Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

183,660 users have contributed to 42,310 threads and 255,128 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 1 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 54 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Orchestration & Composition
  3. Your Music
  4. A Question About the Decline of the Quality of Film Music
  • E
    E

    Interesting article rverne, thanks. I don't have enough time or space here to expound my views to a satisfactory degree, so I have to be presumptuous of some common concensual ground most of the time, and leave some thoughts unexplored. However, I don't ever - I hope - resort to empty rhetoric as noldar12 suggests some people do here (and they do), I believe I always put some thoughts behind every notion, even if they are fire-glazed most of the time...


    So, keeping this in mind, on with some rhetoric:


    a) Adorno is not to be taken seriously as he was a militant Marxist, hence not at all objective. He would appreciate Mozart's G minor symphony only through a political prism - no purism there. Additionally, Schoenberg is not just miles below Stravinsky alone in the musical pyramid, but below Bartok, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Scriabin, the list continues for some time... For I judge nobody in terms of influence as most others do (Mozart and Brahms created no 'schools'); but solely on the basis of their musical worth. Of course this is subjective, but I challenge everybody here to have a look at their CD collections (the ones they paid for exclusively) and make their own list of preferences...


    b) I always hated the marquee 'Modernism'. It sounds vital and alive, but artistically it means nothing at all, other than indicating currency and favour. All those twirps 100 years ago handcuffed themselves in their blinkered arrogance and 'avant-garde' syndromes, by calling their art 'modern' (I guess there was nothing else positive to call it). As decades passed as a matter of course and techniques and methodologies changed, they needed to call their newer artistic accomplishments something else. They were the 'modern' ones then (in mode, in vogue), but predecessors had already used the term 'modern' for ideas and art that had germinated 30-40 years before them. So, still blinkered, they named their era 'post-modern', leaving the obvious problem for the next generation to deal with...


    I've always sneered at that term since my student days, for it represented nothing (like Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo, Classicism, Romanticism, Symbolism - and even Neo Classicism and Neo Romanticism to a lesser degree - do). Any nomenclature with the prefix 'Post-' or 'Anti-' is a joke to begin with. It has some meaning initially before a novel philosophical or artistic trend has taken final shape, as it separates it from what preceded it, but down the timeline it has to be defined on its own terms; not those of the previous school of thought or expression, under any circumstances. Is Neo-Post-Modernism in its infancy?...


    c) Peter Franklin in rverne's article uses the term 'symphonic' appropriately, whereas I have used it in this forum conventionally. Using proper terms and frameworks then, it is impossible and unnecessary to compare proper symphonic music to film-music, and their respective composers. As much as we admire Herrmann, Kornglod, Steiner (to use names from the article), but also Waxman, Tiomkin, Rozsa, and Williams, one would know very little about music not to understand how these masters can be Olympians / Mt. Rushmore figures in film-music, and next to absolutely invisible in symphonic music and its history, both at the same time.


    They all wrote for orchestra, but the two art-forms could scarcely be more different in artistic scope and quality (just ask Herrmann, Korngold, and Williams). Rushmore with them on one side; the Himalayas with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky (I obviously disagree with Franklin on this one), Debussy, Ravel, Stravisnky, Bartok, and many-many-many-many countless others on the other. They all wrote great music! The former wrote great film-music, the latter great art-music; and that's not just an opinion, but a global consensus and understanding that even the greatest film-composers have and also have no problem with. One can disagree so long as they're aware of that fact.


    There is some "justice" involved, in that say Milhaud's film-music is embarrassingly inferior to Herrmann's or William's, whereas his 2nd violin concerto defecates on William's own. They're just two different areas of artistic endeavour, with minor similarities.


    d) Aren't feminist musicologists the saddest and most hilarious bunch? I've also had to read articles and journals of the like... Well, Beethoven just should have known better back in 1803, and not just scribble what crap came naturally to him then. Obviously not a sensitive, caring guy... [:P]


    I believe I have provoked enough people for one post so I'll just leave it there.



    P.S.: Deconstructionism is the punchline of the worst philosophical joke, and there's no way I am going to write a diatribe to defend that! 
  • W
    W

    I agree with all that provocation from Errikos the Spear-Thrower except for the general put-down of film music. 

