...

@groove said:

It's funny to read this thread.I'm surprised no one mentionned Jean-Baptiste Lully, Bach or Heandel.

George Frederick Handel. One of the great commercial musicians of all time. Everyone knows, of course he was King George II's court musician. You can just imagine the conversations, can't you.

KG: George, I'm going up the River Thames in a couple of weeks in a barge. Fancy some watery-type music.
GFH: OK George. I'll put something together. Where am I going to put the band?
KG: Oh, don't worry George. We'll stick you on another barge.
GFH: But George, what if the water's choppy?
KG: I'll see that it isn't George. Also George, I'm throwing a fireworks party a little later. See what you can do.
GFH: No worries mate. BTW, I've got an idea about Zadoc the Priest you might like.
KG: Ok George. Lets run it up the royal flag-pole and see who salutes it.

Music to order. The name of the game for Handel. Money was his driving motive. Such a juxtaposition between him and Bach, both born in the same country in the same year.


Dear PaulR,

Don't get me wrong but don't be naive, even Bach had to make a living and was most of his life cantor in Leipzig or kappellmeister in Weimar por Cöthen. At this position you were litterally ordered not only to teach music atthe schola but to compose music every weeks for every liturgic celebrations. In fact, the magnificent Mathäus-Passion wouldn't have been written if Bach wasn't under the service of the church of Leipzig.

People seem to forget the basic: every artists great or bad have to make a living. And there is nothing trivial at it. Mozart composed his masterpieces because he was commissioned for them, otherwise he had to do the virtuoso puppet to pay the monthly bills. todays musicians doesnt do differently: the commisionners changed face, they no longer belong to the church or the royalty but are either big national or international corporations or gouvernments and commission composers, orchestra- in fact the whole art world- through grants and sponsorship.


Not a lot of artists can claim complete financial autonomy and even the richiest need grants to produce their ideas.

Cheers!!

[...

hello All,

I definitely hear all your positions.

I do most of my writing for either the concert hall or contemporary dance (yes, I'm broke!). So, I'm always straddling the gap between "stand-alone" music and "support" music. However, over the last couple of years I've become acutely aware of the presence of a strange sort of status quo in holding the opinion that the music _must_ serve the other form (dance in my case, film for this discussion). And I used to simply accept it... but I no longer feel so sure that it's in any way valid. I mean, when audiences first saw Le Sacre du Printemps (sorry to mention it again!), they... well, they rioted... but they were not under any illusions as to the fact that they were seeing _two_ great artists - Najinsky and Stravinsky. And this was the case with virtually all ballet music. People _expected_ to be swept up in the music at one point, then drawn back into the dance the next. This was, in fact, the whole point of these interdisciplinary forms. The two forms were in dialogue, and that dialogue could often generate a level of meaning all its own. It was complex, and even potentially confusing or overwhelming, but it was the foundation for interdisciplinary work. (As an aside, I do realize that in ballet, dance generally interpreted the music, which is no longer the case. However, I don't think that means the music should now take a secondary position, or that it should assume the role of interpreting the dance.)

Now, clearly I'm talking about art, and to assume that the majority of Hollywood production houses have any interest in producing "art" is a mad assumption. So, there's certainly is a wide berth given for conventional films, with conventional music -- they are the little money-makersj, the films that keep companies afloat. But I've always wondered whether there's any validity in this....? Would audiences really fail to respond to films with higher artistic goals? I doubt it. In fact, they generally respond quite well (you all have your own examples). It's similar in the pop music world, where major labels seem to assume that it will "work" to simply sign artists who are reasonable copies of their (or the competition's) major stars. This is what dragged music down in the 80's, and I sincerely believe it's what's killing the labels now. File sharing is very likely a symptom, not the disease, but it will take a great deal of courage for major labels to accept that position (please, let's leave that discussion for another century!)

The main thing for me is challenging the assumption that film music _should_ sit in the background... I challenge that assumption now when I write for contemporary dance, and believe me, that world is steeped in simlar opinions. Ever since dance found its feet (pardon the pun) as an autonomous form, that could exist without music, it's increasingly become an unwritten rule that music must now support.... I don't buy it anymore. And, yes, it is a _huge_ challenge to make music that is effective as an interdisciplinary element, but at the same time strong in itself. I've no idea whether I can do it...

you're all an impressive lot -- it's good to hear people thinking so much about what they do!

