What's happened to the Humanities in general in the past few decades? I have had some close contact with academia the past few years and the dropping of the standards in the disciplines that fall under this category are astounding. I don't know how many of you get to read doctoral theses and articles in specialist periodicals, but the change - even during the last 10 or 15 years - in quality, standard and, most importantly, vision and scope, is palpable! It doesn't matter how many disclaimers appear on institutions' websites, publications, etc. regarding targeting originality in contribution, dialectics, free-thinking, and other lofty causes, the result is you are either part of the status quo, or not at all... The facelessness, the facsimile of everyone's papers, the pseudo- (and they are pseudo) arguments from supposedly opposite positions, and worst of all, the axiomatic presumption of the 'current' method or school of thought and the always perfunctory (as is mandatory) consideration of the antithesis before its premature and total dismissal, are today's harvesters of mediocrity and exterminators of talent...

I am not going into details here on why I think this has eventuated, but why shouldn't this also happen to film music? In different ways it has happened to 'serious' music long ago... These days anybody can participate, anybody's contribution is meritorious... These days anybody can get a PhD "provided they don't rock the boat" - how disheartening and appalling, and "if they do the work" - as if it were a cleaning job.

I think that the people in the filmmakers' chairs have become less musically refined (a whole generation of directors from the MTV crap school of directing so they want the lowest common denominator of musician who is a "yes" man who has more books from Tony Robbins than Adler, Piston, and such in his/her library.  

I hate what film scoring has largely turned into these days.  It sounds like utter noise or vacuous sound FX.  Technology sadly has not helped.  Anyone with $$$ that can afford VSL or Symphobia can sound good.  At least with VSL, you still need music chops to get the full effect- I love Project SAM and all but Symphobia is partly to blame- having the ability to play sounds that were programmed and sampled by composers who know what doubling works and what instruments work in a given register is kind of cheating.  For me, I have created Symphobia-styled multis for sketching using VI Pro and I love it because I know how to separate each section when it comes down to fleshing out the music. I doubt 50% of those who use Symphobia could do the same.  

I also think that playing things into a DAW in realtime largely is very idiomatic and not very musical.  It depends on a person's piano skills and let's be honest, most people who use DAWs (professional and amateur) don't have concert like pianistic skills.  Some do but most don't.  They fix their performances with a lot of editing.  I much rather input notes into Sibelius and look at the contour of the line, or density of a specific passage for orchestration purposes.  I have a harder time doing this with Logic or DP.  I also find my music is more static when performed into a DAW.  There's less meter changes, less changes in tempi, more constant articulations (i almost have ADD when I'm scoring in Sibelius where I like to change textures and instrumentation quite often- I blame studying Mahler's Das Leid on that though).

Anyhow, there are still a few gents that know how to write themes.  Alexandre Desplat is probably one of the bigger name composers who does.  Gabriel Yared, Chris Gordon, people like that.

That's right David, I play the piano and still work on Sibelius first for orchestra like you, you know why? Because I also think symphonically. I don't lay an arpeggiator on the DAW, then lay a couple of pads on top of it and finally a couple of Symphobia sound-chunks like they were Apple loops to my project... I am developing a Symphobia the way things are going... I'd like to know whether Guy Bacos plays straight into his DAW without a score, I seriously doubt it...

The problem is that people these days think composition is like an IKEA kit (and theirs sound like they are). If you have the relevant contraptions, you can assemble one (similarly, if you have a computer, a DAW, Hollywoodsteals, Anemato, etc....). However, they shouldn't compare their out-of-the-boxes characterless modular utterances with authentic artistically constructed musical works.

@Errikos said:

What's happened to the Humanities in general in the past few decades? I have had some close contact with academia the past few years and the dropping of the standards in the disciplines that fall under this category are astounding. I don't know how many of you get to read doctoral theses and articles in specialist periodicals, but the change - even in the last 10 or 15 years - in quality, standard and, most importantly, vision and scope, is palpable! It doesn't matter how many disclaimers appear on institutions websites, publications, etc. regarding targeting originality in contribution, dialectics, free-thinking, and other lofty causes, the result is, you are either part of the status quo, or not at all... The facelessness, the facsimile of everyone's papers, the pseudo- (and it is pseudo) arguments from supposedly opposite positions, and worst of all, the axiomatic presumption of the 'current' method or school of thought and the always perfunctory (as is mandatory) consideration of the antithesis before its premature and total dismissal are today's harvesters of mediocrity and exterminators of talent...

