Continued from above:

@Iwan Roth said:

You are not the only one who seam to think that everything which has some kind of importance comes from Hollywood, and I finish my post by writing again: you are definitely wrong!

Oh my goodness. You are definitely wrong. Where did you ever ever read that I said that Hollywood is where important music comes from? Oh my goodness have you completely mistook me. Hollywood? Importance? That is laughable. I am chuckling. Wow. All I can say is YOU are wrong. And since the basis of what you said I am wrong about stems from myself, I can be the final judge of that statement. You are wrong about me, what I have said, and the presumptions you derived from me. I know this because I agree with everything you have said, because none of it is very correlated to what I said, and because at any time you say I wrong about something it turns out that I fundamentally contradict your statements that I am wrong on the basis that I am not what you said or have those thoughts or feelings or experiences.

So with all due respect, let's try to get off on the right foot here. Maybe you could start with what you thought I said was untrue about the Hollywood Sound. I'd really am open to hearing that as well as continuing this side-stepped misinterpretation of what I have said, but mostly I'd like to stay on th etopic of at least pointing out what is untrue about what I said about the Hollywood techniques.

Thanks,
Evan Evans

@Mattias Henningson said:

Hehe Evan, no need for all those words. The paragraph can be shortened into four words... "I am an American!" [:D]

Ha ha. So true, so true.
Evan Evans

@William said:

ould you like to know how to get "The Hollywood Sound," all you would-be film composers out there? I'll tell you. First of all imitate Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovitch, Schumann, Stravinsky, Ravel, Vaughn Williams and Holst. And throw in some Korngold - the "Hollywood Sound" from Austria. Then smear a huge romantic orchestration all over simplistic, saccharine chord progressions. Make sure you write for large ensembles, when a single solo instrument would be sufficient or better. (Then you'll really know you're "hot" like one of your idol film composers - because you can write for ALL THOSE INSTRUMENTS!) Finally, add a large, thick dollop of nauseating reverb. Presto - you've got it. You have a bright future ahead of you with..."The Hollywood Sound."

Some of what you say isn't far off. Well said. And it was relaly funny if you were trying to be sarcastic. if not however,

just to defend some of the notions you have set in motion (should any of tehm be taken seriously by anyone), imitation is relaly not what film composers are intending to do, or if they must do it as a requirement they are simply poorly executing the notion. On the contrary, imitation is when the Hollywood Sound works at it's worst. Perhaps to the layman it sounds great, but for anyone who knows better, imitation when thinly veiled or forcefully interjected becomes cheap and amateur.

The use of sacharrine chord progressions is not doing anything for the State of The Art of Film Scoring, and I think you are only pointing out again, what is described as bad film scoring.

Writing for large ensembles instead of smaller ensembles is absolutely true, but to say that small ensembles could have been better is inherently describing a compositional method that is easily delapotated and weak in design and execution. Again you seem to be intimating that the Hollywood sound is about writing bad music or music which is served better in less commercial ways. This is not helping set teh bar of film scoring very high. Just because 99 out of 100 film composers are doing what you said, doesn't mean that the Hollywood Sound cannot be achieved whilst being musically superior to another iteration of itself in some other permutation of ensemble size or passage complexity.

Knowing one is "hot" by sounding close to an idol film composer is destroying all that makes a great film composer great. Number one, anyone who tries to resemble an idol is not composing original music. So instantly you can check them off as non-original composers. How does writing for all those instruments validate composer greatness. It does not. Again you seem to be implying that the Hollywood Sound is about simplistic things such as simply writing for a lot of instruments. I hear what you are saying, but it's more about writing in extremes, which can inherently cause the music to need many bodies to achieve a non-obtrusive sound in the extremes.

uh, nauseating reverb? A large dollup yes, but do we have to say that the Hollywood Sound is achieved when we add nauseating reverb? On the contrary, film music is more commercial in some respects than classical, and if anyone is the judge as to what's decreed as nauseating it's a mnajority vote by a jury of your peers. It seems that the people who enjoy film music enjoy the reverb present on the majority of albums. Economics of the business prove this true by design.

it may be true that anyone that adhere's to your rules may have a bright future ahead of them. But they certainly wouldn't be considered top of the calss by any means. Your mentioend techniques of achieveing the Hollywood Sound point to a more cliché, tired, unoriginal, immature, amateur style of scoring, admittingly being carried out by the majoroity of compsoers. however putting it to teh test of a jury of it's peers (moviegoers), it seems that the most money in movies is made from movies that are scored by composers doing everything that you haven't said, and coming out brilliantly. Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, Don Davis, Hans Zimmer, Vangelis, ... these are the guys who are at the bar of the state of the art of film composing, or close enough to be forgiveable.

