I agree with everything you said.  One other thing to consider.....  In today's corporate climate, speed, speed, & speed is of the upmost importance.  They speak of efficiency without costing quality.  I question the quality part coming from 30+ years in the automotive industry.  It's about the bottom line and share-holder profits, sometimes coming as a cost to the end-customer in quality and value.

I know that's not being preached by the various mission statements, but then there is reality....  I'm sure the film industry is the same way and thereby influencing the points you have already made.

@crusoe said:

Do the wall of sound and be done.

Interesting point.....  Doesn't carry as much water when it's a soundtrack album that one is purchasing to listen to.  What I'm trying to say, is that it may work in the movie (for which it was designed for) but doesn't work well in the Audio Soundtrack that has now become big business.  This may be what William is really struggling with and me too now that I think about it........[;)]

To add to my previous point....

The PLAYLIST is a great feature, as I said in an earlier post, used to purge out the cue's that don't fit in the flow of things when I'm listening to a soundtrack.  One might say, why not only purchase the cues that you enjoy?  The pricing structure is such that in most cases, there is enough good material in the total soundtrack that it would be more costly to purchase individual cues versus buy the whole thing and then using the Playlist, purge out the pieces that don't fit one's personal taste.  Make sense?

There's no 'risk' involved unless one licenses Le Marteau sans Maitre for the latest Jennifer Aniston film. With my limited (compared to Hollywood) experience, I can remember of no exception to the rule stipulating that the director always looks to the composer to enhance/enrich/punctuate/complement, even decode, his film. Everything else is pretty much done except the soundtrack, and no director/producer I've ever met, ever had the attitude "Ah, this will do, don't sweat it...". They always put the best possible music to their film they could get their hands on; OR, to come to a point I will always hammer (pun intended) - they always put what they thought was the best possible music to their film.

Face it everyone! With few exceptions, directors and producers today have the aesthetics and sensibilities of a skunk. It's not the streamline industry or the irrational deadlines (not that those help). It's that they just don't know the difference anymore, period. You can tell when you watch the 'Special Features' of some mega-production where you see the director/producer going into raptures about the recording session, beatifying the marvellous composer who "knew exactly how to capture that particular moment" - while you hear the most basic pads and voice leading - "the film was in jeopardy before the master came and saved it" - loud percussion clichés triggering the basest and most colourless subconscious reactions, etc. etc. etc.

Just  as an aside: Why do people keep going on about the Dark Knight? It's a fucking crap film. Nolan is a classic case of an English director that's sold out to Hollywood. He obviously has talent because he made that detective film set in Alaska which shows a lot of talent. Then he starts making Batman films? Go figure.

You can't talk about filmscores unless you understand what constitutes a good film in the first place. Don't tell me it's subjective because I'll then have to pull experience. It's not subjective - there are definitive parameters that make a film good whether anyone likes it or not.

This conversation is beginning to irritate me.

@PaulR said:

ou can't talk about filmscores unless you understand what constitutes a good film in the first place. Don't tell me it's subjective because I'll then have to pull experience. It's not subjective - there are definitive parameters that make a film good whether anyone likes it or not.

I believe that depends on whether your defining "good" as to how the music fits the picture or "good" as to how the music stands on it's own.  There may be some well defined parameters to help individual experts make a determination on whether a film is considered good or not based on the standards used in developing the parameters in the first place.  That in itself is not to say that the individual doing the listening to the end products is going to like it or not.  That is purely subjective as to the individual's likes and dis-likes (personal taste).  No expertise required there......

Yes William. I don't like the music they are making, and I don't like the music they did in the past. The music in the 50s, or 60s, was really awful. However, not everything is so bad. Dance with Wolves had very simple music but extremely moving...well, it was an independent project I think.

The real problems surge from treating the orchestra as if it were a rock band. I have to admit that this type of orchestral behaviour has its merits. But having such a constant and loud dynamic behaviour is unpleasant, at least for some of us. Other people never complain about this. In fact, people are very happy with it.

Wait some time and we'll probably see this type of music be replaced by others...better I hope. Today, that's cool and practical but music has always been in a constant state of change, a constant flow we cannot control.

There's one more thing I'd like to add, if you allow me. Super productions are only a small part of the story. Yes, they are widely distributed and have certain advantages and so on. But they are not the only ones. There are lots of films with excellent music.

On the whole, I feel that the music that is applied to films is good. People who add music to films are not stupid. They may overdo it a little here and there but, on the whole, they do it quite well. In the case of certain types of super productions, they are overdoing it a little. They are always in a hurry and cannot allow themselves to hum a tune during 2 to 5 years in order to let it mature. Considering the time schedules they are given, they are very good at it. You cannot expect too much, it will always be fast food.

