I've already explained about Torn Curtain many times.   He was fired by Hitchcock during the recording of the Torn Curtain score because Hitchcock was a sniveling wretch of a human being with no guts. Had he had any guts, he would have told the imbeciles from the studio to fuck off and mind their own business. The issue with Torn Curtain is not anything to do with the score. It's to do with the fact that the FILM does not understand what it it's meant to achieve. Is it a comedy? No. Is it a thriller? No. Is it a comedy thriller? No. Well then WTF is it?

Not even Hitchcock knew that and neither did anyone else. Ergo, the film is a flimsy example of the genre that Hitchcock worked in and none of it was helped by the fact the the two main actors, Julie Andrews (yes she was paid MORE than Paul Newman) and Paul Newman and were both hopelessly miscast.  They took up almost all of the budget of the film btw.

Audiences can't be expected to watch a fucking so-called thriller/comedy/bollocks when  the female lead could break into the Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious song at any given moment and take it seriously. And that, among other things, points to the Herrmann score. If you watch clips of the Herrmann score to Torn Curtain you immediately see that the film is way too lightweight to sustain a score like that based on my previous colourful comments. Herrmann didn't DO lightweight!!!!!!! The film had to collapse under that onslaught. So he was fired.

So Hollywood producers suddenly think they've done their bollocks and get in a composer they think is more user friendly.  The score needs a song. The score needs to be COMMERCIAL because the film needs to be commercial. Hitchcock cannot understand, because his ego won't let him. That the failure of the film in the rushes stage have nothing to do with Herrmann. Hitchcock was a great director, but he was a fucking coward too. And it's also a fact that Torn Curtain and the subsequent fiasco with Herrmann also marked the demise of his career.  People when talking about films, always seem to forget about the time they were made in. Very important. At the same time I was watching Torn Curtain at the cinema (no videos or DVD's in those days) a film like Goldfinger was released and it's natural that studios in those days compared films on an impact for impact basis. Very much a hangover from the recently defunct studio system of course and the competitiveness of all of that. 

Bernard Herrmann, on the other hand, hated Hollywood and thus moved to England for 6 months out of every year a little later on. While some of the films he scored were not memorable, you can usually find something in a Herrmann score. For instance, Fahrenheit blah blah blah is a crap film with  a great score. No one remembers the score because the film is crap. That's always the problem.  If you're going to make a crap film, for God sake at least get a good cinematographer in. Then you can at least watch well filmed crap.

But in the end; literarily the end, Herrmann came good with a seminal score for Taxi Driver. I'd like to hear any of the current crop of wankers in Hollywood come up with a score like that. What a lot of people forget, particularly with something like Psycho and the now extremely famous scoring for that film is, Herrmann, as indeed most film scorers, is sitting looking at something with NO SOUND to start from. Can anyone come up with something as good as that today.

NO!!!!!

That's what makes Herrmann, although not necessarily loved by all, the greatest film scorer in his particular genre of all time.

The difference between someone like Herrmann and todays scorer is basically computers. Most stuff today sounds like computer driven music and that is great if you're say, a Hans Zimmer fan, no musical knowledge, no education of any kind, can't play a musical instrument, can't get a girlfriend, like video games and are probably 12 and a poof.

Good evening.

Excellent points there old boy, yes, quite.  Deuced if I don't agree with all that rot.  Jolly good telling off those wankers into the bargain.   Pass the port would you old man?  Care for a cigar? 

-----------------

You are right Hitchcock was a coward.  Of course he was - that is why he was able to film fear so well.  Also Torn Curtain was truly a poor film, and made worse by Paul Newman in his arrogant pretty-boy mode before he became a good actor later on (like in The Verdict in which he was great).   But early in his career he just walked through parts looking handsome and pouty.   Also Juli Andrews? Huh?  That is almost as bad a casting as Doris Day in  Man Who Knew Too Much which was a better film though not very good either.   I like the old 30s version much more.    The only good scene in Torn Curtain is the killing of Gromek.  

@PaulR said:

The difference between someone like Herrmann and todays scorer is basically computers. Most stuff today sounds like computer driven music and that is great if you're say, a Hans Zimmer fan, no musical knowledge, no education of any kind, can't play a musical instrument, can't get a girlfriend, like video games and are probably 12 and a poof.