    The reasons are that first of all, it is impossible to judge film music in the same way as Beethoven, Mozart, and other great classical composers because it has only been around for about 60-80 years, depending on which film music you call the first really characteristic work for the medium.  So you cannot say much about its lasting value because not enough time has elapsed.

    Secondly, there are some great works in film music that sound truly great as concert music.  Herrmann of course, but also others.  But that is not the real essence of the creation of film music.  It is essential that it be PART of the film/music duality.  So a proud concert composer like Stravinsky looked down upon it, and why?  Because he never took the time to understand what it needs.  He dismissed it from the standpoint of established musical forms.   Very unimaginative of such an otherwise imaginative artist.  And any concert composer could write some music that might be great as music, but utterly wretched as film music.  What that indicates is NOT that it is an inferior medium artistically.  It is different technically.  It is not only unfair, but aesthetically incorrect to compare a symphony or other concert form to film music, judge the film music to be inferior on those terms, and then decide "Yes, film music is inferior."  If for example, Beethoven wrote a ballet score with brilliant thematic development and use of form - it would mean nothing.  And therefore he would have created bad ballet music (assuming he did that which he didn't of course) but a beautiful symphonic composition.  Or on the other hand, to say that an opera is very weak because it doesn't have the dramatic realism of Eugene O'Neill.  That would be absurd, because the purpose of the drama in opera is essentially different.

    You cannot simply lump together all forms of musical expression, compare them with the same aesthetics, ignoring what they have to be to acomplish their original goal, and then declare them inferior or superior. 

  • D
    D

    The dicsussion of philosophy and evolution of a more visual culture is all very interesting, but there's a much more practical and less philosophical explanation for the change in style and standards in film music, along the lines of what rverne10 said about preview audiences. People in the golden age of film scoring still listened to and were educated in classical (the big definition of classical, from baroque through romantic) music. Audiences and filmmakers today do not have a deep connection with classical music and therefore do not have high standards in orchestral music. It doesn't make for a very deep discussion, but I think it's as simple as that.

    Film music has pretty much always been popular music to an extent. Early Hollywood brought in European operetta composers because they had experience working with narratives, and this was the closest existing form of popular entertainment to the new medium of talkies. Film music as we all know over the years incorporated all kinds of popular music, and we've all heard it said that John Williams' success really brought back a new era of orchestral film music when synths and popular music were taking over. 

    Audiences of the golden era of film music and even the 1980s were more literate in classical music than audiences of today. Music appreciation and music classes were core curriculum, not totally abandoned as they are today. The "classical" music of Korngold, the more experimental work of Herrmann - it's all foreign to mainstream audiences and filmmakers today. The hot young filmmakers of today were raised on 80s pop and had little or no music education. Why would there be intelligent orchestral music in their films? Why would that have any connection with today's young audiences?

    It sucks, but that's the truth and I don't think there's much to be done about it except continue to be grumpy old men, enjoy what we want to, and try to shre the good stuff with those we can influence in our real lives.
  • N
    N

    Errikos, when I wrote my post, I actually was not thinking about this forum, but the world in general, and in any case, your thoughts generally give me cause for further reflection, and I've never considered you one to provoke me (there are others, as you say).

    As for deconstruction, contra Derrida/Foucault/Rorty/Fish/Cupitt, etc., etc., etc., it deserves to be deconstructed (i.e. turned on its own head), and IMO, the sum of its worth is in the land of negative numbers.  Rather than strictly tearing down, building something positive would be helpful.

    As for modernism, perhaps I should have clarified, as I was thinking more in terms of the "Enlightenment Project" as a whole, not just "modern art".  As for its worth, there are good reasons to reject many of its theories: the inviolate scientific method to measure all things (and if it can't measure a "thing" the thing in question can't be known), and the hubris of self-focus of an isolated intellect, for starters.

    To ask a more positive question: How does one go about encouraging the recovery of what has been largely lost?  How does one encourage others to actually take the time and effort to learn and/or master a particular craft?
  • B
    B
    Hi guys. Fascinating thread so far. I'm glad to see Noldar's recent suggestion of approaching this huge topic with some more positive questions. My own take is also rather positive and can maybe form a response to some of Noldar's questions:

    The last 150 years of our history have grown increasingly thick with radical, deeply complex cultural developments. Very few of these developments seem to be viewed unanimously as progress. Perhaps even fewer can be said to be viewed unanimously as decline. The vast majority fall somewhere in the middle, for each thoughtful individual to examine and place on their own unique spectrum. Nowhere in the realm of thought is this more evident than in the Arts. Nowhere in the Arts is this more evident than in Music. One man's Wagner is another man's Debussy. One man's Sex Pistols is another man's Sex Pistols, and is simultaneously a third man's Sex Pistols (and each interpretation remains totally unique). Perhaps it is a particular challenge of our time to figure out how to break away from this one-dimentional narrative of progress vs decline.