The important thing is not to focus too much on super productions or Hollywood. It's like watching the news and thinking "that is reality". The news is not reality, the news is compressed reality for capturing an audience. Zimmer, Elfman, etc can only put music to a few films per year (I don't know the numbers exactly). The enormous quantities of films produced around the world nowadays are not scored by them. They can't...fortunately, ha ha ha!

(By the way, I'm not a film composer so I don't give a...cue. Ha ha ha!).

@Chuck Green said:

To understand what makes a film good, you have to sit through truck loads of crap throughout the years. For every 1000 films made today you'll be lucky, very lucky to find maybe one that's any good. Unless of course you have a high boredom threshold, low self esteem and need lots of bangs and explosions and like to text and eat a lot while watching. Which of course you don't!

When it comes to music in films - can you remember how the score goes in Chinatown? Or Bringing Up Baby? I doubt it. Music in film in general is way overrated by other musicians because they have blinkers on. Music in film is just there because it works most of the time - mainly to send signals to audiences. It helps to set mood and forthcoming events. That's all a film is - forthcoming events whether the thing is set over a day or over eons. So the average audience doesn't generally come out of the cinema remembering much about the filmscore.

These days films are made mostly for the lowest common denominator. For instance, you're not going to make much money if you make films for the likes of me. You make money these days in film, by making them for people who can write and send texts while in the theatre and still not have missed much when they turn their attention back to the film 10 minutes later. They can send their texts and listen to the music and dialogue can't they without having to look up.

What they don't need is Bernard Herrmann frightening them.  You've got as much chance of seeing and hearing a Bernard Herrmann again as you have a Mozart. People that watch lots of films don't care about any of that stuff.

You can't make films in Hollywood today like Chinatown. No one would go and watch it. I envy places like Sweden and France with their attitude towards film making while at the same time trying to preserve their own cultures and interests. They tend not to make films for obese people. 

When what can only be described as an idiot says they can't stand film music from the 50' and 60's - you'll begin to understand where I'm coming from.

@PaulR said:

You can't make films in Hollywood today like Chinatown. No one would go and watch it. I envy places like Sweden and France with their attitude towards film making while at the same time trying to preserve their own cultures and interests. They tend not to make films for obese people. 

When what can only be described as an idiot says they can't stand film music from the 50' and 60's - you'll begin to understand where I'm coming from.

Agree with everything you said Paul.  I sometimes wonder if the people that say they can't stand film music from the 50's and 60's is because it is not contemporary enough or is it maybe because their listening to the fidelity (technical recording capabilities of the time) versus the actual musical composition?  I know myself after being exposed to the technological advance in audio recording (still like vinyl better than digital sound - warmer), listening to some of the older recordings (even watching them on TV, doesn't do as much for me as let say, listening to the same piece re-recorded by some orchestra using today's recording techniques.  Follow what I'm trying to say?

 thanks to Chuck, Paul and these other posters for these replies which are reassuring in their intelligence.  Not that it makes a difference in the actual current film scoring.  Oh well I will go and listen to some Herrmann Vertigo and then maybe a little Goldsmith Star Trek to console myself.

Your Welcome William....  It's always kinda nice to step away from the sequencer from time to time and have a stimulating discussion.  Not that it going to change the world or anything, but at least, we all understand what's going on, even if they don't. [:D]

Being a big fan of Vertigo myself, I had a slightly different breath of fresh Herrmann today: the suite from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). So much with so little. Highly recommended.

Might I suggest Alexandre Desplat and Christopher Gordon as alternatives to this kind of "music".  Desplat amazingly enough has become an A list composer in spite of the fact that he uses imaginative orchestration (loves those flute chords), embraces harmonic writing, knows how to write a theme and then develop it, and uses a multiplicity of styles in his various scores.  

Gordon is an Aussie and hasn't received as much attention but he's an amazing composer as well.  Check out Mao's Last Dancer and you'll see what I mean.  Gorgeous music.

Jonny Greenwood is someone I really took notice of when he wrote There Will be Blood.  I know lotsa people like to dismiss this score because it contains SOME previously composed music but there's also a lot of new material that is terrific.  Some twit complained that Greenwood is like Media Ventures in that he gets orchestrators to write his music.  Duhhhhh, he's composer in residence at the BBC last time I checked and studied formally...

Anyhow, there is not the same proliferation of superb composers writing for film these days for a number of reasons but there are a few notable exceptions that are worth a listen.

@PaulR said:

You can't make films in Hollywood today like Chinatown. No one would go and watch it. I envy places like Sweden and France with their attitude towards film making while at the same time trying to preserve their own cultures and interests. They tend not to make films for obese people. 