I am not going into details here on why I think this has eventuated, but why shouldn't this also happen to film music? In different ways it has happened to 'serious' music long ago... These days anybody can participate, anybody's contribution is meritorious... These days anybody can get a PhD "provided they don't rock the boat" - how disheartening and appalling, and "if they do the work" - as if it were a cleaning job.

This entire very true statement makes me think of Deconstructionism, which seems to be the philosophical incarnation of the relativism you are talking about.  Everything is only a text, nothing is really true, everything is only relatively valuable, etc.  if you incorporate that concept into your everyday life, you will literally die very soon. So the professors who think all day long about Deconstructionism quickly suspend it when they encounter on the street outside their office a text called "that bus going 60 is about to run over your fat ass."   Then they get real old-fashioned, fast.   So it is a philosophical game that is being played by academia. But it reflects perhaps a larger trend such as what you are talking about, aided by the total democratization of everyone enabled to a large extent by technology and the internet.    Writing an actual theme as opposed to simple little motifs or just chords is not something that fits into this mindset.  It is an old-fashioned attempt at doing something meaningful that cannot be taken apart just as removing one note from a great melody ruins it.   It is basically discouraged in the homogenizing process of today's film scoring.  Symphobia fits in perfectly.  Composers now are doing Symphobia with live orchestras - that is the only difference. 

BTW I apologize for the tone of that other thread and promise to be good, always.   [A]

I avoided beginning a discussion on the reasons and ways we have reached this state of affairs, a) because it would really be a departure from Tom's thread which I don't want to hijack, and b) it would take us away from discussing music per se. However you're very right when you mention deconstructionism and relativism which both annihilate (literally) every standard, every value, etc. I'll refrain from name-calling this time, but people like Foucault, Derrida and the like who - grossly put - meshed and confused philosophy with psychology and amateur cognitive science and epistemology are responsible for what's happening at least inside the academic walls. 

As far as music is concerned, two quick points: Musicologists, in their unbearable frustration for their lack of serious musical talent, being considered the bottom rung on the musical ladder after analysts, and for their having failed to explain the magic of music to an academic degree, are clutching at straws becoming amateur linguists/semioticians (again taking their cues from current "philosophical" streaks) and amateur sociologists in order to fill pages, make a living, and have something to teach. They corrupt the youth attending their lectures through their perfect inconsequence.

Your example of a professor avoiding a bus reminded me of John Cage, who did admit he didn't take chances when it came to mushrooms...

Sorry Tom, back to you...

I just want to say one more thing on this current topic before I sign off for tonight:

"Mark my words"!!! It took a long time and a lot of great talent through the years for the composer to finally receive sole credit-card at the beginning of the film (like the producer, director etc.). Generally he used to be in a long list of credits at the beginning with other practical - not creative - contributors before the final two or three cards and the start of the movie. I foresee that in a few years film music will be considered so mechanical, so streamlined, so generic and library or software generated, that the composer's credit will (duly since no creative properties will be involved) slip down again, probably at the end credits between 'best boy' and 'gaffer'; and those two will probably complain!...

@Another User said:

2)  If so, what in your opinion accounts for this?

You won't hear too many themes in Bernard Herrmann's scores. Or Jerry Goldsmith's. You will hear minimalism and serialism and huge amounts of different time signatures and rhythms. . It's a question of what a writer likes and is comfortable with. A lot of writers aren't comfortable writing themes and otoh a lot have to have a theme just to write around it and get kick started. There is no one account for anything.

Where a lot of film music may sound rather ordinary, is not so much because of theme(s) or the lacking of themes, but because the lacking of rhythm or coherent orchestration or bad intervals or minding numbing repetition of ostinato strings. Or time constraints (as in the amount of time they have to write). The music of HZ is like conveyer belt music. IT'S NO GOOD a teenager telling you their dick grew 5 inches on youtube JUST BECAUSE he likes it and its easy for him to understand. Just because someone likes a thing stultifies any objective conversation more or less about anything. Music, books, art, films, photography, surgical procedures....anything. I might as well argue why I like blue better than red. In the end, you either try and understand what works and why something else becomes irritating on some kind of intellectual level or you're dead from the neck up.  Or like Brad, you become a Rock Star.

