Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

183,081 users have contributed to 42,273 threads and 254,977 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 0 new thread(s), 4 new post(s) and 49 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Orchestration & Composition
  3. Your Music
  4. Bernard Herrmann - Unconventional orchestrations
  • E
    E
    last edited
    last edited

    @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.
  • B
    B
    the worst trend and I suppose it is more to do with younger people or I suppose my generation not understanding film music and what it really is but when someone says they make film score music but they are just making music that sounds like Zimmer. ARgg. Until music is locked to picture, it isn't a score. Film music is not a genre. And then those that critic the score based on the cd sort of ignoring the whole point. No point in trying to argue. I read a few critics regarding the Harry Potter score and although I had no seen the movie, the guy did no reference the movie once. He just commented on the CD audio. Since i'm gripping, my other pet peeve is the new generation and I suppose i'm part of it but how they have completely phased out wood winds going for that block chord tutti brass and string sound that is just too cliche. You know who is a rather better composer who does the Zimmer ish style movies is John Powell. He can be very diverse and he tries to avoid cliches when he can. And then there is Brian Tyler mostly for that silly cut he used to have and Rabin. Well I could name a bunch that really make the movie for me a no go. ANyways, enough bitching!! HAve a nice weekend!
  • E
    E

    "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.
  • B
    B
    I find that most scores just lack thought. Even if he/she isn't the most gifted composer, understanding the movie and why music should be there and what it is doing not so much a priority. I mean ya, they think about it in superficial terms like , oh that character is bad, play bad character music. But just thinking about the movie first hand really dissecting all the nuances and then tailoring the music so that the music fits like a glove. I don't think you have to take the traditional approach of having a theme for everything , in fact I would say that obvious motives unless extremely well done rather distracting and sort of insulting and obvious. That is what I think would be nice. I often feel like you could swap soundtracks for many films and most people would not notice as it isn't really essential or part of the movie. You have a movie and this sentimental music that is played on top of it. An analogy would be the great lieders and how they were joined to poems for a piece that cannot be seperated as without one or the other, you have nothing,
  • E
    E

    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...
  • B
    B
    I don't think I conveyed my argument properly. What I am saying is that sound tracks have become less tied to the movie similar in a way I suppose you could compare a pop song with a lieder. The chords work with the pop song but there isn't much tying the words and the chords. This is what I mean when I say you could swap soundtracks and do a particular style rather convincingly because most cues are cliches that are done in every movie, I"m not saying all film scores but many of them feel quite under thought. I would say that being out of school for 2 years, I have so much to learn but when I watch a movie and lets say the drama is getting more and more subdued where the film is using camera angles giving the impression of a feeling of descent and a sense of closure, you have the composer ending the cue with a blaring half cadence in the horns. The thing I can think is that the composer just liked the sound of it and didn't put much thought other than that. I don't want to blame the composers outright as I don't know the details and I often feel that perhaps it is a time issue and quality suffers not to mention that hollywood styled movies tend to not care so much about the concept of unity and coherence which I suppose is a reflection of the American mainstream in general. I really do miss seeing a good film and a good soundtrack.
  • E
    E

    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.
  • W
    W
    last edited
    last edited

    @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.  

  • P
    P
    last edited
    last edited

    @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. 
  • E
    E

    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.
  • W
    W

    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. 

  • B
    B
    It was viewed in Europe as the lesser art form as far as music is concerned and these composers from Europe were probably happy to just make a living composing. The only country I can think of is Russia with Prokofiev and Shostakovich but I see the political climate really pushing artists to make Russian films/propaganda . I remember reading about Copland was commissioned for a film and he made it clear that he would not make any compromises. I think that sort of gives a slight insight to his view of the film making process.
  • E
    E

    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.
  • W
    W
    last edited
    last edited

    @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.)
  • P
    P

    That's part of the reason people complain about the state of films today. Especially the ones out of Hollywood.  The influence aspect is not so surprising though because if you take that to directors, cinematographers, script writers and so on - they must have all been influenced by the same ilk. In the early days of film making there was of course no one to influence anyone because film had never been done before. So there is a very static approach akin to stage plays. Technology then advances etc especially with cameras and camera techniques. Hitchcock, for instance, learnt a lot of his technique in Munich during the early 20's.

    The worse case scenario for me is when I feel I'm watching a video game. Then it just goes straight off.
  • K
    K

    Boys, let me thank you for all the postings about Herrmann and his successors.

    It forced me to watch Psycho I again after many years. What a mindblowing masterpiece !

    While also reading the TRON 2 thread here ( OMG, some really Shakespeare-like native speaker comments keep coming over there [:)]     )  I felt a little bit surrounded by a group discussing over the popular theme about "The glory of the good old times" .

    IMO making a copy is O.K., as long as the quality is good and it brings a new feeling to the concept.

    There´s no point in bashing the car companies because of the fact, that wheels had already been invented in ancient times.

