also written some very exceptional scores recently. Similar to John Barry, he is a master of style. He has made some of the 'coolest' sounding movie music since Barry was writing his Bond scores.

In short, yes, there is plenty of junk to be found today, because many directors wouldn't know a good score if it slapped them in the face. But there are also some really great composers out there that can work in this enviroment and find a way to really create an emotional and enduring piece of music.

The LOTR scores are shyte. They a droning morass that completely suits a largely overblown trilogy of films that miss the point. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Then you basically go one step further and compare Giacchino (who can't really write for shyte) in the same breath as John Barry. You don't know anything about what's being talked about here. If you don't know anything about Herrmann then you'd better go and educate yourself - or stay out of grown up conversations.

King Kong? This is a movie equivalent of a video game and is (and predictably btw) total bollocks - not even close to the 1933 original and the, I think, Max Steiner's score. 

Jesus!

That is very true about melody vs. rhythm in film scores, including rhythm of a larger than drumbeat sort - the rhythm in the overall sense of a film cue.  A melody is a basically more complex unit of musical organization which demands that the listener stop what he is doing and listen to it.  This often does not work well in a film score.  Herrmann was the first composer to realize this consciously as a basic principle in his technique which was a direct contradiction of Korngold and Steiner's leitmotif approach.  Though of course they were masters as well, especially Korngold.  Though Steiner did many great scores, including the original King Kong which is one of the all-time great scores,  he was a few times tripped up by his heavily melodic techniques.  One specific example I can thnk of is a 40s Hollywood adaptation of a Sheridan Lefanu story titled  "Woman in White" (original title was Uncle Silas).  Steiner's score is very intrusive in that not-so-successful film, and actually competes with the scene rather than enhances it. 

That problem of excess is NO EXCUSE however for abusing simplicity in scoring and turning it into mindlessness, the way Zimmer and his ilk have done.

Heh. Ok, well, never mind than, PaulR. But to me, comparing Hans Zimmer and Michael Giacchino in the same breath is like comparing Michael Giacchino and John Barry in the same breath to you. But I guess if you consider the Lord of the Rings scores nothing more than a droning morass, there really isn't much common ground to talk about things.

BTW, I didn't say the new King Kong was any good; I haven't seen the movie. The music is good, though. But then, I seem to have a much more broad appreciation of junk than you.

@PaulR said:

The LOTR scores are shyte. They a droning morass that completely suits a largely overblown trilogy of films that miss the point.

Jesus!

@PaulR said:

The LOTR scores are shyte. They a droning morass that completely suits a largely overblown trilogy of films that miss the point.

Jesus!

 The best bits were by Borodin, IMO.

DG

Well well well, where to begin…

This is going to be “stream of consciousness" stuff, I apologize in advance but I am not going to comment separately on everybody.

I agree with both Colin and PaulR. With Colin because he identifies gradations of quality within the sorry state of film music today (true enough), and with PaulR’s comments on his post regarding “Lord of the Rings” etc. verbatim – although I do profess my ignorance of what else Giacchino has done, what he did to STXI was enough for me. Without knowing Colin, I am guessing in general that the younger members of this forum would expectedly be kinder to the current torch-bearers than we are (allowing for exceptions) for many reasons, including the fact that they haven’t physically experienced this decline in aesthetics themselves. They were born into the current state of affairs and have only records from which to extrapolate a bygone era, not the gestalt understanding the rest of us possess. It is not that I lived through the Herrmann era myself (except the “Taxi-Driver”), but the film composers I grew up with were closer in aesthetics to Steiner, Rosenman, Herrmann etc. of many decades ago, than to their successors only a few years later… For example:

For how many of the movies of today can we say that the film will be forgotten, but never the music (not because of hit-songs please)?

I submit a small list of yester-examples right now off the top of my head:

“Dangerous Moonlight”, “Hangover Square”, “Summer of ‘42”, “Somewhere in Time”, “The Legend” (Scott), “The Secret of Nimh”, “The Black Hole”, etc. The list of instances where both film and music will always remain memorable would take pages…

Not only can I not think of any examples today where the soundtrack will outlive the film (save those from the old guard again), but I find myself - erroneously perhaps, actually preferring to have composed Fiedel’s “Terminator” theme, or Folk’s “Police Academy” theme, than any super-sophisticatedly orchestrated mastered and mixed turgidity to which I am consistently subjected today… As hard as it is to swallow, there is a soundtrack aesthetic, or school if you prefer, that would consider Shore's amazing effort (so many hours, no orchestrators) as shite... Better than Zimmer and Howard, but still shite. DON'T just blame the composers though. As responsible as they are about this, it is the studios and the directors that call the shots, never forget that... We need to be constantly educating them!