I believe film music is a done and dead genre and has now more or less been covered over the last 80 years. What else can be written that can be construed as original? Why do you think chugging strings are the order of the day now? Because films are made from the bottom up - not from the top down. Finance. And financial considerations when making films are not aimed at people that could be construed as intelligent. Intelligent people don't sit in cinemas nowadays - eating anything -  wasting their time and money watching drivel with a constant low pounding string noise. Unintelligent people do that and they will always be the target market for just about anything because historically they've always been an easy sell- for anything. It's got nothing really to do with the music.

I believe we must before anything else distinguish (and it is hard and personal) from themes-motifs and themes-melodies. On a general point, I have to disagree with one of Paul's examples; Goldsmith to my mind is very much a theme-based composer - all his scores that come to mind are very much based on strong themes, but he wasn't always great at them, it was a matter of hard work for him many times; you can tell how a lot of his themes are "forced" in a way, having a theme because one has to sort of thing (ex. Supergirl, Lionheart, etc.) - that of course can be the result of accepting 200 contracts a year for money - how many themes does one have in him? However, his themes (and most are themes-melodies) for say Papillon, Chinatown, Star Trek TMP, Patton, Omen, Final Conflict, Patch of Blue, Under Fire, the list goes on..., range from inspired to incredible. 

However Paul is very right pointing out that themes are not mandatory for the setting of a film, but the difference froom today's tardies is that (among other things) Herrmann could certainly weave a theme, wistful or playful (ex. Vertigo theme2, The Trouble with Harry), and of course he had all the other arsenal in abundance if say themes were not his strongest suit. John Williams is another composer who in my opinion is great with everything, including great themes-motifs, but should (and does for the most part) shy away from themes-melodies (yes, it's very true, I find the scraping series of crotchets - or is it quavers - of Schindler's List very disappointing).

I won't repeat Paul's well argued points on how capable composers can decide on how to impressively and resultoriously  put music to cinematic drama whether they work with motifs (Williams, Bernstein, Elfman) or melodies (the Italians, Barry, Jarre), but I do want to repeat one aspect he brings up, and that is the perils of the so-called objective discussion that supposedly cannot be had because of those twits that insist their opinions and aesthetics are as valid as anyone else's. What these twirps confuse, is their undeniable right for personal preference, and the intellectual and repertorial backgrounds necessary to make those preferences.

For example, for people to argue whether Bach or Beethoven is the greatest ever composer, is a valid discussion with subjective commentary and preference, albeit based on objective truths and foundations. 

To say Madonna is a greater melodist than Mozart, is a subjective preference, but based on subjective  i g n o r a n c e. Your every day pleb "thinks" that because everything eventually and necessarily boils down to personal preference, that means there can be no objectivity in the parameters set for any discussion on aesthetics.

Well, very interesting.  I agree with PaulR that's there's no definitive answer to the lack of themes question, and whether or not themes work often depends on the orchestration around them.  An example that comes to mind is the opening melody of Barber's "Summer in Knoxville, 1915."  There's four bars of one note, yet it works beautifully because of the moving chords underneath.  John Barry's themes are often quite simple ("Midnight Cowboy")  but often, not always, haunting and memorable, and very much his own.

Since composers are going to use the tools available, it's no surprise that synth styles and sounds are taking the place of traditional instruments.  Blending the two is a skill in and of itself.  I think in Hetoryn's podcast interview with Jerry Goldsmith's son he mentions that his father was really intrigued by the synth possibilities, although I also remember Goldsmith senior lamenting the lack of musical training in some of the younger film score composers.

Not to bring up that lightning rod figure again, but I do believe blending orchestral and electronic instruments is one of Hans Z's strengths.  Like him or not, he does have a sound, and almost every new soundtrack he does has some new sounds or mixtures thereof.  I sort of agree with you guys who didn't like Inception, but some of the sounds he comes up with are quite inventive, and in my opinion save the CD.

Thanks, Guys.

