Friendly answers:

First, you have to define the terms 'emotional' and 'dramatic' (especially if it's "very") a little better and in musical terms if possible, so that there be established a more common frame of reference for everybody, otherwise any one of us can say "for me, so-and-so sounds 'emotional' and very 'dramatic', etc."... One has to try and explain what is great to them in music (as ultimately elusive and futile an endeavour as that is). 

With this in mind, I would say that the two You Know Who's tracks you provided are in my opinion the best tracks, absolutely quintessential in demonstrating the degree of unmusicality, ineptitude, and charlatanism in film-music today. The first track emotional? In what way exactly, and how was this achieved musically? I would reserve this track for a video that featured blades of grass grow (slowly), gradually panning away to an establishing shot of a lawn as the dynamics increase and more pads (for that's what they are) are added. Similarly, how is the second track original? Imaginative?!? Either of them melodious?!?!? Always in musical terms. If you have never heard something like this, it is because no one before You Know Who that wrote this badly ever made it to a professional recording studio. However, it does ring quite a bit like a lot of loud Philip Glass of the '70s, only Glass had more music in his pieces (and that's saying something).

I'm saying all this with a very friendly attitude, but keep in mind that symphonic music (filmic or otherwise) has been developing for hundreds of years by the most imaginative and brilliant geniuses, who possessed incredible ears and talent for the art. Technique, whether one likes it or not, is something that has been shared by everyone that has made an indelible mark in the field, and whose music has been revered and enjoyed by millions, or even smaller number of connoisseurs. Of course some may have had more talent and technique than others, and it shows! It is a little like literature. It is that much harder to articulate higher thoughts or deep feeling when one's vocabulary is restricted to no higher than two-syllable words.

But if simplicity and economy are also much coveted qualities in composition, we must not confuse them with vacuity. To cite two great examples of many (if not the whole of Mozart), the opening of Fanfare for the Common Man, and the genius score of the Adagio for Strings (which in my opinion should hang on every student composer's wall), they're almost empty pages; almost no ink... But Power? Emotion? Drama? Landmarks! It is not necessarily complexity that adds quality to a musical work. In fact, Star Wars' main title is not as busy on the page as your ears may trick you to believe. Williams is great primarily because of his technique (he's no melodist to brag about you know...), which (among other things) allows him to communicate maximum content with maximum transparency (the least "dead weight"). No matter how inspired you are you cannot create a score like The Prizoner of Azkaban without copious amounts of technique. H.Z. uses the same number of instruments (if not fewer) but sounds like he's dragging a mountain behind him. Don't shy away from technique because it's bloody hard and takes years to develop. Even Copland's and Barber's deceptively simple pieces mentioned above are products of highly skilled technicians. Another way to think about it is: Name three composers who deliberately use less technique than they possess (and again technique is not synonymous to complexity). Even Hans is doing what he can and no less.

As far as complexity is concerned, there are footages and directors that ask for it, and there are many moments in film when it has sounded appropriate. I admit that repetitive passages can, and have been appropriate in scoring certain scenes, and great composers have used ostinati very fittingly. However, to replace complexity for scoring action, thriller, comedy, cartoon, sci-fi, with endlessly copy-pasting lines on top of one another in different octaves while miking some taikos and tumbling them down the stairs is not 'minimalism' (Adams, Gorecki, Kilar, Reich, Nyman); that's just fraud...

You didn't bring any arguments to the table for me or others to change our minds, only opinions; and there is a great difference. Also, why should we be prepared to "change [our] minds, no matter what argument comes to the table", when you're not? I actually argued my point(s) to a little extent and asked you to clarify your vague and personal opinions and elaborate on them using musical terms and ideas, so that we can all relate to you and be able to contribute. You chose not to answer anything.

To say that it's all personal, means that nothing anybody says (including yourself) has any value whatsoever. To say that "art is more complex than technique itself" also fails to contribute anything to the proceedings, since nobody disputes that. However, technique/sophistication is a vital aspect to any art, and more so in music, which I would say is the most "honest" of the arts. If one deliberately eschews technique from the equation during the creation of a musical work (say John Cage), they'd better have a great reason for doing so. Hans doesn't, and like I said in my previous post, he actually uses as much technique as he can muster. Because his best technique is actually bad technique, he may be giving you the impression that technique for him is not important; and that is just not so.

Donethur - yes I have to be honest and say I thought Inception was an extremely emotional soundtrack. I watched the film not knowing it was Hans Zimmer, thinking it was amazing. Not necessary amazing as a piece of technical orchestration as such, but amazingly emotional to hear and perfect for the film.

Your reasoning is really blinkered, hilarious, and at some points indecipherable (lines 6-8) so I'm just going to mention three more things:

a) The creator of this topic did not use the same words as you did. He's actually well versed in music, and you'll find he didn't say much that was different to what I said. And how am I supposed to know you were addressing Dan specifically since you started your post with the words "Do you think..." without mentioning his name?

b) Do you consider people to be open-minded and willing to explore new ideas only when they agree with you? I'm quite open-minded for I took the time to click on your links, listen to the entire tracks, and discuss them while expressing my ideas and whatever logic behind them. You on the other hand refuse to enter into a friendly discourse, or take the time to contradict my points sequentially, logically, and offer any counter-arguments of your own. Instead, you just flatly deny any credence to my positions, invoking subjectivity for aesthetics (how hard is that...)

c) Even after all this, you still finish your post by insisting that Hans - in your opinion - is "very expressive,..., has original ideas, and has a lot of public who likes his work". Well, how is your opinion of any interest to any of us here in a symphonic forum, when you don't communicate to us any ideas about it at all, so that we may partake of your thinking? "very expressive"? Very?? How? Compared to what music that is, say merely expressive. "Original ideas"? Where? Which? That is not even an opinion... "Lot of public who like his work"? Since when is that a criterion for excellence? Bieber has a "Lot of public who like his work". So? This isn't YouTube or Facebook. This is the VSL forum; we tend to be a little more specific in the presentation of our ideas here (not required, but useless othewise).