On another point, I agree that the English should not be classified as Europeans for a number of reasons, even though they clearly stem from an imponderable amount of European semen that has fertilized that island (an afternoon swim away from Calais) since the Iron Age, the term 'English' is European, and so is the language by over 80%. 

In any case, if I am going to make distinctions between American and European cinemas, I will include the English offerings to the latter group. 

DG:

Like I said, I did not wish to start a philosophical discussion about library vs. tailor made film music. There are many aesthetic considerations (especially from a director's and scriptwriter's point of view) in making creative choices, as well as a host of other reasons why this is happening, whether it's good or degenerative, etc. I don't think any of us wishes to go into diatribes here to make a point. I see your reasons for doing it are sensible ones, but I think reason No.4 makes my point as well. If there is something we all agree on, is the degraded quality of film music.  The Death of Film Music could very well be very much in the works, but it is only the logical consequence of The Death of Symphonic Music, which occurred long time ago. What we have left is a comatose corpse in life-support (see most academic music), and its ghost still haunting us (recordings and concerts of the old music). If the advent of digital technology had not taken place, leading everyone to re-purchase all of their classical recordings and more, effectively jump-starting the industry, I shudder to think where we'd be today...

No, The Black Hole was a rather bad score by Barry.  It was strangely bad, considering how great a composer he is.  He was probably messed up by the astounding stupidity of that film.  You are absolutely right though about Somewhere In Time, which contains the single best melody ever composed for any movie in the history of the world, Hangover Square which is a fabulous 40s film about a sensitive psycho killer composer (love it !!!! ) that allows Herrmann to go berserk - something that should have been done with every film he scored - and Dangerous Moonlight - a great choice as it is a little known but rather interesting and atmospheric little film with the beautiful, ultra-romantic Warsaw Concerto that has passed into the (semi) symphonic literature. 

I disagree that the death of symphonic music has really happened.   It is more like some sort of metamorphosis, probably along the lines of John Carpenter's The Thing.

@William said:

No, The Black Hole was a rather bad score by Barry.  It was strangely bad, considering how great a composer he is.  He was probably messed up by the astounding stupidity of that film.  You are absolutely right though about Somewhere In Time, which contains the single best melody ever composed for any movie in the history of the world, Hangover Square which is a fabulous 40s film about a sensitive psycho killer composer (love it !!!! ) that allows Herrmann to go berserk - something that should have been done with every film he scored - and Dangerous Moonlight - a great choice as it is a little known but rather interesting and atmospheric little film with the beautiful, ultra-romantic Warsaw Concerto that has passed into the (semi) symphonic literature. 

I disagree that the death of symphonic music has really happened.   It is more like some sort of metamorphosis, probably along the lines of John Carpenter's The Thing.

I'm glad you agree. I wish composers would again view their projects also as an opportunity to leave something of musical worth off the celluloid, not merely as a bank-cheque and yet another orchestration manual... Williams and Morricone still do. Take example! What are they churning out every year from all those schools in L.A.? Aren't there any compulsory Music Appreciation 101 classes?

Mea Culpa, I forgot "A Patch of Blue", maybe the greatest hidden gem of Goldsmith's (which I'm sure you know), where the music begins so sensitively with just the piano, until the violin comes in with even more fragile material and you realize that the piano theme was the accompaniment. Anyway, as far as "The Black Hole" is concerned, I certainly don't count it among Barry's greatest (but those wouldn't have fit my example), but I find his continuous insistent 7-note motif (the black hole beckoning, taunting, and finally drawing one in) compelling, combined with the traditional horn theme for Nautilus. Very effective in communicating the intended atmosphere of the film. Your "The Thing" notion? Very apt... And get me "Hangover Square" already!! Can you believe they haven't released that DVD in Europe yet??