@DG said:

 The best bits were by Borodin, IMO.

DG

@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!

I don't care if Howard Shore did this or that. This is the kind of score and film that appeals to the Harry Potter's of this world. Generally over time on music forums, I've noticed a great many no hoper musicians (generally self-taught) ringing the praises for this type of score and film. The LOTR trilogy is a yawn (let's keep waiting for the good bits followed mind numbing yawns) - and suffers from the 'chinese takeaway' syndrome, in that you forget you've eaten anything 30 minutes later and usually wind up with a bollocks of an indigestion through an overload of sentimentality and cgi - and monosodium glutamate.

Without going into a long drawn out diatribe, I would say to younger people that are interested in film score work - why bother reading any books that were written before 1995?

Film scores should sometimes set the scene where there is no dialogue - not some sludgy mass of low bass underscoring as in crappy films. For example.......

@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!

I don't care if Howard Shore did this or that. This is the kind of score and film that appeals to the Harry Potter's of this world. Generally over time on music forums, I've noticed a great many no hoper musicians (generally self-taught) ringing the praises for this type of score and film. The LOTR trilogy is a yawn (let's keep waiting for the good bits followed mind numbing yawns) - and suffers from the 'chinese takeaway' syndrome, in that you forget you've eaten anything 30 minutes later and usually wind up with a bollocks of an indigestion through an overload of sentimentality and cgi - and monosodium glutamate.

Without going into a long drawn out diatribe, I would say to younger people that are interested in film score work - why bother reading any books that were written before 1995?

Film scores should sometimes set the scene where there is no dialogue - not some sludgy mass of low bass underscoring as in crappy films. For example.......

@JSAntares said:

 And out of sheer curiosity, how can you tell 'no hopers' from the rest, really? You keeping track of their commercial/financial progress closely, are you?

It's generally when they are unable to appreciate scores like Vertigo that usually gives the game away.

@JSAntares said:

 And out of sheer curiosity, how can you tell 'no hopers' from the rest, really? You keeping track of their commercial/financial progress closely, are you?

It's generally when they are unable to appreciate scores like Vertigo that usually gives the game away.

@DG said:

 The best bits were by Borodin, IMO.

DG

@Errikos said:

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?

[Quote from previous post of mine]: "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!"

Also, without any belligerent attitude at all, very soberly, it is my opinion that Shore himself would explain to anybody why the score to Vertigo is so incomparably superior to his own and almost everybody else's efforts, and would complain if suites of both of these scores were programmed to be concerted consecutively (I know I would...)

"Why we have to waste so much time thinking what others are not doing right is beyond me - This topic has come up again and again...And it just leads to more hatred and negative energy. William - By saying so much about Herrmann, you might actually be pushing people away on the forum"  - Vibrato

What are you talking about?  First you say I am wasting time by saying what others are NOT doing right, and then you complain about my saying what Herrmann IS doing right.   A total contradiction in about two sentences.  So you are scolding me because I say good things about Bernard Herrmann?    I am supposed to quiet down about it because I might offend people by being too enthusiastic about his music?  If some guy doesn't like it then he can  print something in response.  Besides, that is the first time I ever heard it is negative to be positive.

Also, did I say Hans Zimmer is the sole cause of the Decline and Fall of Film Music?  He is the one of the most successful composers in Hollywood right now however, and he practices this form of pseudo-musical sound FX.  He is the main purveyor of it.  So that is why I mention him.  That film was made worse because of a dull score that sounds like a  rhythm pad or a TV Channel News Theme.  And it is very noticeable because of the huge contrast with the Danny Elfman score which was a great, old-fashioned, extremely varied piece of music from beginning to end.

Thank you very much for those links, PaulR, I really enjoyed them. Brilliant.

And now may I present a little lesson in the joy to be found in modern film music, as some around here seem to be sadly under-educated in the area. I know this is tough, as I wouldn't say my examples are as good has Vertigo, for instance, because we sort of need the test of time to reveal that to us. But personally, I think they compete.

First of all, some of the best Giacchino has to offer:

This is why I think that the young can often have a greater appreciation of all music. Seems to me that often the blueprint is to love the music you grow up on, later learn to love the music before your time, but never come around to the new music. And then, of course, the same thing is repeated with the next generation. This is obviously not without its exceptions, but I think it happens a lot. Most any art form at any time in history has people looking backwards wishing for the 'goold old times', and missing the good old times to be had now by the good music that is being created.

I am sure people wished Beethoven could have had the class of Mozart. People like liszt and Wagner were berated up and down by the critics of the day. Rachmaninoff was a romantic lost in the 1800's. Just remember, there is great music to be found, as there is also a lot of not great music to be found. Thus it ever was, thus it will be 'till the world's end. There is nothing new under the sun.