    The pace at which new information and ways of interpreting the information are racing through our culture is simply staggering. It is impossible to hold a frame of reference long enough, in that torrent of mind-shattering concepts, to pass any normative judgements. The mistake many brilliant people make is learning just enough to set themselves at odds with the rest of this great human experiment only to step out of the stream once they believe they know enough. In doing this they not only freeze their perspective (severely limiting their potential for future growth) but they then define their perspective as the ultimate norm, even though it is at odds with so much that is going on all around them. I don't mean to sound condescending but I know because I've totally been "that guy".

    This thread is an example that illustrates what I'm talking about. Why make the presumption that the art of motion pictures is in decline? I don't even know how to begin approaching that question. First of all, what, in 2012, is a MOTION PICTURE? Certainly film has expanded beyond Hollywood. The rise of digital photography is allowing all sorts of self-designated "independent filmmakers" to participate in the art form (many with no commercial motives whatsoever). The internet has then also given these independent artists unrestricted access to a distribution platform that Hollywood could not have imagined even as little as 10 years ago. Does cinematic television count? Many shows in the new TV Renaissance (Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Deadwood...) make the 2 hour movie masterpiece seem like a short story. And what about those increasingly cinematic video games or other totally new forms of dramatic (or perhaps "experiential") art? Are these not all similar forms of art where the visual, the dramatic, the aural and other temporal forms of art sync up and contribute to create astonishing aesthetic experiences?

    How can you... or perhaps why would anyone ignore all these interesting, as yet unexplored developments and insist that we've lost something? Call it a radical transformation, a mutation even, but decline? Isn't it at the very least too soon to call it that? Don't you want to see how all this radical change plays out? One could argue that in our culture literally everything is happening all the time: the old, the new, the good, the bad, progress as well as decline. In this great pool people will see whatever they want based on whomever they are. Optimists can see 1000 things to be optimistic about, and pessimists likewise. In this way, thought we try hard, we can not see our culture. We only see ourselves reflected back in one form or another.

    To give one final example I'll suggest something squarely in the realm of music. I see a lot of derision directed at film score composers of the last few decades. To avoid using anyones' normative framework, we can say that they are perhaps NOT using the orchestra in a way that is consistent with some of their predecessors. That alone is not grounds for derision in my book. I'll go one big step further by saying that many of todays most successful hollywood film composers are doing very interesting and very creative work. They are just not concentrating on the fraction of sonic creativity which classically-minded musicians call 'composition'. There is after all, so much more to today's music (a digitally sculpted performance) than what our antiquated notation systems may or may not capture in a transcription.

    You all recall the crisis over tonality which played out over the course of the 20th century. Some composers set out to explore atonality. But remember that other composers like Debussy (later Cage, Reich, Pendereki, Eno and many more) seemed to escape compositional redundancy by going after Timbre more and more directly. Many of today's composers are making music that may not seem as interesting on on the page as say, Wagner or even Bach. But no music (particularly today's music) was ever meant to exist on the page. Composers today are equipped to control and are in search of illusive TIMBRES. Electronic (now digital) audio has been helping composers create and refine all sorts of sounds that have simply never been heard before. This is a sonic development of monolithic proportions that will take a long time to play out. Musicians and the public have increasingly embraced what has become, over the past 50 years or so, an AGE OF TIMBRE. Composers from Hann Zimmer to Skrillex currently hold the rapt attention of an engaged public who are simply dazzled by the visceral power of a good bass-drop (as am I). The only ones not having fun are those who are condemning certain aspects of these new musical developments while perhaps not letting themselves hear what is historically and musically unique about what is currently happening. To those people, I'd urge you to always try to listen for what is THERE. It is certainly more fun than listening for what is NOT THERE.
  • W
    W

    I've repeatedly mentioned here many things you noted, but which you missed.  Part of the problem of writing things on the internet.   I agree on TV often being superior to cinema, with its freedom of length of treatment.  I often thought that the feature film is basically equivalent to the short story.  The mini-series is  potentially superior, though in practice very rarely.

    hans Zimmer is not dazzling to me though.  I've sat through his mind-numbing scores, which are literally oppressive in  their stupidity.  I was almost cringing during most of Inception due to the hideous ugly oppression of that god-damned noise he did for that film.   You think that mere timbre is an idea?  It is trivial in itself.  Only when combined with musical concepts, such as those of Debussy, Ravel or as a modern example, Bernard Herrmann who was a master of timbral experimentation, does it become a musical element.