To paraphrase Isaac Goldberg I'll substitute the word 'song' for 'film music':

"The film music of today is machine-made, machine-played, machine-heard"...

And that was said 80 years ago.. This man was thankfully spared the comatose soundtracks of the 21st century, and the machines that make, play, and extoll them. I'd just like to say thanks for the very interesting lore gentlemen, keep it coming...

P.S.: I'd like to add that Herrmann was substituted by John Addison for 'Torn Curtain' after they realized what kind of movie they wanted to make - regardless of the actual results. Addison, although no Herrmann, was an excellent composer for whimsical, dark comedy, and slapstick. If I remember he did some wonderful scores for 'Start the Revolution Without Me' (Gene Wilder at his best if you like that sort of thing), 'Sleuth' (the Olivier one), 'Murder by Death' (fun cult film), etc.

Yes,  John Addison was good but should not have had to compete with Herrmann.  I did see Start the Revolution Without Me.  "Crazy?  Crazy!!??  You think I'm crazy?  Do you want to see crazy?  I'll show you crazy..."   

Sleuth was good because of those actors.  Sir Larry and Michael Caine going at it.  Who cares what they go at? 

Yeah - all scores are influenced. Either by Herrmann or Holst or Elgar or VW or Copland or rock bands. That is a bad thing generally. Why? Because filmscore music by it's nature is always influenced due to external pressures such as temp tracks and whims. Goldsmith borrowed from Elmer Bernstein and visa versa and you can hear it sometimes. Wagner is also a good one to borrow from.

You can't take a piss on a music forum without someone trying to sound like John Williams. But what's even more ridiculous than that is they try and sound like John Williams did 35 YEARS AGO! 

Not many of them try and sound like Herrmann. Why? Because they can't. It's too minimalist and way too difficult to get that kind of composition to stick in your head with the extremes in orchestration.. Herrmann was minimalist. He would take a line and repeat it over and over again to great effect. For example - Cape Fear. People will argue but you listen to attempts in film of a Herrmann style. It never sounds convincing. And actually, neither does a Williams copy either. The issue is about originality. Listen to Alan Silvestri try Herrmann in What Lies Beneath. A fun film that tries, again, to do Hitchcock.

And yet when Silvestri did his own thing in Predator, it sounded extremely good and worked brilliantly with a film of that style. Very percussive which suits someone like Silvestri. Plus a lot of these writers work with orchestrators. Herrmann didn't. How can you get original orchestrations like Herrmann when someone else is doing the orchestrations. The whole thing, to be an original sound should probably be orchestrated by the original writer. No one is interested in crap like time constraints ect. That's all bollocks and excuses.

The difference probably today is Herrmann, Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith etc were influenced mainly by classical composers and jazz writers. Today, filmscore writers are influenced by filmscore writers. That's bad news if you're into original. Hans Zimmer for example has very successfully used his rock and pop background to wow uneducated children into believing that the films they watch actually have any artistic value.

Back to the topic though and I would say that the only interesting thing about Torn Curtain and the issues surrounding it, was that it marked the demise of Hitchcock and a spell in the doldrums for Herrmann, who was subsequently rediscovered by a new wave of directors at the time.

@PaulR said:

The difference probably today is Herrmann, Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith etc were influenced mainly by classical composers and jazz writers. Today, filmscore writers are influenced by filmscore writers.

 

That is the truest, most obvious, and saddest case of affairs... The result of expected degeneration concomitant with the perpetual cloning of the latest generation clone.

The main reasons that soundtracks sound the way they do today is because they are composed by glorified DJs, and music graduates who stand as the hallmarks of the state of affairs (and standards) in conservatories today, even places like Juilliard... It's the reason why Mr. T. Morris got so upset with Paul in the other thread. He - justifiedly - thinks that since he works professional contracts, since he got an Emmy and who knows how many congratulatory and adulatory(!) e-mails by milliards of lesser DJs who wish they were him, that he is hot stuff compositionally... I would really like it if orchestrators went on strike like the writers did, and then these non entities would have to do everything themselves. I would really love to see those emperors draped in the fabric of their own talent exclusively...

I haven't seen 'Inception' yet, but from all the other soundtracks I know, to compare You-Know-Who with Herrmann is like comparing Herrmann with Beethoven. That 'Inception' music must really be a new chapter for that composer to make such comparisons viable.