When what can only be described as an idiot says they can't stand film music from the 50' and 60's - you'll begin to understand where I'm coming from.

I hope you are not being discriminatory towards obese people, and I also hope you are not calling me stupid only because I don't like the music done in the 50s or 60s.

(Certain words here were deleted by myself, Mr String Sept 3rd 2010).

You have gone too far... I'm sorry for the other forumites that wanted to engage in a stimulating and friendly discussion, so did I.

(Sigh) It was obvious that starting a discussion about what is essentially musical taste would have to eventually end up like this. This is what happens when people meet on internet forums instead of real life (although real life has its issues, too).

@vibrato: Maybe people are citing Herrmann because his music is atypical yet very, very cinematic. He happens to be a favorite of mine, which is why I mentioned him. I'm not sure I'm living in the past because of that preference. I love several compositions by both Max Steiner and John Williams (unless you consider John Williams as a has been), as well as Danny Elfman. I don't believe in gods in general, so I'm not putting any one of those people on a pedestal. I might be living in the past because I prefer listening to Maurice Ravel than to a repeating 8-bar electronic pattern coming from a car down the street, but that's another story.

I agree with you entirely when you say that it's easier to criticize than to create. But don't forget that criticizing something doesn't necessarily imply that you can do better. And I don't think we are spreading negative energy, on the contrary: I personally found it very encouraging to learn that there are other people out there who think film music should aim higher.

Ultimately, it all boils down to personal taste and cultural context, so please let's control our tempers :)

@Mr String said:

I hope you are not being discriminatory towards obese people, and I also hope you are not calling me stupid only because I don't like the music done in the 50s or 60s.

Well yes on both counts actually. 

But why would this bother you re: this conversation? 

I've said it before. If I was making films today, my target audience of teenage girls would be (a) looking to become pregnant at any cost (b) be on benefits (c) expect to win the lottery anytime soon  (d) think that one day they'll be abducted by aliens and (e) be in secondary to tertiary stages of obesity.

That's where the money is my friend!

You also need to read things properly. WHAT ANYONE LIKES IS IRRELEVANT  - when it come to judgement of what constitutes quality in the end. Over history people like Mozart, Beethoven etc etc have all been vilified by peasants because they happened NOT TO LIKE SOMETHING. Who gives a fuck what anyone likes when trying to make objective judgements. The fact that you suddenly come into this conversation and make a sweepingly  absurd statement about music from a certain era earns you a place in my hall of fame.

@Chuck Green said:

 I know myself after being exposed to the technological advance in audio recording (still like vinyl better than digital sound - warmer), listening to some of the older recordings (even watching them on TV, doesn't do as much for me as let say, listening to the same piece re-recorded by some orchestra using today's recording techniques.  Follow what I'm trying to say?

Yes I follow. I don't worry so much about sound quality these days. When you sit down and watch say, an old film noir American film from 1948 or something - you soon forget about technical detail and just enjoy the content.

Or you could be watching a film in a foreign language from France,  Sweden, Italy or Germany say - you soon forget about the language if it's any good and these type of things become forgotten. I remember back in 1968/69 when we in England had colour television become available. An acquaintance of mine at the time said from henceforth he would not watch a film on TV if it was in black and white. He and Mr String would certainly hit it off today.

The old studio system had a lot wrong with it most definitely. BUT - it a lot going for it too and when you observe the ludicrous amount of nonsense films made today it makes you wonder. But you have to make money and the money is where the kids are. And the kids are where their education is right now.

@PaulR said:

Yes I follow. I don't worry so much about sound quality these days. When you sit down and watch say, an old film noir American film from 1948 or something - you soon forget about technical detail and just enjoy the content.

That's true, I don't pay too much attention to the sound quality while watching older films.  I'm focusing more on the plot than the music especially if I haven't seen the movie before.  I have for time to time, especially watching old TV Series thinking to myself how cheesy the music sounds, mainly in my opinion, the quality as compared to today's standards.  Not the music composition itself but the sound quality.  

Nothing against the sound engineers of the past for they were working within the bounds of the technology that was available to them at the time.  For me, at least right now, sound quality is important and I believe technology has moved in the right direction.  

The simple answer considering you included me in your quote is..........NO!

If you bother to read ALL the post, it will become apparent to you, that my position on individual's musical taste is subjective.  That's a fact of life.  No two people are always going to agree when it comes to music, religion and politics.

As far as obese people, marketing & product design in general, takes into consideration ALL types of people.  There are TARGET audiences for all types of products, not just movies or music.  Just pick up a Marketing 101 text book and you'll see what I mean.