    Listen to some J.S. Bach, who didn't even score all the time for specific instruments, let alone timbres, and is immortal.  Just a few notes on scraggly pieces of paper, and they last for CENTURIES.   ONE COMPOSITION OF BACH  OBLITERATES ALL OF ZIMMER IN ONE FELL SWOOP. 

    But also any of the old-fashioned composers like Herrmann, Williams, Korngold, Tiomkin, Waxman,  Goldsmith, all the ones you lump all together - pathetically -  with the chimp-like, musically moronic pokers-at-keyboards who are now the flash-in-the-pan rage in Hollywood and winning the Oscars and getting the big gigs and your only standard of excellence. 

  • N
    N

    Your reference to Penderecki is an interesting one.  At the time, when I was steeping myself in Cage, Penderecki, Boulez, Xenakis, Berio, et al, Penderecki struck me as one composer among the moderns who actually seemed to know what he was doing from a musical standpoint.  It was all the more interesting to me that he eventually repudiated the avant garde and began writing in a neo-Romantic style instead.

    Personally, I do think Cage, Xenakis, Berio, et al, have and represent a range (though narrow) of world views (Cage's didn't hold: he decided that music by chance as a concept wouldn't transfer very well to picking mushrooms by chance as he would soon be dead).  That range of world views, along with the post-modern deconstruction-nothing can be known range of world views are views that I personally, do not, and will not, subscribe to.  One plus to at least some streams of post-modernism is an awareness that "new" is not always "better" (the key words are "not always" as "not always" does not equate to "never").  The "modern" view generally insisted that "new" was always "better", with a near total disregard for the past, and for the wisdom of the past - a view that has caused much damage IMO.
  • B
    B
    William:
    I definitely resonated in agreement upon reading your earlier posts on this topic. Though I did not acknowledge your posts directly, I didn't mean to come off as though I was ignoring them. On the points where we agree, I imagined a thoughtful reader would see my comments as echos adding support to (not plaster over) what you had said earlier. Anyway, I'm sorry for not acknowledging you directly.

    Of William's earlier points, the one I most agree with is that a film's score is generally a piece of a whole work of art. As such, 'good' scores that manage to enhance the film experience may also remain emotionally potent as concert music, or they may not function apart from the film. A flip-side to that notion is that it may be difficult to assess the quality of a score when the movie it was made for doesn't quite work. For me, this was the case with Christopher Nolan's Inception. I went in to that movie really wanting to like it. But I just didn't feel engaged. Now, was Zimmer's score helping or hurting that experience? Could Zimmer's startling noises have sounded more appealing if the rest of movie was somehow different? I don't know. I like to imagine that if we were to ask Nolan and Zimmer for their thoughts on this they might tell us that they don't know what went wrong as far as my experience. They might tell us that they are simply trying to make their parts the best way they know how and in the end sometimes they come together and make a magical experience and other times they fall short. To me failure, even total public failure, is just part of creative work (particularly in collaborative efforts such as all films are). I personally don't fault anybody (let alone relegate them to 'chimp' status) for trying something that doesn't quite work.
    To quote the great philosopher Joeseph Ramone: "What can you do-o-o?"

    As for Bach, right now I am studying the Brandenburg Concerti measure-by-astonishing-measure. The more I study Bach's compositions the more deeply I understand and respect Bach's immortality as master of unparalleled symmetry and consonance amid complexity. But I also understand that (like every artist) Bach's music is influenced greatly by the time in which he lived. In Bach's time musical instruments were just coming into their standard forms. There was no ability to record performances, let alone manipulate a performance's timbral properties after the fact. Notes-on-paper was the only way one's music could be immortalized and under such circumstances the type of polyphonic ingenuity defined by Bach was perhaps a composer's primary means of establishing a personal style. While we can still be amazed by Bach's music today, and even incorporate elements of the Baroque into what we do as composers in 2012, I'm merely recognizing that the keen arrangement of notes-on-paper is no longer the only means to musical immortality. We now have music that exists as a recorded (and digitally-sculpted) performance. I don't see any reason to deride composers who embrace these new developments in sound and are skillfully carving their import to music.