But I generally don't listen to anyone who isn't a hypocrite. So unless you've written some of this crappy music you speak of, I don't take anything you've said too seriously. Generally I prefer those who have learned from their mistakes. So let's hear some of your "mistakes". I'll show you mine if you show me yours! [:)]

Evan Evans

@William said:

would you like to know how to get "The Hollywood Sound," all you would-be film composers out there? I'll tell you. First of all imitate Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovitch, Schumann, Stravinsky, Ravel, Vaughn Williams and Holst. And throw in some Korngold - the "Hollywood Sound" from Austria. Then smear a huge romantic orchestration all over simplistic, saccharine chord progressions. Make sure you write for large ensembles, when a single solo instrument would be sufficient or better. (Then you'll really know you're "hot" like one of your idol film composers - because you can write for ALL THOSE INSTRUMENTS!) Finally, add a large, thick dollop of nauseating reverb. Presto - you've got it. You have a bright future ahead of you with..."The Hollywood Sound."

Some of what you say isn't far off. Well said. And it was really funny if you were trying to be sarcastic. if not however,

just to defend some of the notions you have set in motion (should any of them be taken seriously by anyone), imitation is really not what film composers are intending to do, or if they must do it as a requirement they are simply poorly executing the notion. On the contrary, imitation is when the Hollywood Sound works at it's worst. Perhaps to the layman it sounds great, but for anyone who knows better, imitation when thinly veiled or forcefully interjected becomes cheap and amateur.

The use of saccharine chord progressions is not doing anything for the State of The Art of Film Scoring, and I think you are only pointing out again, what is described as bad film scoring.

Writing for large ensembles instead of smaller ensembles is absolutely true, but to say that small ensembles could have been better is inherently describing a compositional method that is easily delapitated and weak in design and execution. Again you seem to be intimating that the Hollywood sound is about writing bad music or music which is served better in less commercial ways. This is not helping set the bar of film scoring very high. Just because 99 out of 100 film composers are doing what you said, doesn't mean that the Hollywood Sound cannot be achieved whilst being musically superior to another iteration of itself in some other permutation of ensemble size or passage complexity.

Knowing one is "hot" by sounding close to an idol film composer is destroying all that makes a great film composer great. Number one, anyone who tries to resemble an idol is not composing original music. So instantly you can check them off as non-original composers. How does writing for all those instruments validate composer greatness. It does not. Again you seem to be implying that the Hollywood Sound is about simplistic things such as simply writing for a lot of instruments. I hear what you are saying, but it's more about writing in extremes, which can inherently cause the music to need many bodies to achieve a non-obtrusive sound in the extremes.

uh, nauseating reverb? A large dollop yes, but do we have to say that the Hollywood Sound is achieved when we add nauseating reverb? On the contrary, film music is more commercial in some respects than classical, and if anyone is the judge as to what's decreed as nauseating it's a majority vote by a jury of your peers. It seems that the people who enjoy film music enjoy the reverb present on the majority of albums. Economics of the business prove this true by design.

continued below:

continued from above:

it may be true that anyone that adheres to your rules may have a bright future ahead of them. But they certainly wouldn't be considered top of the class by any means. Your mentioned techniques of achieving the Hollywood Sound point to a more cliché, tired, unoriginal, immature, amateur style of scoring, admittingly being carried out by the majority of composers. however putting it to the test of a jury of it's peers (moviegoers), it seems that the most money in movies is made from movies that are scored by composers doing everything that you haven't said, and coming out brilliantly. Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, Don Davis, Hans Zimmer, Vangelis, ... these are the guys who are at the bar of the state of the art of film composing, or close enough to be forgivable.

But I generally don't listen to anyone who isn't a hypocrite. So unless you've written some of this crappy music you speak of, I don't take anything you've said too seriously. Only those who are guilty of what they speak of truly know of what they speak. Generally I prefer, and give my respect to those who have learned from their mistakes. So let's hear some of your "mistakes". I'll show you mine if you show me yours! I've got plenty. PLENTY. [:)]

Evan Evans

What a thread......HAPPY XMAS [:D]

Based on his voluminous postings, I'm beginning to suspect Evan has found a way to get paid for this.