James.

Hello Paul,

I hope I was not sounding rude. Blame my poor use of this new "esperanto" called "international english" for it. my mother tongue is french and altough I try my best to clearly express my point de vue in esperanto sometime it comes rude and ugly! sorry.

Now for Bach's mattäus-passion.

Bach was appointed as kantor of the Thomasschule in leipzig when he composed it. Bear in mind that he was no longer a kappelmeister or a court composer for Prinz Leopold Anhalt in Köthen but a simple municipal servant where he had to teach music, cathechism and compose excercices for his pupils and a cantata a wek for the Thomaskirche!! They sure didn't have time to waste in front a television set back in these time!

Anyway I recall a composer who didn't need any grants for a living and composed extremely complex and innovative use of the orchestra; giacinto scelsi (1905-198[H] was born in an aristocratic family. It is not for every one but listen to such pieces as "quattro pezzi per orchestra" or "hurqualia" and you won't be disappointed.

Ciaò!

Hello Folks,

Just want to say I'm enjoying all the intelligent and informative posts here. Loving the Bach and Handel stories in particular.

Paul has once again proven himself has the wittiest fellow on the entire forum.

Cheers

Dave Connor

...

James, I didn´t mean that music in film should serve as a background, that I actually hate. I see music in film as one element for constructing a higher form. For me music in film is like a chord in concert music. Just an element. But maybe this thinking is already too arty for the general film producer... [[;)]]

By the way, a couple of days ago I learned that dancers always count to 8, even in a waltz... [:D]
So maybe they don´t exactly care for the music?

Regarding Bach there is that interesting thing that he was terribly outdated already during his later period of his life. At least that´s what I was told. Preclassicism demanded for really simple and blond music. He was kind of a dinosaur.

And I highly recommend Scelsi!

@dpcon said:

I agree that leaving Handel out was a glaring omission as his orchestration is so personal, distinct, and very, very hip even with todays ears.

Dave, this is one we can disagree on. Nice to know we aren't the same person. I hate Handel. Muck. He's my example of how hacks existed in every era and are NOT a new thing.

And I actually think that when I listen to his music is sucks the life out of me. So I think it's even dangerous to be around his music.

Evan Evans

@mathis said:

And it´s not necesserally the case, that even "good" film music works equally well as a concert piece. The same way round, a piece good for a concert actually may often fail as film music. I do think there is a difference in "film scoring" and "music composition".

This is what makes me such an open person. Because a piece of crap music can be the most moving thing I've ever seen when coupled with film. There are no lines for a film composer. All is fair game. At least that's the way I think it ought to be.

But I still don't like Handel very much.

[:)]

Evan Evans

...

Evan,

I honestly cannot concieve of anyone well versed in the science of composition making such a statement about Handel. The man is a wonder on that alone. I can understand someone hating his music/content (or any other composer's.) Because there's no accounting for taste (a point that is futile to contest.) But in Handel we have someone in total command of his art who "wrote the book" as far as so many that followed. Beethoven declared him the greatest composer who ever lived. Even if that was hyperbole, the point is well taken. Beethoven doesn't know what a musical hack is? Come now. You may be the most powerful user in the forum, but L. Van Beethoven is easily the most powerful composer who ever penned a score
(A point on which myriads of musicians, historians and critics agree.)


Tell you what. You call Lalo Schifrin and I'll call David Raksin and see if they concur with your perception of Handels talents. I think we should both emphasize the word "hack" for purposes of clarity in our inquires.

Always fun Evan,

Dave Connor

Let me know if that's a go and then we can post their responses.

...

Evan wrote some things I thought were some of the best statements about film music I've ever heard. About how in a way it is not the same artform as music at all, at least as we normally think of it. That is why a piece of junk can be absolutely perfect for a film, and a symphonic masterpiece can be pathetically bad.

