I only ever notice music in fllms when it's noticable as good music to me regardless of the film, or when I've noticed I'm noticing the music in the negative and I feel it took me out of the film.

I notice John Williams music a lot, and not because I liked any of it. I think he's a most excellent musician, orchestrator, he can knock out some catchy tunes, but to me, as a composer on this sort of elevated level like you guys are talking about here, he's an absolute fraud. The last time I noticed it was in one of the later Star Wars debacles, and I was saying repeatedly, 'please, back off this telegraphing to (at) me every single feeling with this overblown 19th century orchestra and the cliches attendant to, my ears are bushed".

But, both Williams and Hans Zimmer are heck of in demand and being emulated, so, they are doing their job right - and it is a job.

If I were a director, and wanted old hoary cliches to work for me, I'd do a Kubrick and stick to my temp track and save some $.

Williams can 'knock out' some catchy tunes?

I see.

You actually hit the problems for writers on the head though. Producers/direcors love tried and tested.  They understand what audiences like in an historical sense. Ergo, they tell the writer to sound like this or that. That's part of the deal. These people can't afford to have any imagination or put up with anything that might be experimental or new. Not that I can do either because I can't. They're not in the business of predicting something that an audience will really go for that's entirely original. Most original things in film are accidental and usually put out by an independent company. If it scores big financially then usually what happens is the big studio will pick up on it and then do the big budget copy many times over in different guises - or the big big budget remake. Same goes for all the stuff that make up the film from editing, cinematography down to the score. For example, when they were making Citizen Kane, the studio shiitt itself daily. After it came out, highly original and all of that, Hollywood decided that was the way to go for several years.

But the issue for anyone who gives a shyte is this. Every time these days on forums someone puts up a piece of music, 99 times out of 100 it will be derivative. You will have heard it before almost certainly in a different guise. The tune won't be the same but the entire style and orchestration will be. And that's part of the strength that scoring writers have to be able to demonstrate today. They have to able to copy. If you can be bothered to learn how to copy a style you will probably make money in this field.

On a personal note, I hear a lot of music done with orchestral samples on forums and websites. Imagine if there was no such thing as orchestral samples. How many orchestral works would you even hear in  a year. Hardly any. It would be as it was - almost all electronic. That's why a lot of scores pre orchestral sample days were in fact done a lot with synthesizers. And don't think that orchestral scoring with samples started when the samples were really high quality. Any writer using midi and samples would use just about anything of any quality. You think if there were orchestral samples when they made The Terminator around 1982 it would have been electronic?

I think it's extremely wasteful for musicians today to religiously copy Hans Zimmer and John Williams. It never ever sounds as good and simply sounds like a second rate copy. Clever - but  boring. But that's what directors want.

 - and an admirable skill it is... a job well done. He's Super Pro . I just wanted to illustrate, not everybody thinks it's the shizzle (I remember Obama's inauguration and this Appalachian Spring ARRANGEMENT he did for that, with his own name on it just like he made a composition all by himself. What a cheap move. 'Hey, no one will notice this has already been done, this piece, esp. if we call it 'Air and Simple Gifts'... screw Copland'. WE'VE HEARD IT, OK. This applies to every single thing I ever heard out of the guy. It's fine, he knows exactly what to do, but where it's exalted as if it's more than someone meeting the demands of the job (selling popcorn), I don't buy that). Great *movie composer*. Fraudulent 'Art'.

Using one's imagination is risky, where It's strictly from commercial/there's a lot of money on the line... there is this tendency to second guess what an audience will go for. I don't think that's *very* intelligent, but the reality is, this is a corporate gig, a big motion picture... 'art by committee' rules ok.

Hard for me to see at this point that anyone in a movie audience is going to object to (or prefer) this or that in the music score. I write with a person who is not a musician, and really doesn't have any of this information we do, and I discussed this with him more than once; for instance he noticed nothing about Zimmer's Batman score - as a fan of the movie (I see very few big commercial films, didn't see that one, but I'd seen some making of the score on youtube; I asked about the Joker's... underscore, which I thought was effective in establishing a really unsettling vibe in the clips I saw. Nope, didn't register that anything went on). He has a quite different take on a music score than do I. He doesn't know that music is necessary. Unaware of it. He sees movies in moviehouses regularly. He would notice when something is really overdone, and I think something like this loud score Zimmer did for - Inception (which I only know of from an audio forum, people asking 'what brass?') - would register.

You can hear some musical imagination in some horror or terror genre films, 'scary music'. (Ghetto-ized, kind of...)

When John Carpenter scored his own pictures, how many people noticed it wasn't music from a composer-by-trade? It got the job done, kept the budget down, a success.