Cheers,     Tom

PS.  One of my favorite Jerry Goldsmith scores is "The Medicine Man," starring Sean Connery and Lauraine Braicco (of "The Sopranos" fame.)  Great themes.  Every film producer who goes with "Various Artists" for a soundtrack should be forced to watch this film and see how a good score can buoy a movie. 

 Very interesting posts - I agree eagerly with the devastating Errikos and the curmudgeonly Paul but one point not mentioned specifically is that in a film score a theme is NOT ACTUALLY NEEDED to accomplish what the music needs to do.  In the early days of sound film, one can hear the adapatation of operetta and opera into film scoring, especially the Wagnerian style in the big studio days with music by Waxman, Steiner, Korngold and other Austrian/German emigrants who practically created film music.  At that time it was assumed that thematic statement, development and recapitulation were essential.  It was not until Herrmann that composers CONSCIOUSLY realized that all of those elements taken from opera and symphony form are NOT NEEDED AT ALL.  That does not mean they cannot be used of course.  But Herrmann's basic approach was to use short motifs that he repeated and developed mainly with orchestration.  In other words he simplified the nature of film scoring to what was absolutely essential.  But unlike other composers, what has always struck me about him is that he made an ARTFORM for himself out of that minimilaization.  He didn't do the lowest common denominator approach like the lazy latter-day composers and Zimmerians, but created a powerful new medium absolutely suited to cinema which allowed him to work fluently and masterfully.  You can hear this even in his concert music.  His early symphony is not such a great work, nowhere near as great as his film scores.  But his later string quartet and chamber music are fantastic - and they use many of the same formal and developmental techniques as his film scoring.  But the main point is that film can take either approach of complex melody - such as John Barry in "Somewhere in Time" essentially doing an entire film score out of one long melody - or Herrmann doing one out of two bar motifs repeated in highly varied ways.   Though as was pointed out, he could write a great melody - such as Vertigo or the end theme of Fahrenheit 451. 

William, that end cue from F451 is one of the most beautiful, effective musical moments I have ever heard for film or otherwise.  It's as emotive as anything Mahler wrote IMO.  Herrmann's genius was how he did break the standard orchestra archetypes and realized that recording offered a composer many more exciting avenues.  The difference between Herrmann and Zimmer (and it's a gulf as big as the Atlantic ocean) is that he still employed all of the fundamentals of music- ie motivic development, thematic development, harmony, counterpoint, the whole kitchen sink.  

What really gets me hot under the collar is how people want to dismiss these things as old fashioned or outdated.  That's like saying "oh, we don't need to train doctors in physiology, biology, anatomy, chemistry, to prepare them for operating- they just need to have good interpersonal skills".  Or the bridge builder/architect who doesn't need to study physics, etc.  It's hilarious (not really) how often people confuse music with some artsy fartsy "anyone can do this" philosophy and dismiss the fact that its system is as deep as any applied science.  These techniques were developed because they sounded good! And they were built upon for several hundred years.  But, no, in the space of 2 decades, we have seen a dramatic disintegration of any respect or value in the system of music.  Thanks to Garageband or worse GuitarHero, music is just a game that anyone with a heartbeat can do with no practice or dedication towards its perfection.

I also study Goju Ryu karate and it has a very defined system.  If I showed up and said I didn't need all those fancy kata and conditioning exercises and felt I was equal to a Shodan or higher (blackbelt) I would get my ass kicked from here to next Tuesday.  Why is music any different?  Martial arts are also ARTS and they have very defined systems that need to be learned.  Funny enough, so many people start with MA but drop out shortly after because they don't have the discipline to stick with it.  

I have studied music since I was in university, and I have been composing since I was 11 years old and I still respect those who have more knowledge than I and am humble to keep learning new techniques.  All this technology has brought about an arrogance I just cannot fathom.  I know I kind of digressed here but these issues I feel are the real root cause of this musical pandemic.  

By the way, it warms my heart that there are like minded people on this forum who love and value music.  I feel very much alone on other forums when I try to make light of my concerns and I'm also labeled "elitist".  These days, if elitism equals respect towards a higher aesthetic, than call me that and I will hold it high with pride.