    My question to you is this: What do you gain by imagining the work of one composer 'OBLITERATING' the works of another composer? I see a lot of good reasons for appreciating both for whatever each has to offer. Is there somehow not enough room in the mind for both? In my mind there is.

    Noldar:
    I don't think you have to subscribe to any bizarre world views or even consider anything philosophical in order to find some useful nuggets within my response to your question. You asked why more recent film scores don't seem as good as older ones. My answer is that maybe we can find some criteria by which these newer film scores ARE succeeding. I also suggested that this criteria may lie outside traditional composition (perhaps in the realm of digital audio and its gift of unprecedented timbral manipulations). Agreed, that turns the tables on your original question a bit. But in the age of Google we rely on community NOT to provide direct answers to questions, but to provide the kind of help a search engine never could: help that allows us to reformulate our questions in ways that allow us all to reach a deeper understanding together.

    In a subsequent post you offered the idea that people care more about CGI and just don't care about the music in films as much, leading film producers to cut corners at the expense of film music. I don't think this could be true. If that were, what explains the competitive nature of the business? If people truly don't care who does the music or what it sounds like, why pay guys like Zimmer top dollar? Why does every theater in the world (and many a home theater) continue investing billions of dollars each year in more dynamic, more precise, 360-degree sound reproduction systems?

    I think a more reasonable explanation is that people are fascinated by advancements in the aural experience in exactly the same way as they are fascinated by advancements in the visual experience. As all these possibilities keep expanding, composes are going to continue to try new and different techniques. But we are so privileged that we DON'T even have to choose whether we want to experience giant robots from space backed up by super subwoofers that can reproduce 4Hz - OR - a moody drama (from any time or place in history) that may employ anything from a small chamber ensemble on up - OR - any of the great older films scored by Korngold, Herrmann, Williams or any of the other great composers. We can enjoy one Friday night, another Saturday night and yet another Sunday afternoon. I just don't see how we've LOST anything. If there is anything regrettable about our situation it is that there is already so much great art in existence that, even if we only stuck to the absolute masterworks, the time it would take to experience them all exceeds our lifetime and every year the list just gets longer.

    What I find fascinating is the person who manages to look at all this (truly an embarrassment of artistic riches) and insists that (perhaps because they aren't ALL masterworks) that it's all going wrong. Again I just have to reiterate and stress this: We have access to so much more great art than we have time on this Earth to appreciate. Millions of artists across the globe are devoting each day, some their entire lives, trying so hard to add new works to that great heap. What more do you... What more could anyone possibly want?
  • N
    N

    Brian, your points are well taken, and I probably was not particularly clear.

    I do think that even if unconscious, philosophies do lie behind the choices people, in this case composers, make.  I don't think that you can separate that aspect out.  Again, it is likely that in many cases, philosophical trends end up getting absorbed without real thought - as concepts from the "ivory tower" eventually works their way down and in to contemporary culture - often in rather different ways from the original concept.  Even design choices, as Zimmer made with how he designed and decorated his studio, reflect his ideas, philosophy, and beliefs, and/or personal values, if you will.

    I sometimes wonder if what we consider "success" really actually is, in the end, beneficial.  Of course, there are many who would insist that even thinking about, or asking, that sort of question, falls outside the bounds of what is to be allowed, as the question could imply an over-arching value judgment (a value judgment that, by definition, cannot be made, since there are no real values).  A case in point would be your mention of the Sex Pistols.  Yes, how one views them will be different from how another views them.  One could certainly maintain that they have been successful.  One can maintain that they had a real measure of popularity, and that they impacted many with their ideas.  But, given all that, does that mean that we are truly better off as a result?
  • W
    W

     Brian, I actually agree with just about everything you said.  In fact, they are very good points.  Also, "obliterate" is a silly term to use. 

  • E
    E

    Pick the odd one out:


    Beethoven, Sting, Morricone, Waters, Vangelis, Reyes (of Gypsy Kings), Sondheim, Cross, Puccini, Andersson, Partch, Seal, Lachenmann, Zadeh, Zimmer.