I don't have that much invested in movie music anymore, and as I've learned to write a screenplay have another take on it. I'd prefer not to notice it usually, I'm trying to have a... holistic kind of experience in a movie house. I personally notice the hegemony of European 19th century symphonic orchestra, which isn't to my tastes as a music listener, but I don't expect that to change much for a big-budget picture, because it's the safe move, and I understand that. If it's really cookie-cutter, it takes me out of the scene. I can experience the film on two levels if I notice, 'that's INTERESTING', but there is some scoring to make me disrespect the whole project... usually I'm looking at it on TV, so no prob.

@Gianna said:

I notice John Williams music a lot, and not because I liked any of it. I think he's a most excellent musician, orchestrator, he can knock out some catchy tunes, but to me, as a composer on this sort of elevated level like you guys are talking about here, he's an absolute fraud. The last time I noticed it was in one of the later Star Wars debacles, and I was saying repeatedly, 'please, back off this telegraphing to (at) me every single feeling with this overblown 19th century orchestra and the cliches attendant to, my ears are bushed".

To call Williams an 'absolute fraud' when we're on the topic of film music goes beyond the question of personal taste and well into the realm of ignorance... You confirm this twice: a) when you contradict yourself by attributing excellence of musicianship and in orchestration skills to an 'absolute fraud', and b) when you bring up Star Wars as an example. Any instalment of this saga would be unwatchable without Williams' constant symphonic backing - it is nothing like a Kubrick film. It is a space opera i.e. constant music with action and dialogue instead of singing. If you don't like this that's fine, but to call the only man that could have brought a joke like those movies to life an 'absolute fraud'....

And what elevated level (compared to Williams) have we been talking about? The names that have been thrown about here were those of Hans' (sic), Herrmann's, Goldsmith's, and the like. It's not like we put Williams' name next to Wagner's, Beethoven's, Mozart's, and Bach's. Let's get perspective here...

Finally, being in demand and being emulated are not necessary consequents of 'doing a job right'! That has been the point of this whole thread... MacDonald's is in demand and has been emulated, that doesn't mean it feeds you properly... It's quick for all the lazy, it's right there when you feel a pang, it's established etc., but you eat crap! It's great business, it fulfils a "function", but it's NOT quality, and that is what this discussion has all been about.

We are hoping that a generation of young directors and producers who have been brought up with such diets will be able to appreciate and demand the equivalent of chateaubriand and eye-fillet with bone-marrow sauce for their films. They take much longer to prepare, only a handful of people can do them, and the masses are quite happy with their fillet-of-shit with large fries. Why bother?...

as a sidebar, I think Terminator, made today, would just as likely be that kind of electronic score as anything. There might be more orch, but where 'futuristic' atmo is called for, better conveyed by synths, in the most general sense, I think.

Errikos, you're upset aren't you. You have your tastes, and I don't share them. I didn't buy into the same things you did. I I don't care about Beethoven, or Brahms, or that whole scene. Wagner had some cute moments... invented some horns, that's important.

I'm the barbarian at the gates, man, swing away.

I really am bored in an argument based on taste. That's what you have, you fell for it, I did not. He's a good musician, he does the job, I've already granted you fans his props. Craft isn't necessarily art.

"It's not like we put Williams' name next to Wagner's, Beethoven's, Mozart's, and Bach's. Let's get perspective here... Finally, being in demand and being emulated are not necessary consequents of 'doing a job right'! That has been the point of this whole thread..."

Is it a job or is it art? Is the criteria 'did he get the job done and serve the film' or is it 'this is great music'. You're trying to have it both ways. Did I say it's a necessary consequent? I mention it yes. The point there is that this is a commercial enterprise. It's people for hire. If someone is hiring according to 'this guy got it right we think, we need you to do something like this', it's a sign of commercial success. That's simple enough, I thought. :shrug: I mentioned the inaugural music. Is that a job, or is it supposed to be on a higher level? A patriot would tend to say the latter. He did an arranging job that I or any capable person who's studied the COPLAND PIECE could have done, he did top quality hack work like he does. He's the best! I could never compete with that, on that scale. I suck! I'm weak, whatever; I would vomit if I ripped someone off that shamelessly. IE: what JW isn't, in any way shape, or form, is original or innovative. I've heard it all before. That isn't anything but a hack job. I have no objection to that kind of job. He serves the films he works for, and that's that. I've no issue. I just don't buy it as music with any value beyond that.Your mileage varied from mine on that trip it appears.