And people would you wake up already??!! Music is not just about timbres; I keep hearing all about "interesting timbres" in soundtracks, let me tell you three things: a) that's probably because "interesting timbres" is all that's left to talk about (says a lot about the composers' works), b) timbre is only one, and secondary at that, aspect of music (don't throw spectral crap at me please). Film scorers today have no clue what melody, harmony, counterpoint, structure, drama, and orchestration are. Oh, but they "know" timbre... They can tweak virtual knobs... Isn't Mozart swirling inside his communal grave because he was born too early for virtual knobs... Think of what he would have accomplished in the auspicious realm of timbre... c) Artistic timbre manipulation has been the heart and soul of electronic (especially academic electronic) music for the last few decades. It is there that you will experience real awe of what is possible in timbre by really  talented people; not in pathetic, amateur twaddlers that merely scrape the dusty surface of soil from which others have mined gems long ago.

The most powerful computer, and the most compensatory A.I. compositionally/orchestrationally suggestive software available today, cannot hide these "professionals'" ignorance, giftlessness, and ineptitude. Go home guys, wait a few years, I'm sure the technological minds that contributed so much to humanity by making the atom bomb, tomatoes with frog D.N.A. in them, and Hollywoodwinds, will one day surprise you by perfecting what will be called Virtual Composer. You, the mega-talents, the creators, will only be required to press a few buttons to compose some other programmers' piece, but one to which you'll hold the copyright, and that's what counts right? You'll get paid, and ignorami around the globe will be paying commentorial pilgrimage to your YouTube channell-temples of crass.

"In the last resort film music should be judged solely as music - that is to say, by the ear alone, and the question of its value depends on whether it can stand up to this test".  Arthur Bliss

And he was exposed to great soundtracks. Can you imagine his comments today?..

I also spoke deploringly about the latest Potter, but didn't make references to the film for I thought most people would go see it (you didn't make specific references to 'Inception' for the same reasons I take it), and also because I feel by now people here would know exactly the narrative, characters and scenes involved after seven instalments. However, I did see the film and commented from a complete viewpoint. And admittedly it isn't just Zimmer. If all these people involved in scoring movies today could write better, they would. They just can't. I just hope it is a phase - like House music, that will become a distant memory sooner than later. My problem is that I actually believe things will get a lot worse.

It's exactly because of your analogy with lieder that I don't think you could swap the soundtracks for many films (except for recent films which all have more or less the same buzz for soundtrack). Sure, most people wouldn't notice, but on a deeper level of understanding a lot would be lost. It is the same with the lieder. I don't care what is sung in Diechterliebe or Schwanengesang for I don't speak German. I love the songs but you could switch the poems around and if they fit the music I couldn't care less. However, I don't think I share the same understanding of them with German-speaking people (even though I have read the translations - I enjoyed the songs even before I'd done that anyway). So, most people would not notice if the soundtracks of 'Born Free' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' for example were swapped and would enjoy the films as before. I on the other hand...

Without disagreeing with what you say in general, I wouldn't knock Hollywood film on that score (pun intended). Let's not forget that most European film before Hollywood's huge influence, and leaving Britain out of it, did not pay too much attention to dramatic detail when it came to music. You could have great actors of the age acting out a great script, being brilliantly directed and filmed, and the whole music would be 5-8 recorded cues, capturing say the main characters' themes and some relevant moods of the story, and which then would be allocated again and again throughout the film at "appropriate" places in the action. Now the actual music of those cues was truly inspired for the most part, and that's why this system doesn't just collapse when you watch these films today, although it is painfully obvious to an aficionado. There are of course exceptions, but this was the norm, and this practice amazingly still goes on strongly at times. Someone could talk about budgetary restrictions and such but I don't buy that for a second, certainly not from so-perceived high-brow artiste directors and producers of this continent. They were/are just downright ignorant/undeveloped for the most part. No matter how inspired their ideas were/are for prose and cinematography, they inexplicably belong beneath dilettantism musically. If Hollywood learned some things from the European art-film, European film learned something about musical richness and subtlety from across the ocean.

@PaulR said:

Listen to Alan Silvestri try Herrmann in What Lies Beneath. A fun film that tries, again, to do Hitchcock.

I hated What Lies Beneath.  In fact, it is one of the most senseless and illogical and absurd films I ever saw.   Its absurdity blossoms for days after you have seen it, and keep thinking -  my god, another thing that makes no sense.  So what the hell are you talking about that is a fun film?  Are you out of your Limey mind?  