    You guessed it! What is it that singles out the great soundtrack-guru [:P] [+o(]? We'll deal with this later...


    Everyone else on the list is a great composer in the musical genre they inhabit. That doesn't mean that they are all equally great composers, as each of the genres has its own demands, scope, and breadth. Each has its delights, but it is a far greater artistic achievement to write the Pastoral, than Cinema Paradiso, The Dark Side of the Moon, Sailing, Crazy, Blade Runner, Sweeney Todd, and even La Boheme... It doesn't matter that Beethoven could write none of those works; even close; even if he was given the technology. The Pastoral stands far-far-far-far above them.


    It doesn't matter that every piece I mentioned above is different (or uniquely different in some cases) to everything else; it doesn't matter that different musical sensibilities are involved; and it doesn't matter that the genres to which the respective pieces belong are considered different and many of them unrelated. You have to take on account that each genre is nowhere near as creative and ambitious as another one. If you don't accept that, then you automatically have to accept the following statement as absolutely true: "Madonna is as great a composer as Mozart" (as they are both great in their respective fields, there is nothing else to separate them in their artistic achievements).


    I cannot say or argue this in any more detail, I am just sorry if it is not self evident to some people here. Perhaps you can start by familiarizing yourselves a lot more with 'serious' music and what it involves, perhaps read Stravinsky's Poetics, Einstein's Greatness in Music, Copland's What to Listen for in Music (highly recommended for beginners and most under 35 here), David Cope's New Directions in Music, Alexander Goehr's Finding the Key, and look at Bernstein's Unanswered Question Harvard lectures (available on YouTube), before I recommend some heavier reading...


    Now, as to the quiz... His Lofty Eminence the Prince of Emptiness is distinguished from all other luminaries on that list, in that he is NOT a great composer in ANY genre. Let's just immediately sh*t on that House of Toilet-Cards that is supposed to be His "strength"... Timbre.......... People always talk about timbre, and associate timbre with what pathetic "distortions" and "enhancements" Hans and other DJs thatch together. Well, people should never mention the term timbre, not ever; rip it out of their vocabulary, until they also know what the "words" Xenakis, Ligeti, Lachenmann, Grisey, Murail, Harvey, and Saariaho, mean... O.K. guys? His Highness should not be allowed to dream He could ever, in a thousand years, explore, or even create(!) a timbre, that droves of other - real - composers haven't explored or thought of before Him....


    To the second possibility: "Ahh, but Hans changes instrumental timbres through electronic means"... Again, look at the above composers (and more), and now it is time to remove another word from our ignorant vocabulary - electronic. First we'll familiarize ourselves with what IRCAM and Princeton stand for, what has transpired in those places (and elsewhere) electronic-musically for the last thousand years, and then we shall discuss whether His Grace and the beat-mongers have added a single quantum modicum of NEW sound to this universe of ours... Eric Persing is a far greater composer than Hans in that regard; all he'd have to do is add those super(long)strings spewccati on top of his wonderful arrays of sound...

    There is NOTHING new happening (to which we are reactionaries); NO new music, NO new concepts (especially sprouting from the Two Steps from Murder twat above). They just SEEM new due to sheer ignorance. I don't mean that as an insult. I am ignorant in matters geophysical, entomological, medical, even matters of studio hardware - I just try to offer as few opinions as possible in these matters (hint-hint).

    To finish: I agree with William retracting the verb 'obliterate' from his post. I also found it too complimentary and too worshipful (of Hans!). I'd say Goldsmith's music obliterates Hans'; Jarre's massacres Hans'; Reinhold Gliere's de-quantumizes Hans'; and Claude Debussy's purifies whatever sub-sub-elements remain...

    I haven't the first clue what J.S.' music does to it...

    P.S.1: Ineption's soundtrack shouldn't even be provided as an example of what The Ultimate can do, as I found his music to be absolutely inadequate for the requirements of the film - repetition upon repetition upon repetition, and completely uni-dimensional, he did nothing to buttress the multi-dimensionality of the concept. And don't say it was intentional; he just couldn't!

    P.S.:2 I'll address noldar12's positive question on another post. 
  • W
    W
    last edited
    last edited

    @BrianH. said:

    They are just not concentrating on the fraction of sonic creativity which classically-minded musicians call 'composition'.
     