    But the problems with it seem to be comparable :

    Why do so many people admire the "original" cars from the 60s/70s. All the "SteveMcQueen" Ford Mustang platforms, the old  Mercedes and Citroen DS ?

    One point for sure is that many misjudge the good old time with the time when they were young. Everything was great back there.

    I think nobody is free from that. The quote of everybodies parents that it was better in the past and the younger people would lack quality and competence is as old as mankind.

    Nevertheless I totally agree with all your comments. In search of a proof that we still have great composers and films today I found it really hard to come up with something. The best example for something really brilliant and new for me was the Martinez soundtrack on Solaris. Musically and regarding the film itself as well. Being a copy of an older Tarkowski idea, I like the copy more than the original.

    Mabye some die hard "art deco Bauhaus" fans will disagree, but the original is just too heavy for me, so I prefer the Hollywood style much more for that piece, even if it may be critiziced as more soap washed.The idea for the the soundtrack I still consider one of the most wonderful pieces in the last years.

    There are also other ones, but somtimes you get caught in a trap.

    The example for a really good soundtrack even on a TV series proofed as wrong to my surprise : The Band of Brothers Main theme would absolutely fulfill my criteria for a great score. Unfortunately I learned that Michael Kamen died in 2003.

    So I hate to say it : Unfortunately it seems to be true. Or as a friend of mine used to put it : "I don´t go to concerts anymore. All the people I want to see are dead."

    Greetings

    kh
  • W
    W

     Yeah, you are right we should not lapse into the "everything was great back then and bad today with these young whippersnappers" stuff.   I don't think that actually.  Though I disagree about Solaris which I did not like the remake of. It is true that Tarkovsky didn't even want to make a sci-fi film.  It is not a really successful film of his.  It was too much another author's work.  He was very much a "personal" auteur filmmaker, and if made to do a studio type film was being distorted.   Stalker is his real masterpiece.   Only suggestively sci-fi, and extremely philosophical/metaphysical.  It is one of the greatest of all films ever made, in addition to Nostalghia.    Now you've started me thinking about Tarkovsky.  I love The Mirror also.  btw Tarkovsky was extremely sparing in his use of film music.  Most of the time there is absolutely none at all.  [:O]
  • E
    E

    Re: Stalker

    You're a better man than me William; I switched the video off somewhere in the middle of that interminable train-ride in silence... 
  • J
    J
    last edited
    last edited

    @William said:

     Yeah, you are right we should not lapse into the "everything was great back then and bad today with these young whippersnappers" stuff.   I don't think that actually. 

     

    It would be interesting to look into the future and see what this forum would be like 30 or 40 years from now.  Those "whippersnappers" might be posting things like, "what happened to the good ol' days when we use to just write block chords and let our sequencer's arpeggiators do all the work?  Now everything has to be so thought out, planned and emotional.  Now, everybody is so concerned with score structure and craft.  Composers, if they want to call themselves that, are so concerned with writing themes and motiffs and counterpoint like those old boring Classical composers use to do.  You're all a bunch of HACKS!!!  You hear me?!?!  YOU HACKS!!!  By the way, can somebody tell me what the hell is an arpeggio anyway?  Nobody could ever write like H.Z.  Man those were the days.  Discussions could get quite heated like they do today.

    Then of course Dietz would have to issue the dreaded stern 'I'm about to shut this thread down' warning but the posters wouldn't know what he's talking about because poor Dietz has gotten a little senile in his old age and he posted his warning in the wrong thread[|-)]

    Just kidding Dietz[:D]  Happy New Year to you!
  • J
    J
    last edited
    last edited

    @Errikos said:

    Re: Stalker

    You're a better man than me William; I switched the video off somewhere in the middle of that interminable train-ride in silence... 

    Yeah Tarkovsky was kind of hard to swallow for me too.  I thought The Sacrifice was kind of interesting up until the end when the woman just starts screaming on the floor for no apparent reason, then Tarkovsky just lost me. 

    Hey Erikk,

    I understand you're Greek?  What do you think of the director Theo Angelopolous?  I've heard some call him the Greek Stanley Kubrick.  I absolutely loved Ulysess' Gaze.  Some would find those long shots (some nearly four minutes in length) excruciating but I thought they were composed so beautifully.  Also, the film worked like a book where each shot worked like an individual chapter and could stand on its own.  Not to mention the things happening off camera that worked very well to tell the story.  It was kind of like the 'don't show the monster' method that works so well in the horror genre although Ulysess' Gaze isn't a Horror film (of course that depends on how you look at it considering the subject matter of the sometimes volatile Balkins).

    However, I don't agree with the Stanley Kubrick label.  Aside from his other attributes, Kubrick had a way of painting his vision on screen with light.  The next Kubrick film you watch pay particular attention to how he lights his scenes.  Make no mistake, the DP in Kubrick's films was just an assistant to Kubrick.  Kubrick was in charge of all the lighting and photographic composition in his films.  I have yet to see any other film director master lighting the way Kubrick did.  Not even Angelopolous whose work I admire.