Of course that doesn't mean one should attempt pieces of junk! (Though many do.) And it is not always the case anyway. Herrmann is the greatest film composer and partly because he integrated the exact artistic process necessary to film music into his most basic artistic conceptions - into his very feelings. And if you want to hear a great concert piece, listen to the suite from Vertigo. Or the Overture to North by Northwest. Or the Death Hunt from On Dangerous Ground (one of his lesser known masterpieces). or the astounding original Intro with twelve flutes, nine horns, nine trombones, violas, basses and pecussion to Torn Curtain. Or etc. etc. all of them make magnificent concert music. And uncannily, they were absolutely perfect for the films they were in

However I am shocked that Evan hates Handel. My God! How can a human even conceive such things? Handel is the greatest of them all, along with Bach and Beethoven. I'm glad people have mentioned him, especially in light of orchestration. Have you heard the original instrumentation of the Fireworks music? A huge oboe ensemble, nine trumpets, nine horns, timpani (all considered "warlike" instruments then). It is an awe-inspiring sound. Just one of his many masterpieces.

Also, concerning commercialism - I agree with Groove concerning Bach and that immediately ocurred to me after hearing Paul talking about the distinction between Handel's commercialism and Bach's artistic purity. For example, his cantatas - it is only because he had a gig at church and HAD to write a cantata each week (!) that he composed so many great ones. It was everyday work to him. Though Paul is right in one sense - in Bach, you hear an intense spirituality that is unshakeable and profound and self-justifying, unlike the more worldly, urbane "cool dude" Handel.

Another point on this thread I think is very important is what JBM mentioned concerning music not being downplayed in relation to dance. I agree that it must be of equal value and a composer must uphold that philosophy to the point of death. And it is somewhat similar to the position of film music being considered "lowly" and secondary. Max Steiner said that if music is not supposed to be heard in a film, then why write it?

Hey guys, ... the thing about Handel is, .. and it's just me here I understand that, ... I don't like that square music. Like someone said, it's a "taste" thing. I prefer a small degree of Mozart, etc. but, like the quote on my website says, "If Mozart was such a genius how come he couldn't write like Stravinsky?" lol.

And as far as calling Lalo or Raksin, why not just call me? Is there some reason I need to lean on those guys? I am my own artist, confident in my own rites. Would you tell Stravinsky to call Copland? Come on guys. Show a little respect. My music isn't that bad, and I think it ought to support my own merits as an individual. My father also would not have been too fond of being asked to call Lalo or Hancock to ask them if Handel is an important part of my father's artistry. It's none of their business.

It's funny how you guys assume that I am an ordinary person. It is conceivable that I have an understanding of music that is unique to my own artistry. It ought not surprise anyone that I have very individual philosophies. Mostly I'd be curious if I were you.

Should Bernard Herrmann be around today, I would have been very inquisitive with him, and certainly wouldn't invalidate his viewpoints.

I suppose I do not have the oeuvre to grant society that kind of respect ... but I vow to you guys ... I am trying, and I think I can do it. I wish to create the most powerful film music since Herrmann. Any fan of herrmann should know how valiant such a journey is, even if it carries with it a tortured perspective and terrible social habits, such as was the case with Hermmann himself.

Herrmann died right around when I was born. Not sure if I believe in it, but before I heard any Herrmann, I was already composing like him, to the point that my teacher who knew Herrmann personally said, "you sound just like my friend Benny." He later told me he never said that to any of his 100s of students, and that he stands by it. I have since changed my artistry to be more my own, but had he not made the comment I might have completely became Herrmann. Well my wife suggested once that I am the reincarnation. She believes in such things. I don't know. I don't think so. I don't believe in that kind of stuff. But I do get his music awfully well. There is an article coming in FILM SCORE MONTHLY aptly titled "The Next Herrmann?", about my scoring career. So it's not all just personal fluff.

I've said before I love my music. It sounds kind of narcissistic and sick, but I really like making the kind of music that I think is the most enjoyable and of the highest form. I really don't think of myself that way though. i don't look in the mirror and think, "my what a handsome lad." I am grateful for what I have, but I am not in love with myself.

And I don't love Handel. Sorry guys. Too easy. Too perfect. Too predictable. Too formulaic. FOR ME. It doesn't stimulate my mind. As a composer I listen to music at the compositional level. I am sure it is pleasurable to hear Handel. It might stir your soul. But my mind is what leads me and in the case of Handel it's like doing addition and subtraction all day. I'd prefer orbital mechanics or space time continuum. It's way more stimulating. All that organization just does nothing for me.