 Vibrato, you see no point to this discussion?  Then why do you write a post?

Though I originally was not trying to say Hans Zimmer is bad, or whoever.  I was talking about the use of different composers on a film score, which the company mentioned said makes the score better.  That is ridiculous.  Also, this approach is symptomatic of corporations and commerce taking precedence over individual artistry.  So I meant that if that happens, it would be the death of film music which should be a personal art form.  I don't care what DG or somebody else like that says - putting me down for being an "artiste" or whatever - I do believe it is an art form and should be practised as such.  So my point is to show the corporate abuse of it, not to tear down Hans Zimmer who I am sure is soooooo sad that he is making all that money but not everyone in the whole world loves it.

Disclaimer: Ultimately, good music is in the ear of the belistener. Having said that...

If this is some of the best Giacchino has to offer, my point has SO been made. Not with the first piece which is manneristic. It is probably what the director had in mind for the specific scene, every composer would have had to write something similar, and Giacchino seems to have done well with it, but there is no Giacchino in it, and if the job had been done well by someone else, he also would have been invisible so to speak, due to the nature of what was required. The second piece, well the less said the better... It sounded to me like a demo by a current film-music-school graduate trying to bud in a decaying industry, or a piece demonstrating some sound library. At the level of the game Giacchino is playing (Star Trek etc.), I am surprised he is still being offered A-grade films to score (or maybe I'm not so surprised after all).

"Somewhere in Time" is not a technically remarkable piece of music but then again, the argument of this thread has not so much been about technique. I have repeatedly said that almost every big soundtrack these days is nothing more than an orchestration exercise (not a great one every time), and the final product is also very much the efforts of a team of 4-8 people. The point is that  "Somewhere in Time" not only complements the film for which it was composed, but in addition a) it is a beautiful memorable melody, and b) it takes seconds for a connoisseur to recognize the composer when heard. I have been talking about how mono-dimensional film music has become these days, when it is nothing, nothing but a characterless carpet (at best - even superfluous and annoying at worst), on which movies today plod as they unfold. It is not one school of many, it is the norm; and it is against this that myself and others voice their despair. This is not about Herrmann alone - he is one great exponent of great film music among many. It is about the systematic elimination of the other dimensions of film scores - ability to stand alone as a concert piece, inspiration, and personal style. I am not comparing the greats of film to the classics, and the examples proffered about Beethoven, Mozart, Liszt and the others are not very good or accurate (if I really must, I will take the time to elucidate and give a short Music History seminar - this is not arrogance, I am probably the worst user of this wonderful Viennese library, I will be the first to sign up for seminars if given). In this respect, I grew up with classical music, not soundtracks, and I have great respect for Barry because he fulfills my requirements for film music greatness, and I do not compare him to Wagner. But I will compare the current batch of film composers to Barry because they are in the same trade. I will say again, producers and directors need to be gently (but constantly) educated in what is good music generally. However, the first that need to be educated in good music are - well... - composers. I would recommend Aaron Copland's "What to listen for in music" as a start, even if it deals with 'serious' music anyway. Then, maybe a few thousand hours of listening to Debussy, Ravel, Strauss, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Schoenberg, Holst, Orff, Bloch, Respighi, Grofe, Copland (fill your own), as these have influenced great film music directly.

I wasn't comparing or saying that the greats of any age of film scoring stand up against the classical giants. Only using it as a way to explain what I find to be a common trend of thinking that what you grew up with was the best. There are plenty of people who would say that the pop music of the 50's was sooo much better than the junk that is made today. Well, of course it is better than a lot of what is made today. But there is also a lot of good stuff made today that would outshine the junk of that time. Basically, people remember the good of what is past and focus on the bad of what is present, because the good lasts, and time has not had the chance to sift through the junk of today yet

I would actually argue that I could have probably guessed that either of those were Giacchino. He has his own style, while being one of the most able to transform into the style needed I know of. I think, for me, it comes down to a very important question. Is music, or form, to blame? I happen to believe that good music can come out of about any musical form (including *gasp* rock and roll). Some forms seem to attract more talant than others, it is true. But the form is not alone what makes it good or bad. The second Giacchino example I offered is him writing in a style which is more 'easy listening' to modern ears. He has the full orchestral tutti hits which Zimmer is berated so frequently for his constant use of, but he uses them in a way which means so much more to me than the typical 'wall of sound' approach favored so often by MV composers. The orchestration is not complex (though surely as complex as Somewhere in Time, so that is not the issue). I believe, therefore, that Giacchino spent his time writing a couple melodies and rhythms that would work together, create a recognizable structure and 'sound', and succeeded wonderfully. But, of course, if the musical form is to blame, all of this is pointless and goes even further to prove my point about how people love what used to be.