How do I become a professional VSL Forum poster? On second thought...never mind. I'd rather be writing some music than talking about it.
[:D]

Fred Story
Concentrix Music and Sound Design
www.concentrixmusic.com

God, I go away for the weekend and come back to find that Le Sacre has incited another riot; I feel like we are all back 90 years at the Ballet Russe! How on earth did nationalities come into this!?!?

Evan, thank you so much for all your time and thoughts. Thank you also Iwan for adding your perspectives. Ironically, I understood and appreciated both your remarks as entirely consistent in context. I grew up in Los Angeles yet eventually put in my time at the Paris Conservatoire so both ends of the art/entertainment spectrum are familiar. Both have their place and just as I doubt a performance of Messiean would move me, as much outside of Paris, if I was in a studio with 40-50 players and the time/money clock ticking away, I would be infinitely more comfortable in Los Angeles. It seems a matter of momentum and just as it is hard to compete with the art machine in Europe, so it is with the entertainment machine in L.A. - although both have much to offer. Personally, I find myself moving farther away from the concert hall towards the marriage of music and film because of the compositional opportunities to blend traditional and contemporary elements in a relatively new medium. The commercial part of that skill set suggests fluency in cinematic sound and Evan, you have certainly achieved that in the American Almanac theme; I love the falling intervals and tonalities as the phrases resolve. I can’t help but wonder Iwan, if you had a chance to listen to the link to Evans brass piece, “Suppression,” as it displays an artistic sensitivity perhaps more consistent with your own? Certainly, the mind that wrote these pieces has a handle on orchestration and wasn’t implying that Le Sacre is child’s play!

That being said, I’m still not completely on board Evan with what you’re saying. I get the tutti/pointillism thing now. Yet now I’m tripping up on the 5 things happening at once idea. Are you referring to supportive lines fleshing out a homophonic texture or adding density to a particular line like octave doubling, or are you thinking of countermelodies or other elements? Taking your fine Almanac theme, I don’t really hear that 5 element thing. I do hear the Hollywood (or perhaps Tchaikovsky!?!?) technique of amplifying the obvious. It’s wonderful ear candy (both meant in a good way). I also hear some counter elements like the harp as the opening motif repeats, although it doesn’t seem to do anything to propel the music or make anything more Hollywood as does the percussion. If the idea is to throw in the kitchen sink to keep the listener fascinated, it would seem that subtle counter-lines at the end of the first couple of phrases would be obvious opportunities (although I understand that it is the unexpected obvious that is inherent to this style). It seems between the extremes of your compositional abilities (Almanac to Suppression; very cool) is a solid desire for clarity which doesn’t seem consistent with mucking things up with 5 things happening at once. I know it’s the downside of sharing your insight in necessarily sweeping ideas, but could you be a bit more specific?

Sorry, wrote too fast, MessiAEn. I always screw that up; tooo maany vooweels...

I agree with some of the Evanevans Forum here however my main problem is that film composers today have become as conventional as they were in the 40s only in a slightly newer style. I am so sick of huge orchestras for everything, for example a light comedy or intense psychological drama. There is a mindlessness about it. A single solo flute can create the most powerful sound conceivable for a scene, but you have to write better music when it is "naked" like that. It so much easier just to use an entire string ensemble with lovely singing woodwinds and noble horns in counterpoint, etc. etc. etc. = especially considering the fact you don't even have to do your own orchestration in most studio films. (Actually a lot of the time you can't legally!) Of course sometimes something heavy is appropriate, as with Lord of the Rings, but too many composers and producers are over-doing everything in order to put out a "classy" product. (Classy=Big.)

You mention Bernard Herrmann - he is the exact opposite of what I was talking about. He always did his own orchestrations, and used ensembles that varied radically with the film. Jason and the Argonauts had only winds and percussion. Journey to the Center of the Earth had only brass, organs, percussion and harps. He wrote one score for Alfred Hitchcock Presents for bassoon ensemble alone. Of course Psycho is famous for using only strings. But one of his most radical was the rejected score for Torn Curtain which used nine trombones, twelve horns, twelve flutes, violas, cellos, basses and percussion and nothing else. A large ensemble, but a severely limited one compared to the required knee-jerk romantic orchestra of today. But the genius of Herrmann made it perfect for the film and Hitchcock was forced to reject it by the moron studio heads (I'm sorry, that's redundant isn't it?) who wanted a newer more "pop" sound - with a normal orchestra.