Nothing personal of course.

P.S.: Dan posted before me, so I would also invite him to elucidate what he found in that music to have been "extremely emotional", with comparisons to other soundtracks of note which are by his standard significantly less expressive than Inception's.

The score to Inception is heavy and obtrusive in a  far, far worse way than any older film music I've heard.  In fact, it is so obnoxious that it is PAINFUL to listen to.  The fact is, Zimmer is writing for the distorted listening mentality of people today who have been conditioned to NEED A WALL OF NOISE.  That is what he composes - WALLS OF NOISE.  EVeryone now is terrified of silence.  They are afraid to be in a still, calm, beautiful forest with no wall of noise surrounding them, and actually become physically disturbed as a result of their mind-control conditioning by modern corporate culture.  The idea that this Zimmer pablum is deeply emotional and expressive music is grotesque. It is slick, decadent, idiotic and dumbed-down pop trivia that passes for film music.

It is of course true, that great technique does not automatically make a great composer.

On the other hand, technical skill enables a composer to express what is required for the film more easily.

I think, Hans Zimmer is a good film-composer for the energy, the drive and - yes - also for the emotion that his tracks contribute to films, but if he knew more techniques of expression than string staccati and swelling string carpets (sorry Hans! Only metaphorically speaking - I know I´m being unfair here) he could be much better.

For example, I would have found the dramatic track Donethur linked even more dramatic, if it was less steady in its way to the climax. I also think, the track would require more atonality. That is what I think of the whole Inception soundtrack. It really drives the film forward and gives a lot of energy and emotions, but it lacks the disturbance of the situation of travelling in dreams.

On the other hand, I really like the emotionality of "Time", although it has these swelling string carpets again...

I think Zimmer has introduced some good things into scoring films that were unknown before him, but he is not as widespread in expression as many of the "older" composers (and even some of the younger ones like Desplat) are, which sometimes gives (at least me) the impression of "all Zimmer scores sounding alike"

william - it wasn't an intellectual appraisal, I just found that the music made me feel emotional and heavily involved while I was watching the film, when I was ignoring it. it was a subconscious effect it had on me. If you found it painful to listen to then that was your experience, but this is subjective. It can't be that I'm 'terrified of silence'. I like peace and quiet.

Listened to on its own I found the music to have some quite effective chord changes, and it makes a nice atmopshere but yes it's a bit boring and repetitive. All I can say is, for me, when watching the film, it did its job very well. It's subjective maybe, or maybe you just can't hear its good qualities because of your tastes and prejudices.

@Donethur said:

I think the music is something to love, not to hate

I agree with you there.

Maybe more than anything it is the universality of Zimmer now that is irritating to me.  Like having that same stuff shoved down your throat over and over, as if it's better than anything else when there are many guys as good or better who don't get the time of day.  That is what gets me... 

@Donethur said:

Friendly question: do you think this is not emotional? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8 question 2: do you think this is not original? (talking about imagination). IMO it is a very dramatic piece and I havent heard something like this (sorry if there was something similar and I havent heard it yet). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imamcajBEJs&feature=related rgds :)

Dramatic? Ok then. That's great if you're just a member of the audience and a musical moron at the same time. Haven't seen the film but the music is just the same. Chord, chord, chord chord etc with no real justification about anything. It's about as dramatic as my asshole during a fizzy fit of gastro enteritis.  I get worried about chords that people think are marvellous. I can write chords. But  I can't write this.

I have very little interest in films today. Last night I watched Fallen Angel from 1945. Ever seen that? Know who did the score? It's not a great score and film noir can be weird but you may as well listen to Raksin as anyone else writing for film today. Most people today would s h i t themselves if they sat next to someone who can actually play an instrument really well. People walking the street with day jobs are better players than most of the bozos who write for film. You need to understand that. I know children aged 12 that play keyboards in the way that guys like Hans Z can only dream of.

@ Donethur:

Set the Field "Content Editor" in your user profile (Register "Communication") to "Enhanced" instead of "plain text". This enables you to write paragraphs.

And If I my quote you:

...music is something to love, not to hate.

Well said, I agree 100%.

This is something we all should keep in mind. No matter which particular composer we prefer.

@Donethur said:

Paul, do you have better tracks than Zimmer?, can I hear one of those?, that would be interesting to hear.

Here's one of his that's better than Zimmer.  I've heard others of his.  Though Paul wouldn't say that and is actually rather modest about his compositions and mainly claims to be a pianist, he is actually a very good composer.  

The track sounds pretty good as a 60s/70s Americana pastiche, but it's a bit corny and cheesy.

If you honestly believe that this is better than Zimmer's Inception soundtrack then, well, the polite thing to say is that it's a matter of personal taste.  A more honest thing to say is that maybe you're actually just a bit old and stuck in the past.