Finally, don't worry about it. That's how I feel. I'm not nuts. Just a taste thing. I respect others who like Handel. I understand why they would.

Cheers. Sorry to be so controversial, but that's liek the theme of my life. Rebel with too much cause.

Evan Evans

Evan,

Since I already know where you stand on Handel it doesn't make much sense to have you reiterate it in a phone call. It's true I don't hold in you in the same regard as those two major talents (Schifrin and Raksin) if only due to unfamiliararity with your work. Certainly your demo here doesn't hint at any virtuosity but you may have the greatest music ever written waiting for all the world to hear. Since we know and respect these two great men I thought it would be inciteful to ask them because I think they would dismiss the notion as pedestrian and uninformed. By way of example, if anyone ever said that your father was a hack I would argue identically i.e. "Well you make not like his music for whatever reason but the man is a great master on the instrument and rare is the soul who could not learn from him." That's my point. Bill Evans under absolutely no criteria of evaluation could ever be categorized as a hack. It's simply not true objectively speaking.


I suppose it's only a coincidence that my evaluation of Handel as a composer is summed up by Beethoven in his continuous praise and even borrowings from him. I consider Beethoven's mind to be perhaps the greatest musical mind ever in any musical form. Only Bach's maybe the exception but he did not work with as many parameters as Beethoven. I'm guessing he listened at the compositional level as well - don't we all? This is the mind you are suggesting really doesn't understand what great music is: an impossible contradiction. You can argue that you possess a keener mind than Beethoven but you'll have to back it up with a few Mona Lisa's and David's of your own. You probably have the same chance of outdoing those works (in their respective mediums) as you do the surpassing the 5th and 9th, or even the 1st Symphonies of Beethoven.

Prove us wrong bro. Let's face it: your father was one of the greatest musicians of the last century why not you in this one.

[:)]

Dave Connor

@evanevans said:

"If Mozart was such a genius how come he couldn't write like Stravinsky?" lol Evan Evans

.

"He was the despair of my youth and the consolation of my old age" Igor Stravinsky on Mozart.

In his books with Robert Craft, Stravinsky confessed that he found Mozart and Bach's compositional technique incomprehensible. He felt he could recognize Beethoven's approach and thought process clearly.

Dave Connor

@PaulR said:

After Bach died, he wasn't really rediscovered until many years later, Mathis. But that was the same for most Baroque era composers. Turned out to be some dinosaur. The eighteenth century sure was an era of fashion changes.

Paul, I´m not talking about the time after his death, I´m talking about his livetime. We assume that he was adored, but he wasn´t. People let him do, because he was kind of weird guy and obviously a genius and had lots of children, so they still kept him in charge so that he can feed them. But for their taste they would have preferred a much simpler music and would have hired another guy.
He was kind of a late guy. I would compare him with someone who nowadays composes strictly serialized music.

I absolutely agree that it´s not about attempting to write bad music. But the higher form is the film, and the films which are produced nowadays demand for a certain type of music. The films are onedimensional flat pieces of boring stories. They demand for this onedimensional heroic type of music. A multidimensional virtuosic type of music simply wouldn´t fit.
We as composers cannot change nothing about it. It´s the film. We can just hope to get hired for an outstanding film which needs outstanding music.

I certainly don´t want to back up Evans self-praise, but I don´t like Händel, too... [:D]

Bests,
- M

To quote Orson Welles: "What are the three most important things in a film? The script, the script and the script."

It´s the story, stupid.
That´s why the music of Mr. Glass worked in "The hours".

Concerning Bach I recently read some contemporaneous accounts (from aristocrats and nobles) of absolute astonishment at the man's gifts. His reputation went far and wide (I've read this over and over from many sources)

Mozart underwent a full blown creative crises when he encountered Bach's Well Tempered Clavier. He re-evaluated his own writing which then became informed by Bach's methods (polyphony/fugue et.al.) This is all too obvious in Mozart's later symphonies.

No doubt these two composers will soon be christened "hacks" by one of the titans here on the forum.

Dave Connor