    On second thought, there are some questionable assumptions here:   "classically-minded" ?  What is that?  Stockkausen?  Xenakis?  Ligeti?  Varese?  Or perhaps you're thinking of  Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.  So-called "classically-minded" music of the modern era has moved far beyond film music in timbral experimentation, harmony, actually any musical aspect conceivable.   It is actually the exact reverse of what you imply:  film music is just a tiny fraction of what has been created by "classically-minded" composers.
  • E
    E

    I believe Brian is well-meaning, unlike some know-(f)alls here. It is just a sign of our wonderful times, that people are made to think (so that others make money), that they can buy a computer and some recorded sounds, and suddenly they are orchestral composers, heirs of Stravinsky, Williams, and even Hans! As simple as that...

    This statement is not specifically directed at Brian (whom I don't know at all), but I have noticed how very much young people today can know about how to record symphonic music, and how very little about how to write it, as well as labouring under the delusion that 'classical' music stops with Stravinsky and begins again with Williams and Hans... Maybe the gap in between can be argued to be not so important in terms of beautiful output, but it is absolutely vital in terms of experimentation and innovation, and people can be hilarious and embarass themselves without even knowing it, when they talk about new sounds in film, and I cringe watching them gape at the "magical" cello depicting the Joker in Batman...

    Really people... If you're even half serious about pursuing music as a profession, stop spending more money on gear. Spend it on education...
  • R
    R
    last edited
    last edited

    @noldar12 said:

    To ask a more positive question: How does one go about encouraging the recovery of what has been largely lost?  How does one encourage others to actually take the time and effort to learn and/or master a particular craft?

    That is indeed the most important question about modern culture; as we move forward much, too much is lost that really does not need to be. However, a large key player in the formulation of what modern culture will be is the education system in conjunction with the media and as of today, the two are talking past each other. Media pouring off TV tubes, other video outlets and printed press often pour a syrupy schlock over all and fail to teach. Schools struggle with programs entitled 'leave all children behind except those of the very wealthy' and we move on.  We on this thread love the music and art that is the root and stem of who we are, but yet even in the concert halls and on the recorded media, producers look to what will sell so we get endless performances of Sibelius sym 2  but what about #3? #6?

    I, for one am protesting the Detroit Symphony doing #2 yet again this year after just scheduling it 18 months ago.  The purveyors of culture are to blame for much of the decay in culture by catering and bowing to the sphinx like flame of sales, they, in doing so, then kill of the culture they purport to support. If we could just tell producers we will vomit en masse on their front door  if another release of Beethoven's Symphony 5  is even thought of then perhaps those so called  guardians of taste will get the idea and exhibit a bit of creativity in scheduling concerts and releasing recordings.
  • W
    W
    [quote=Errikos] people can be hilarious and embarass themselves without even knowing it, when they talk about

    Yes, for example - "Microphonie" by Stockhausen which came out in the 1960s, a composition created by wiring with transducers a huge tam-tam. 

  • N
    N

    rverne10, good points.  I don't need a copy of the 397,286,541th recording of Beethoven's 5th.  But, if a company feels that they will lose money by record "X", how can it get released?  Other than certain governments, if the company loses enough money, it will cease to exist.

    A crazy idea: what would happen if an individual (or group) decided to start a recording label, and release neglected/obscure pieces using VSL libraries?  It would not be "perfect" since it would not be live, but done by the best VSL users (I do not put myself in that class) doing so might be good enough.  One of the key issues would be time involved.  One would need to make enough money to cover the cost of one's time.  Sales of an hour's worth of music created using VSL to 37 fans would not exactly cut it.
  • M
    M

    It took a certain amount of time (to me, being of Italian mother-tongue and Culture) to read all these comments.

    I'm listening to Kenyon Hopkins' "Baby Doll" soundtrack. I'm not a big fun of jazz (or similar), having been "classically" trained and having graduated that way, which means actually very little....

    Anyway, this means I'm enough open to multiple "genres" or "styles". Nevertheless, how could I prefer HZ with his endless meaningless "musical" idiocies? KH is (was) far more musically competent and freaking able and talented.

    I also remember KH signature tune for "Hawk", '60s tv series with Burt Reynolds as main character...

    This is just one out of a million examples, in my opinion, of music wich is just "right"...