@Fred Story said:

Based on his voluminous postings, I'm beginning to suspect Evan has found a way to get paid for this.

How do I become a professional VSL Forum poster? On second thought...never mind. I'd rather be writing some music than talking about it.
[:D]

Since I do not get paid to write on the VSL forum - actually since a certain time I do sometime think that this is not the VSL forum anymore.......I do not want to get nasty, it is not my business-, and also since I have better things to do, I do give up.

Iwan

[[:D]] Passion... this makes the world go round! [[:D]]

I think you can get very analytical about the orchestration techniques, or you can just substite the word "big" for "Hollywood." Even so-called "small" films made here (Los Angeles) - romantic comedies, whatever - are...well, larger than life, and certainly larger than the foreign films that make it over here. Bigger films want the weight of a big orchestra, and as a rule, more concerted orchestration than independent little parts.

But I agree about the flute - I've certainly felt music overpowering intimate scenes that might have been better off with just a couple of woodwinds.

@Iwan Roth said:

Since I do not get paid to write on the VSL forum - actually since a certain time I do sometime think that this is not the VSL forum anymore.......I do not want to get nasty, it is not my business-, and also since I have better things to do, I do give up.
Iwan

I think the picture of yourself on your website says it all. Your body language expressed strength, conviction, resolution, along with signals of inflexibility. But I don't care. I love everyone. Even if you disagree with me.

I am glad to have you as a conversationilist, and am sorry my long posts have retracted you. I look forward to our next conversation in another topic.

Happy Holidays Iwan!

[:)]

Evan Evans

@Another User said:

Yet now I’m tripping up on the 5 things happening at once idea. Are you referring to supportive lines fleshing out a homophonic texture or adding density to a particular line like octave doubling, or are you thinking of countermelodies or other elements?

It's more complicated than that. You have to decide whether a concept is fundamental. Remember in Algebra when you had to simplify an equation until it could not be simplified any further? You must do the same with each root concept and see if doubling is enough. But for the most part there is 5 things going on at one time in Alerican Almanacs. A single note may hang waiting for four ideas to burst in. A root concept needn't be just based on pitch or melody, it can be related to how you use time as well. I call these things the ELEMENTS. From them we can construct Molecules (motifs and root concepts). And with Molecules we can construct BEINGS (passages). And with BEINGS (passages), we can construct citys (a movement or cue). etc.etc.etc.

Continued below:

Continued from above:

@Another User said:

It seems between the extremes of your compositional abilities (Almanac to Suppression; very cool) is a solid desire for clarity which doesn’t seem consistent with mucking things up with 5 things happening at once. I know it’s the downside of sharing your insight in necessarily sweeping ideas, but could you be a bit more specific?

Yes. On one hand that is the goal I speak of. Clarity, but it should not come by sacrificing complexity or sophistication. Clarity isn't equal to simplicity. That is an easy pitfall that some film composers find themselves getting more and more comfortable with being in. And on the other hand, it is a special gift of mine that many teachers have said about my music that is innate to me. That I can communicate such directness with my music. One teacher called it "understand the epic nature of life itself" and that "it comes across in your music, that you understand the greater things." Was a nice compliment even if at the time I was young and didn't appreciate it as much.

Evan Evans

@Another User said:

You mention Bernard Herrmann - he is the exact opposite of what I was talking about. He always did his own orchestrations, and used ensembles that varied radically with the film. Jason and the Argonauts had only winds and percussion. Journey to the Center of the Earth had only brass, organs, percussion and harps. He wrote one score for Alfred Hitchcock Presents for bassoon ensemble alone. Of course Psycho is famous for using only strings. But one of his most radical was the rejected score for Torn Curtain which used nine trombones, twelve horns, twelve flutes, violas, cellos, basses and percussion and nothing else. A large ensemble, but a severely limited one compared to the required knee-jerk romantic orchestra of today. But the genius of Herrmann made it perfect for the film

Ah. A Herrmann fan. It's hard to get even an experienced Herrmann fan to realize how much of aGenius he wa. I relaly think he far surpassed any other musical genius of the 20th century. Most don't know he wrote in pen and never made corrections. A kind of idiot savant freak of nature genius. A real genius. The Mozart kind. Anyway, his legacy is a landmine of awesome power to learn from. Please visit the archives in Santa Barbara if you can. It will change your life.