Yes, themes are not necessarily needed, and if one goes back to those early films when scores were more technically developed, you find any number of films where the busy score doesn't really fit what's going on on the screen.  That's probably what gets us into this thicket about technical competence.  Films have different demands score-wise, and sometimes some pretty basic stuff suits the film okay.  Just listen to some of the TV "scores."  An ominous note here and there, or a few block chords.  But I'll take these "minimalist" scores any day over the insipid folk songs that drone on in the background of some the TV shows.  They can't pull the plug on that practice too soon!

And lets not forget-- when it comes to movie scores, "Various Artists" is an equal or worse enemy than technical incompetence.

Who are these people trying to kid? Real achievement in the field of music composition is maybe the hardest human endeavour. Firstly, because you need the right physiology (perfect ear is ...perfect, but at least a musical ear is mandatory); then you need innate talent, there is no known way you can grow one. Thirdly, assuming those, one starts to learn as a child of primary school, all the way through and parallel to high-school (doctors and physicists learn the basics of their disciplines inside high-school, we have to do all that plus having our extra-curricular lessons and study), through to university, and after! Is there anyone serious here who can tell me they have stopped learning? As far as the MA is concerned, Hindemith was right when he proclaimed "How can anyone be called a Master of Music?!"

David I like how you make the analogy with martial arts. To excel in those also, you need the DNA given physical disposition, the innate talent, and of course the dedication and discipline, and years of learning and practice. If I may make one of my own, I think of Herrmann, Williams, etc. as black belts with some DAN on top, and the current Symphobes and Zimmerines as people who have taken a few self-defense classes.

And Tom, since you bring it up, "Various Artists" is exactly what the HZ factory is all about... The orchestra/synth blends that please you may not be one man's work, which by itself is not condemnable, but I always thought of composition as a very personal thing. I know there have been occasions (such as the Requiem in Italy and Glazunov's whatever it was in Russia) where composers collaborated, but never in such a faceless, characterless way...

Hi again, wrote the previous post before reading Fiery Angel's.  Is there really arrogance by those who use Garage Band, etc. towards musical education?  Perhaps so, but I haven't experienced it.  I think most people attempting to write music are aware of their limitations.  Whether or not they chose to educate themselves is another matter, as is public taste.  Who of us hasn't gone into a nice restaurant that's sort of empty, and when they turn it into a "suds and fun" place or some sort of disco bistro, the place is packed? 

On that note, there's a video on UTube of a DJ doing his "version" of Barber's Adagio for Strings--in an amphitheater to a huge crowd going nuts.  Well-- perhaps some of these listeners wondered a bit about where this piece came from and checked out more of Barber's stuff--done the real way.  Wistful thinking?

Whoa, this thread is zipping along.  I agree with you, Erikkos.  What I sometimes like in HZ's stuff is the sound coloration, and it could well be his staff that gets credit for that, for better or worse.  I just think, based mostly on his earlier stuff, he's more capable than he's getting credit for.  But I'll bet we wouldn't even be discussing this if he hadn't declined a lot in recent years.  At this point, he, along with some of the other film score guys, seems to have used up his pallet.

That's a good point about the study of martials arts vs. other arts!   Also, I don't mean to discount the use of melody in scores either.    I am just talking about how film can use either minimal musical elements OR elaborately developed structures derived from opera, symphony, etc.

@Another User said:

What really gets me hot under the collar is how people want to dismiss these things as old fashioned or outdated.  That's like saying "oh, we don't need to train doctors in physiology, biology, anatomy, chemistry, to prepare them for operating- they just need to have good interpersonal skills".  Or the bridge builder/architect who doesn't need to study physics, etc.  It's hilarious (not really) how often people confuse music with some artsy fartsy "anyone can do this" philosophy and dismiss the fact that its system is as deep as any applied science.  These techniques were developed because they sounded good! And they were built upon for several hundred years.  But, no, in the space of 2 decades, we have seen a dramatic disintegration of any respect or value in the system of music.  

I agree and have been harping on about that for years - no  historical knowledge of just about anything. Yes, you  have to move with the times. But these times we are moving in at the moment are an unmitigated disaster when it comes to any kind of art.  Art has more or less reflected society throughout the ages.

Well, just look at the current politcal scene in the US.  Talk about no historical knowledge.....