This thread was about dissing Hans Zimmer I thought. My reading of it is that people think John Williams is on a higher level somehow. I don't buy it. In fact I've noticed innovation in Zimmer in a very small exposure to him... If you think John Williams isn't McComposer, that's you. Doesn't pass my gag reflex. It's a mass market. The masses rule ok, that's WHY we have John Williams, McComposer. My diet eschews that sort of thing.

This is an argument about music which has the function of aiding sales of popcorn. So, we're all kind of silly I think.

@Gianna said:

 - and an admirable skill it is... a job well done. He's Super Pro . I just wanted to illustrate, not everybody thinks it's the shizzle (I remember Obama's inauguration and this Appalachian Spring ARRANGEMENT he did for that, with his own name on it just like he made a composition all by himself. What a cheap move. 'Hey, no one will notice this has already been done, this piece, esp. if we call it 'Air and Simple Gifts'... screw Copland'. WE'VE HEARD IT, OK. This applies to every single thing I ever heard out of the guy. It's fine, he knows exactly what to do, but where it's exalted as if it's more than someone meeting the demands of the job (selling popcorn), I don't buy that). Great *movie composer*. Fraudulent 'Art'.

That statement is hilarious considering that Copland didn't write that melody either.  It predates the Copland version by almost a hundred years, and Copland put his name on it too instead of the guy who wrote it originally.  And it IS called Simple Gifts, Williams used the original name while Copland didn't.  Williams is also listed as "composed and arranged by".

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

he added nothing new to Copland on it.  I would think that's implicit to an educated musician. Your head must be pretty far up JW's ass to miss that.

IT'S COPLAND'S FVCKING IDEA! Give him credit? "oh hell no, I might have to pay his estate". Seriously.

@vibrato said:

And if your friend cant hear whts going in the score or how it affects a film, it doesnt mean everyone feels the same. In fact, your friend is the odd one out. 

John Williams is a legend and he has not copied any music directly. If you are so good, stop posting on this forum and get a real job in the industry. Stop complaining and write some real music - why dont you post something thats better than John Williams right now and I will take my comments back.

You guys make internet forums a nightmare and full of crap.

Moderator is free to ban me from this thread now.

My friend represents the average moviegoer, people in civilian life don't notice these little felicities about music in a movie. It's entertainment for a mass market. If you think I'm proferring that up to justify any opinion about music, you weren't reading it with a clear head. Because you can't effing BELIEVE someone doesn't think the same as you on the subject of movie music!

You know nothing about my music or it's reality. But, hey, swing away, ad hominem til the cows come home. Twist up your panties as much as you have to behind it. Somebody make some popcorn, good show all round.

This is a thread about taste. that's all it is.I thought it amusing to have at JW, who I cordially despise. It proved to be just as much fun as I figured.

@mike connelly said:

... hilarious considering that Copland didn't write that melody either.  It predates the Copland version by almost a hundred years, and Copland put his name on it too instead of the guy who wrote it originally.  And it IS called Simple Gifts, Williams used the original name while Copland didn't.  Williams is also listed as "composed and arranged by".

But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.

1) Air and Simple Gifts is a classical quartet composed and arranged^[1] by American composer John Williams.

2) ..based on the familiar nineteenth century Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts," by Joseph Brackett.^[8] The source piece is famous for its appearance in Aaron Copland's ballet Appalachian Spring.^[2] Williams chose the selection from Copland, one of Obama's favorite classical composers.^[2]

Hilarious indeed. It's Copland's idea. It isn't John Williams idea. I think that's crystal clear. it's JW copping somebody else's idea. It's what he does best. Great arranger though innit.

composed and arranged? in a string quartet, I assume 'the composer is the arranger' as a given. is two credits two paychecks? [:D]

this is the same as arguing religion or politics. so much fun!

It's one thing to not care for someone's music Gianna but your posts make ASSERTIONS not voice opinions.  You make declarations about Williams' artistic merit and call him a fraud.  The guy has more musicality in one of his pinkys than all of us combined on this forum, I'm sure of that.  Comparing him to Lady GaGa in terms of his musical prowess shows you to lack any ability to converse or think objectively about music.  It's not all arty farty "every thing is in the eye of the beholder".  Music is a system that has evolved over several centuries and to turn a blind eye, or deaf ear in this case, to one of its most adept practitioners is disrespectful.

And I also find your argumentative skills wanting, since you like to invalidate opposing views by snide comments about "panties in a bind" or whatever.  

@Gianna said:

Errikos, you're upset aren't you. You have your tastes, and I don't share them.