Evan Evans

Great thread.

Hi Evan,

About Williams being reducable. It's a real surprise to me for you to be saying that you could reduce williams to piano. Are you entirely sure about this? Have you listened to chase through coruscant from episode II? I have always regarded williams as a very textural, flourishy composer, whose music really needs orchestra. It is my opinion that the music he composes totally justifies the use of a symphonic orchestra, because the sheer variety of colour that he employs simply could not be provided by an ensemble any smaller.

If I have your opinion straight, reducable music doesn't justify using an orchestra, and williams is reducable. So we have a something to debate here right?

I'm very interested in this thread. It's great that you are willing to share everything you know like this.

By the way, I must say that I mistook your tone at the begining of the thread as arrogant. Now I realise it's not the case, but I mention it because I don't want Iwan to seem like he was alone in that interpretation. Its a USA/European thing. You guys have a different way of expressing yourselves that comes across as arrogant to us sometimes.

Herrmann was the first composer to dispute the pseudo-Wagnerian lietmotif style (still used today by Williams and many others). He took an art form that was mainly an adaptation of post romantic opera and operetta (through mainly German and Austrian expatriate composers in Hollywood) and singlehandedly changed it into a completely new and infinitely purer art based upon symphonic motival construction. He proved that the lietmotif was unneccessary and therefore arbitrary. Even though it still to this day seems radical to suggest it he probably is the greatest twentieth century American composer including concert as well as film music. It's true that Herrmann is still not fully appreciated in the sense that even when he is acclaimed now, people in general still don't realize his incredible originality and the way he actually changed an entire form similar to the way Beethoven changed the entire nature of the symphony. (Though of course Beethoven changed many other things as well, including the string quartet, the sonata, the concerto, etc. etc. etc.)

@Another User said:

Hi Evan, About Williams being reducable. It's a real surprise to me for you to be saying that you could reduce williams to piano. Are you entirely sure about this? Have you listened to chase through coruscant from episode II? I have always regarded williams as a very textural, flourishy composer, whose music really needs orchestra. It is my opinion that the music he composes totally justifies the use of a symphonic orchestra, because the sheer variety of colour that he employs simply could not be provided by an ensemble any smaller.

Ah. I seem to have left out a belief of mine. Something I believe strongly in. So stronigly and so fundamental that I nearly forgot that it does pertain to everything that I say. There are exceptions to every rule. The older and wiser you get the more solidly you being to believe in this theory/truth. So these thoeries, concepts, and philosphies I rant on about are meant really to be only a generality. And any generality has many, many exceptions to the truths it purports on about. In the case of Williams I can name INSTANTLY at least 10 entire film scores where the reduceabilty factor is low enough to be excuseable as non-reduceable. Close Encounters of teh Third Kind being one of the finest examples. However, as fine of an example as it is, it is also one of the most un-original orchestrations he has ever employed (there is direct templating from Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe as well as a few others, including Stravinsky). When a composer writes music but uses previously existing orchestrations, you run into another problem. Derivation. The stronger the derivation, the more invalid the derived potion becomes as part of the whole work. So inteh case of Close Encounters, if you were to "deconvolve" the deriviative orchestrations from teh final work, you'd be left with a small skeleton of original notions. Among them would indeed be some great melodies from the melody master. But a melody can be played on the piano. So is a deconvolved work which leaves only melody at it's core something that is non-reduceable? As my theories go, no. And in that case of the few (a large amount for someone with as many credits) scores where Williams' reduceability is masked by sophisticated yet derivitive orchestration, I still find his scores to be reduceable. But in those cases, I am more apologetic and respectful to the composer, because on initial glance/listening the work appears to be held up by strong bonds. And this is a mark of excellence to be sure.

While I'm thinking about it, the use of Piano in the orchestra is another sticky point. If something cannot be reduced to Piano, than what happens when you use Piano in orchestral music? Well teh best answer is DO NOT use it at all. Except in the case where the Piano can be used texturally for the idiosyncratic features inherent in it's design. It's percussiveness, or it's light raindrop qualities. It's staccato hammering sound.

Continued below: (god this posting length limitation is really starting to bug a proliferous person such as myself [8o|] )