However Silvestri has done some very good things - that Tom Berenger film about the man who loses his memory - interesting psychological thriller much better than What Lies Beneath.  Also as the Limey mentions, Predator.  Wow, that music score was awesome!  Better than the movie or even Schwarzenegger's muscles.  The brass writing in that was powerful, beautifully played.  

@William said:

Are you out of your Limey mind?  

According to my last psych report......almost certainly yes.

When I say a 'fun film' you're obviously well aware I'm talking about how the two main actors really enjoy hamming it up in a very stylized way. I merely used  What Lies Beneath to illustrate an obvious example of "let's try and make a film like Hitchcock and use a Herrmann score because what else is there to do on a saturday?" 

Sometimes they work though. For instance, Blow Up and Blow Out. Although not Hitchcock in that case.

Erik - I'm not convinced about your Hollywood theory on how it seemingly influenced European film. I'm sure you're right, but Hollywood was not exactly what you would call all- American throughout much of it's inception. The strength Hollywood had was the ability to draw from all over the world. Most of the studios, actors and musicians and many directors were mostly european extraction with a strong Jewish contingent. Herrmann wasn't exactly Church of England was he? First generation American from Russia who wanted to be English. 

You're right of course Paul, a lot of the important contributors and pioneers of what became Hollywood were first generation European immigrants. I think a lot of them were the early-bird sort before they were tainted by the pseudo-socialism that became, and still is the undisputed status quo in European cinema. In that respect, the American scripts  and issues for a lot of movies were considered silly, or parochial, or just entertainment by European creators who instead focused on "issues", existentialism etc. Good and bad on either side, my small point was that, for some reason, film music as an integral part of the action developed seriously in Hollywood as a canon rather than here (i.e. allowing for exceptions). The great European composers were for the most part limited to a few - albeit brilliantly written - cues per film, while their American counterparts were giving each film the Wagnerian treatment.

Yes, Blow Out was de Palma's best film.  It was a financial failure and he did a crash-dive into the nethermost Cesspools of Cinema after that.  Besides George Lucas, de Palma is the most disappointing American director who came to prominence in the 70s because he seemed very talented back then.  

You're right that many if not most of the great Hollywood studio era directors and composers were from Europe, especially the Expressionist-influenced directors and cinematographers from UFA like Fritz Lang who profoundly influenced American film especially in film noir,  horror and mystery.  So at that time the European influence was immense and extremely good for America.  I never thought of that idea of Errikos - that the film music was less developed in Europe than in America at that time,  but perhaps it is true simply because the great composeers such as Korngold, Max Steiner, Dmitri Tiomkin who came to America were given more power by the studio system than existed then.  

However,  now all of that is gone.  There are equally huge piles of garbage being produced on all continents. 

Quite a few serious composers toyed with the idea of writing film music like Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Varese, Honegger, Milhaud, etc., but it was only those that relied more on inspiration and had natural melodic and voice-leading gifts (like Prokofiev), and/or naturally composed very fluently and fast, that could churn out great music at the time allotted, as could Shostakovich and a few others. Stravinsky asked for a year and was shown the door but at that stage of his life he had started becoming financially more comfortable than his early days and probably did not care to accommodate. If only Schoenberg had lived long enough to serially score Warhol's "watersheds" such as "Sleep", "Blow Job", "Trash", etc. It would compel me to buy the Complete Collector's Editions of those.

@PaulR said:

The difference probably today is Herrmann, Williams, Bernstein, Goldsmith etc were influenced mainly by classical composers and jazz writers. Today, filmscore writers are influenced by filmscore writers

I agree and think this is a major idea.  It is as if today's composers are influenced by the influenced. 

This reminds me of fantasy novels today.  They are all the same, and all copies of Tolkien.  But Tolkien was copying not other authors.  He was copying ancient myths, sagas, folktales and legends.  Like a medieval storyteller, recasting ancient ideas in his own way.  But if you  copy him, rather than going to the real source of inspiration,  you are copying a copy.  It is not primary source, it is not secondary source, it is tertiary or worse.   In other words, derivative and insipid to the Nth degree.  (And of course it does not help if the style is in a banal modern 3rd person omniscient as if a street-smart newspaperman from New York was recording the thoughts of ancient people and mythical creatures.)