If it was just taste, fine. BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID JOHN WILLIAMS IS A FRAUD.  Not that you don't personally like his music but the sweeping statement he is a "fraud."  That is total bullshit.  You are engaging in the lamentably common practice of elevating your own opinion into a universal aesthetic principle.  Trust me on this - you have a right to your opinion - warped, ignorant and ludicrous as it is -  but it is definitely not universal, nor a principle of any kind.  You need to understand that.

For someone to praise John Williams as an orchestrator and writer of "catchy tunes" but a total fraud is the height of total ignorance as well as arrogance.   Williams first of all does not do his  own orchestrations.  Whoah!  That's a shock, huh?  You thought he wrote it all out himself, eh?   So you're wrong to begin with there.  Secondly, his music is the MOST SYMPHONIC OF ALL FILM MUSIC since Korngold in the 30s.  Why am I mentioning Korngold to you?  I am certain you haven't the slightest idea of who that is.  (Quick! Google him!)  But anyway, even Williams' scoring is precisely in the style of the heyday of symphonically scored and developed films of the 40s studio era.  This type of scoring DOES NOT USE CATCHY TUNES but instead relies upon complex development similar to symphonic form or Wagnerian leitmotival operatic structure.  Mancini is the prototype of the "catchy tune" composer, not John Williams.   Do you know who Mancini is?  Or did I just waste some time mentioning him also?

Also, you missed the whole point of this thread - not that Zimmer music is ineffective as film music - I STATED THAT SIMPLISTIC MUSIC CAN BE EFFECTIVE EVEN THOUGH IT SUCKS AS MUSIC.  I was disturbed by the lowliness of this music as compared to the great film composers.  Their music is effective for the films it scores, but it is also interesting musically.  My whole point was that Zimmer's success and its obvious and inevitable copycat deluge have taken things far down at the same time he has been elevated to the position of a great musician like John Williams  - and that is exactly what he truly is despite the rat-like gnawings of vermin who try to dismiss him as a "fraud." 

BTW - Appalachian Spring by Copland is based upon a traditional Shaker melody which Copland DID NOT COMPOSE.  That is the melody  you heard and instantly concluded John Williams stole. 

One other thing  -  I detest people who say "film music shouldn't be noticed."  You're bringing up a tone-deaf moron who didn't notice music in a film doesn't mean a damned thing.  So what?  A slug crawling on the floor of the theater didn't notice it either. As Max Steiner put it - if nobody notices it why bother to write it?  

 sorry Mike - I just missed your post in my haste to point out that about the Shaker melody.  you are of course absolutely right.

These facts:

The original name of the piece was Simple Gifts.

Copland used the piece in a work of his own with another name while JW kept the original name, but you complained about JW "changing" the name when AC was the one who did just that.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that once someone arranges a public domain melody, anyone else who arranges that same melody is "copying".  That has been going on for hundreds of years.

It's completely false that he added nothing new to what AC did - the first minute plus of the piece doesn't use the folk tune or anything from AC, and the arrangement of the tune is very different than the AC version.  Did you even actually listen and compare both pieces?

And the reason it says "composed and arranged" is because part of the piece is completely original, what he composed, and part of it is an arrangement of an existing theme, what he arranged.  First you go after JW for supposedly trying to hide that it's based on another theme, then when it's pointed out that JW acknowledged that, that's a bad thing too?  And does Appalachian Spring mention that part is based on a folk tune?  If not, then why the double standard?  Along the same lines, after complaining that you think JW is trying to fool people you turn around and point out that he publicly said that he was intentionally using the same theme as AC.

And for the record, I'm not defending JW's piece, just pointing out the hypocrisy and inaccuracy.

I suggest you calm down about this, it's just a discussion about composers and music so I'm not sure why you've got yourself so angry and worked up about it.

@William said:

If it was just taste, fine. BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID JOHN WILLIAMS IS A FRAUD.  Not that you don't personally like his music but the sweeping statement he is a "fraud."  That is total bullshit.  You are engaging in the lamentably common practice of elevating your own opinion into a universal aesthetic principle.  Trust me on this - you have a right to your opinion - warped, ignorant and ludicrous as it is -  but it is definitely not universal, nor a principle of any kind.  You need to understand that.

For someone to praise John Williams as an orchestrator and writer of "catchy tunes" but a total fraud is the height of total ignorance as well as arrogance.   Williams first of all does not do his  own orchestrations.  Whoah!  That's a shock, huh?  You thought he wrote it all out himself, eh?   So you're wrong to begin with there.  Secondly, his music is the MOST SYMPHONIC OF ALL FILM MUSIC since Korngold in the 30s.  Why am I mentioning Korngold to you?  I am certain you haven't the slightest idea of who that is.  (Quick! Google him!)  But anyway, even Williams' scoring is precisely in the style of the heyday of symphonically scored and developed films of the 40s studio era.  This type of scoring DOES NOT USE CATCHY TUNES but instead relies upon complex development similar to symphonic form or Wagnerian leitmotival operatic structure.  Mancini is the prototype of the "catchy tune" composer, not John Williams.   Do you know who Mancini is?  Or did I just waste some time mentioning him also?