So anyways, if the original point of this thread was to point out the idea that a team of composers instead of one is not a good direction, I fully agree. All I can say is, don't give up on film music yet.

BTW, I'm listening to 'Somewhere in Time' right now. Very possibly my favorite film score ever.

Look Colin - nothing against any writers and good luck to them because everyone who chooses the business to be in is certainly brave and able to put up with a lot of crap. But this music you've put up, while being perhaps suitable for the film that's up on the screen, is not anyway original filmscore music to me. Well produced and suitable is good enough though - so there's no issue there at all. But this music you've posted AS MUSIC is derivative and fairly inconsequential in the greater scheme of things. Please don't waste time in the conversation with mediocrity, because everyone here can perform mediocrity on a permanent basis. Quite a few people round here can do this type of stuff in their sleep, believe me. I give you Herrmann's opening titles to Vertigo, and you just don't get it - but that's OK because you're young and have no experience or training. No problemo!

John Barry is a very different ball game of course and I miss that style of writing from the York maestro immensely. A great writer - but also a fantastic sound that defined a lot of Britain in the 60's - grew up with it. I remember The John Barry 7 and John doing a lot of advert work. I think he may even have written the theme to Juke Box Jury. He could write really catchy things - but all you need to know about John Barry is - strings and low burring horns with great themes - and very exciting music when needed too. He grew up watching films in his father's cinemas and Herrmann was a big influence I believe.

There are two problems with what you refer to as 'young' people today. They can't spell to save their lives - and they haven't seen a film that's made before 1995 and don't have any historical knowledge or background of just about any subject in general. Now I've got more important things to do - like filling in my tax return.

And Tanuj - you've suddenly become hysterical for no apparent reason. This happens to me if I accidently find myself wearing yellow clothing  - BUT - no one has anything against Hans or his music, It's just that no one knows who wrote it in the first place.

By the way, I've enjoyed this discussion greatly. It really has been very educational. Thanks everyone!

Now a little disclaimer: No one needs to feel obligated to respond, as some seem to think I am wasting their time. If it is a waste of time, just skip over it. However, anyone who is interested in continuing, I have a couple more examples of Giacchino that I think would be interesting to know what you people think of. My first example was him writing in an oldies emotional style. The second was a much more modern approach. The reason I posted those two was because I felt it showed both the different styles he was capable of doing a good job on, and the way in which a modern sound can be utilized in a powerful and exciting way. This is where I think he does such a good job. He creates the style that the director wants, but he does it in a manner far above the normal film music output of that style. Compare my previous example #2 with Steve Jablonsky's Transformers, the definition of an 'epic' score on autopilot. Not to insult everyone's intelligence too much, but this is probably what the director wanted in the Cloverfield score.

Just two more examples and then I'm out.

Giacchino's big band. Kind of James Bond but more cartoony style:

It has been kind of interesting being on this end of the conversation, as most of the time I am more on the side of what people would consider 'musical snobbery'. What is interesting is that my opinion on music really has changed. I used to consider film music to have sort of been a bad thing for classical music, cheapening the use of the orchestra into nothing more than an emotional push to back up onscreen action. But I have found that snobbery is far too lonely a life to lead. So, after working to become a musical 'snob', I actually then had to work at finding what people loved in popular music. It took a while, but it is nice now because when people talk about the music they love, I don't need to be constantly thinking 'well, that's great for you, but I know what good music really is'. I can just appreciate different types of music for what they are. I know it might sound odd for a 20 year-old to be talking about the evolution of his musical taste, but that is how it has gone for me so far. I still love the really great music, but I have worked to be able to appreciate the rest as well.

That being said, I am most certainly a Giacchino fanboy, and I have probably already made everyone here sick of him. Sorry about that, folks. Take care!

They say that History has a way of repeating itself.  They also say that studying history and how things evolved can provide many signs in realizing what to expect in the future.  Sometimes, comparing other industries and their processes can assist in understanding where a different industry my end up especially if that newer industry adapts some or all of the processes of the old.

I see a parallel path evolving in the film music industry and what transpired in the US Automotive industry.  Let me explain......