    But, maybe also HZ's "The dark knife"...was just right, in the sense that our times do not allow anything else, but real crap.
  • W
    W
    last edited
    last edited

    @BrianH. said:

    composers in 2012, I'm merely recognizing that the keen arrangement of notes-on-paper is no longer the only means to musical immortality. We now have music that exists as a recorded (and digitally-sculpted) performance. I don't see any reason to deride composers who embrace these new developments in sound and are skillfully carving their import to music.
     

    This makes the assumption that mere manipulation of timbre will give you musical immortality.  Keep on dreaming.  Digital stuff is fluff that comes and goes like crap in a sewer.

    I am not trying to be insulting, but I actually think about this sort of thing on a daily basis.   What is of lasting value?   Is it Hans Zimmer fucking around with some timbres?   Or is it J.S. Bach creating something that had no timbre, no scored instrument,  absolutely nothing but some little scratched notes on a fragile piece of paper but was pure, great musical ideas.  And now, centuries later, people all over this planet are playing what he did.   He didn't need all the digital, electronic, advanced, latest, state-of-the-art, gigashit crutches of today.

    All he needed was a pen, a piece of paper, and his mind. 

    That will never be surpassed, never be equalled by all the timbre-mongers who are so cool and win all the Oscars and get all the jobs.   I would love to see Hans Zimmer - your God, the God of the Forum here -  compete with Bach without all his digital crutches.  Because what people today do not understand is they are weaklings, because they need digital support for everything they do.  They can't operate without it.  They are NOTHING without it.  Just look at the wretches clutching their stupid little texting gadgets as if they are the orgasmic Orb.  If they had to do pure analog, all the time - they would be non-existent.  Because you can't hide with analog, or physical reality.  With digital fakery, there are infinite possibilities for the Emperor's New Clothes.  

  • E
    E
    last edited
    last edited

    @noldar12 said:

    To ask a more positive question: How does one go about encouraging the recovery of what has been largely lost?  How does one encourage others to actually take the time and effort to learn and/or master a particular craft?

    Two things:


    a) If and when in a position of power you never hire anybody sub-standard, anybody that is a disgrace to the profession. This way you are instrumental in the professional extermination of as many as possible gangrenous organisms.


    b) As individuals we cannot do too much other than bare our souls here and wherever we can. Lest we forget, extremely few will ever be able to master a particular craft. However, we must keep encouraging people to discover craft to begin with, so they can learn to recognize it, or more importantly in this case, to recognize the absence thereof! This can only occur through academic education (or self-education PROVIDED one knows where to look and what to study). These days with piracy it is that much easier (I HATE piracy). YouTube is a pirate's treasure trove of great music. Music that when heard, will burst people's minds and vistas wide open; to the point where they think back to the time they thought Hans had absolutely anything musical to offer and chuckle at themselves...


    We must keep hammering that Hans' clones and the so-called "Epic" crap, do not comprise "new" aesthetics that we resist. That it is NOT a matter of taste! They represent NO novelty in aesthetics, NO new school of orchestral writing, or timbral experimentation. Youngsters must realize that EVERY SINGLE PITCH OR FILTER TWEAK by either camp is either crass, old news, embarassingly rudimentary, or a combination thereof. There is only a single way for youngsters to realize this for sure, and that is only through familiarity with 20th century music history and its repertoire.


    I'll say it again. I don't care what droves of people do with their computers locked inside their bedroom, and what they think they are accomplishing. However, I am astounded at the number of mouse-centaurs who consider themselves - or on their way to becoming orchestral music professionals, while knowing so very little about music! Of course, who am I to talk when even Hans' clones make more money than I do, and get bigger awards...
  • N
    N

    William, I seek to model my approach after J.S. Bach, particularly his attitude (humility).  No one comes close to his output.  I cannot even begin to fathom having to write a full - roughly 20 minute - cantata every week.

    Nevertheless, it is interesting to me that he too, was considered outdated and terribly old fashioned by his own kids (J.C.; W.F,; C.P.E.) and was completely consigned to the dusty bins of history until Mendelssohn rediscovered him.  In a way that is also encouraging.  However much one generation may disregard a composer or a valuable form of music, it is at least possible that someone of a future generation may come to recognize what is of real worth.  I guess one key will be to leave things that can be either discovered, or rediscovered.