Also, you missed the whole point of this thread - not that Zimmer music is ineffective as film music - I STATED THAT SIMPLISTIC MUSIC CAN BE EFFECTIVE EVEN THOUGH IT SUCKS AS MUSIC.  I was disturbed by the lowliness of this music as compared to the great film composers.  Their music is effective for the films it scores, but it is also interesting musically.  My whole point was that Zimmer's success and its obvious and inevitable copycat deluge have taken things far down at the same time he has been elevated to the position of a great musician like John Williams  - and that is exactly what he truly is despite the rat-like gnawings of vermin who try to dismiss him as a "fraud." 

BTW - Appalachian Spring by Copland is based upon a traditional Shaker melody which Copland DID NOT COMPOSE.  That is the melody  you heard and instantly concluded John Williams stole. 

One other thing  -  I detest people who say "film music shouldn't be noticed."  You're bringing up a tone-deaf moron who didn't notice music in a film doesn't mean a damned thing.  So what?  A slug crawling on the floor of the theater didn't notice it either. As Max Steiner put it - if nobody notices it why bother to write it? 

Well said William......

To me, there is always a risk in buying a NEW movie soundtrack recordings just to listen to for their musicality .  Unlike most written in the previous era, today the cues (in many cases) are less musical and more sound design intended to support the scene in the film that they were written to support.  I guess a whole new discussion could be made on whether or not, sound-design noises are considered music.  I would assume that opinion would be based on the individual person's likes and dislikes.  Every once in a while there will be a cue that lends itself musically in my opinion.  Even Zimmer accomplishes that result.  And you know what they say about opinions......

To slam any composer, I feel places the individual at a lower level than the composer them self.   I not saying you slammed any composer William, so that comment is not directed at you -- just a general statement considering some of the post in this thread.......

@Gianna said:

Errikos, you're upset aren't you. You have your tastes, and I don't share them. I didn't buy into the same things you did. I I don't care about Beethoven, or Brahms, or that whole scene. Wagner had some cute moments... invented some horns, that's important.

I'm the barbarian at the gates, man, swing away. etc. etc.

Oh Gianna thank you!! Thank you for putting a smile on my face on a very difficult day. You are just SO funny! I am not upset at all (except at the industry). In fact, with your ridiculous post you set the all-important missing perspective I was asking for. I am curious, at the end of all your posts you have as a motto "beautiful music, ALL DAY LONG". For someone that posts on an orchestral forum and doesn't "care about Beethoven, or Brahms, or that whole scene. Wagner had some cute moments... invented some horns", I ask you to post here the orchestral composers you feel are worthy of your ear.

As far as "is it job or is it art" question, let me remind you that with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, etc. - you know, all these insignificants - it was both a job and art! History has made its judgement about that, it is not a matter of personal taste. However, I have an open mind and will gladly entertain your musical suggestions for their worthiness and their place on a higher, purer plane. 

@Chuck Green said:

To slam any composer, I feel places the individual at a lower level than the composer them self.   I not saying you slammed any composer William, so that comment is not directed at you -- just a general statement considering some of the post in this thread.......

Yeah, I am not for a second placing myself above Zimmer - after all he makes the big bucks.    As I stated originally he may be a great composer for all I know, better than Mozart or Beethoven - who knows?  I am just talking about the scores for these huge blockbuster films for which he is getting paid enormous sums and worldwide fame. I am strictly criticizing those, not his existence or general musical ability.  And since they are fabulously successful it is in my book O.K. to offer some criticism, since they and he are doing just fine in the world-at-large.   

However - when  this guy Gianna   comes on and calls john Williams a "fraud" that is different, since he is truly slamming the person.  Which is doubly ridiculous because John Williams is a genius of a composer as well as a successful musician/conductor.  I also don't like the tone of arrogant dismissal of the "19th century orchestras" as if that is something bad.  The 19th century orchestra still exists and is still a powerful sound that composers struggle to learn how to write for - if they are lucky. 

My only additional response to the comments made by Gianna about the validity and credibility of John Williams can be summed up by a priceless quote by Hitgirl from the film Kick Ass:

"what a douche"

See you guys.  I'm probably banned for this but it was worth it. [:P]