Beginning around the 1990s it was the up and coming practice to forget about the quality of the manufacturing suppliers that were providing a quality product to the Automotive assemblers and to aggressively pursue competitive bidding for components in order to lower cost.  The problem was that the emphasis was too many times on only cost without any regard to supplier capacity (ability to build the required numbers to adjust to product mix quickly) and on-going quality and re-produce-ability.  Small ma & pop shops were bidding low and getting into the scene at an aggressive rate.  The purchasing agent was getting promoted by leaps and bounds because he or she was making a considerable cost reduction.   As a result, the larger and time proven supply base was having to reduce the number of employees working for them because they could not (from a cost perspective), compete with the low-budget, low-overhead small scale supplier.

So many times after the small guy got the bid, they either couldn't deliver the volume requested, the quality was poor, or both.  This was usually a result of them under-cutting the bid and promising things they couldn't deliver.  Many times that big guy had to come in and bail them out while charging a premium to the main automotive operation for doing so.  As a result, the end customer's vehicle was late to order, costed more (or the company took a financial hit for the added cost -- cost that was greater than if they just left things alone) and the quality was much less.  The end customer paid the price.  As time went on, many of the smaller companies went under but in the interim, the customer took the hit in getting an automobile that was more costly, and less reliable. 

It is understood that in order to have high quality, one must keep the supply base small in order to reduce variability in the product.  Reduced variability results in better fit and finish -- providing a higher quality part.

As William suggested in his original post, the team concept of composing film music does provide the film producers a greater choice to pick from.  It provides that competitive-bid environment. It's now expected that a composer may write a cue knowing that it may never be used, falling short of one of the other four or five individuals who have also written for the same cue.  How many guys can stay in businesses doing that over and over again?  Bottom line -- As multiple suppliers increase variability thereby reducing quality so does multiple composers increase variability in approach as to how the music is portrayed.  The question then becomes, does this approach reduce the end product quality?  From what I am reading, it appears that seems to be the point.  

I have to agree with you William. It's shocking to see the amount of new films coming out that have 'combined' talents working on it. I'm thinking 'where the hell did the prestige of being a composer go'. Out the window it seems.

All I can say is thank christ .. or whatever deity you fancy .. for independent films. They at least still give you, the ONE composer, credit and respect and generally let you do your thing. At least all the ones I've worked on have. Of course they don't pay anything. Funny really .. you can have either respect and the score to yourself ... or no respect, share the score with 16 other composer and a little bit of the money .. and maybe a mention on the imdb.

I still fancy myself working on a big hollywood film someday .. don't we all. But I hope that if that day comes I won't be having to share the score with others. I guess it's the big fad at the moment. It'll all come full circle in the eventually.

Hi Hetoreyn,

Yes - full circle - that's what I was trying to imply.  The automotive industry is also progressing back to some of the time-proven and tested ways of doing things.......  

.

 "It is about the systematic elimination of the other dimensions of film scores - ability to stand alone as a concert piece, inspiration, and personal style. I am not comparing the greats of film to the classics..." Errikos

That is a great point about the other dimensions of film scores.  But why not compare the greats of film to the classics?  They will stand up very well to all of the composers of the 20th century. 

"Somewhere in Time" is not a technically remarkable piece of music but then again, the argument of this thread has not so much been about technique. I have repeatedly said that almost every big soundtrack these days is nothing more than an orchestration exercise (not a great one every time), and the final product is also very much the efforts of a team of 4-8 people. The point is that  "Somewhere in Time" not only complements the film for which it was composed, but in addition a) it is a beautiful memorable melody, and b) it takes seconds for a connoisseur to recognize the composer when heard." - Errikos 

That is absolutely true.   it is the essence of what is going on now and what is so disturbing.  The technical aspect of "Somewhere in Time" means nothing.  The melody created by the single composer John Barry who is indeed instantly recognizable in it, is everything.  And to create a melody like that is the hardest thing to do for any composer. Everything else - orchestration, counterpoint, form, conducting, MIDI performance, mixing, whatever - is just technique you can learn.  But to do a melody like that is far harder than all the technique in the world.  It is a gift from God that is unknowable and absolutely non-reproducible.  And that comes from one person who cannot be replaced by a team of one thousand. 

Hi Tanuj,

And this phenomena is not new - Most Classical composers like Mozart died broke and alone. The way we celebrate Mozart and Beethoven today - that dint happen when they were alive. So its a very crazy cycle - ONE - which we cannot control. All we can do is to try and do the best we can understanding the past knowldge that the greats have left and putting a firm step forward into the future - composing the very finest of music we can.

Well, I was not exactly there but Mozart/Beethoven were not poor - they were only no businessman - in our days if you are in music it is almost only business anymore because we have hardly royalties who support art :-) !

It is true, great talents are not born everyday and a lot of people do stuff in which they are at best mediocre but hey, if it pays the bills  -  why not :- ?!

best, andy