@Nick Batzdorf said:

Maybe it's because the budgets are really high, prompting the film companies to overuse focus groups, which are only going to react well to familiar things, which means the risks get minimized by repeating what has worked before.

I think this is a big factor in popular and film music. There's lawyers making these decisions. If something sells it creates a formula which is then copied. It doesn't matter whether it's high quality but high sales.

But this still doesn't excuse the director for not discerning between quality music and very average music. It's no accident that Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Wells (both candidates for best director that ever got behind a camera) used Bernard Herman who's considered by many to be the best ever in his field.

As I said before, the best directors of our time tend to use the best composers:
Schaffner used Goldsmith (Planet of the Apes/Patton/Papillon) Kubrick used North (Sparticus) Leone used Morricone (Westerns) and John Sturges (The Great Escape/The Magnificent Seven used Elmer Berstein.

I honestly think that by posting this question I'm starting to understand the concrete reasons for this issue. It's a combination of overcommercialism by the powers at be and underachieving by the creative people

Dave Connor

@William said:

I don't think somebody sucks if they go by ear. That's the way I go.

I don't think somebody sucks unless they actually suck. It's the end product that counts. Danny Elfman has been roundly criticized for a lack of education but his scores don't lack, they're delightful. There are guys with superb educations that just don't have the gift as well.

I don't think that people who have dedicated themselves to understanding what sucks and what doesn't should have to apologise for it.

DC

@Christian Marcussen said:

I actually enjoy modern filmmusic. Im not talking about media ventures, but Horner, Williams, J.N. Howard, etc.
PS: I hate pop music

Christian,

Do you know there are people in the Classical music field that do not think that film music is music at all? (all film music from the beginning of filmmaking.) Can you imagine what they think of samples?! Music that is not real people but computers and samples!

My point is that all things are relative. Someone will always love something that someone else will hate. Don't worry about it. I don't. Enjoy the films and music that you like. No one's putting you down for that. Maybe your taste will change maybe it won't. Don't worry about what other people think unless you value their opinion enough to reconsider you own.

Please understand that I don't have "standards." What I have is a pair of ears. You don't like what you hear in Pop music and I don't like what I hear in a lot of film music. That's OK. We're free to think the way we want. No one should feel put down by differences of opinion or taste. No one should feel intimidated by the stating of either as well.

Dave Connor

P.S. There is still wonderful work being done in major motion pictures such as "The Road To Perdition" which I believe is Thomas Newman

I think your getting me wrong... reading my post it does sound like im offended a bit maybe? I'm now... by saying my standards are lower I dont mean it as a snide remark, but rather... you enjoy things on a whole other level than me. For instance I cant hear that J.N.H has poor compositional technique... All I hear are beatuful themes...

but as you said, its about taste. But I do hoever understand your point of view as a craftsman... becuase your skilled in that you hear all the flaws made by someone who isent as well versed.

Anyway, just wanted to clear up that im not the slightest offended, and I find it an interesting discussion.

Ps: You say you dont think something sucks, unless it actualy sucks. Thing is you definition of what sucks has a standard... namely that if it isent well composed (craftmanship) then its lesser music. From my perepctive this does not matter...

@William said:

If a star like Britney Spears (not primarily a musician but rather a fashion model with modest vocal ability) can be manufactured by record producers

Don't embroider it William.She's cr@p. [:)] There have been a plethora of girl and boy groups in this country now for ages and nearly always singing cover versions. If it was the music the record buying people were interested in, they would surely buy the original. The original version by pure definition will always be better. Always. So why do record companies insist on this cynical approach. It has to be (a) money and (b) the inability to write 3 minute classics anymore. Most kids today will probably not be able to tell you who wrote and performed the original and they probably don't care. Its about fashion at this level. Ask any of them if they've heard of the Brill Building (excuse my spelling).

How this affects up and coming younger musicians? Its worth bearing in mind that a lot of the pop classics were written in the sixties. A lot of it was dreadful too. In those days an artist had to sell around 60 to 80 thousand copies a day to get to numero uno. These days it seems its still the numbers game with a slightly different slant. Record companies throw as much shite at the wall as they can and sees what sticks. They did the same in the sixties, only the overall quality of musicianship and writing was better.

It doesn't matter what anyones personal tastes are, it only matters to them, but sooner or later you have to have objective musical benchmarks whether you write pop music, music for films/tv or music for toys.

If we disregard film writers of 50 years ago, we may as well disregard pop stars of the past, like Mozart for instance.

Thomas Newman certainly did write the score for The Road to Perdition btw Dave.

@Christian Marcussen said:

You say you dont think something sucks, unless it actualy sucks. Thing is you definition of what sucks has a standard... namely that if it isent well composed (craftmanship) then its lesser music. From my perepctive this does not matter...

CM,

A "standard" to me is somewhat artificial. An imaginary line that no-one can cross. I don't have this. An "informed sensibilty" perhaps but you have that too - everyone does. For example:

Let's say some girl that is singing at a party (horribly flat to the point that you can't recognize the tune) and everyone is looking at each other smiling and laughing about it. Is that because they all have the same standards? No variation at all but 30 people happen to have identical standards? Or is the girl just hideously flat? You see? It's not about standards it's about a girl who can't sing.

Now, JNH is a very talented guy. He CAN sing. But when he goes totally off key - I hear it. It's not my standards, it's him going flat.

PaulR hit the bottomed line on this, "sooner or later you have to have objective musical benchmarks whether you write pop music, music for films/tv or music for toys."

Well, there's a bunch of pop stars who go flat now and then and film composer's as well I suppose.

Glad you're not upset btw.

Thanks Paul for confirmation on TNewman score

DC

without the intention to offend somebody - _i_ am CM [;)]
christian

cm,

I know you are cm so I wrote CM. [:P]


dc

[:D] sorry for having disturbed your conversation ...

cm,

You're the least disturbing person on the whole forum.

I thought about you when I wrote CM but I didn't think you would be sneaking around this part of the forum.

Now I know you're everywhere [+o(]

Dave

Hey CM

Have you ever read 1984? [:P]

I think a same music can have different purposes and reach different people with different results at the same time... maybe for musicians the best thing should be to remain objective regardless of "I like it or not"... it is just a matter of extreme attitudes, for example, quoting Dave :

"Do you know there are people in the Classical music field that do not think that film music is music at all? (all film music from the beginning of filmmaking.) Can you imagine what they think of samples?! Music that is not real people but computers and samples! "

Maybe those people are fantastic writers, and will probably understand composition almost ascetically but what is the point of composing if they'd keep such an extreme attitude? music would not reach anyone but them...

Look at Mozart... he was very conscious of being a genius and his comments about other composers "mediocre" works made him a lot of enemies, but regardless of that, did he compose only for him? I think he reached some unsurpassed inner writing (Requiem, etc...) and still, he wanted music to reach everyone, as he even wrote a "popular" opera...

this to say that maybe music should'n be judged through a personal sensation but it should also be analyzed in which context this music is happening... I love the works of Williams, Elfman and other top film composers, but probably Superman's theme was made THAT audible and clear on purpose, because of a need of a musical identity with the character... does this make this music worse? I think that if ONLY an introspective approach to the character had been used it might have been disastrous, (and btw, I think Williams handles this very well, he can do both, which is I think the key to his success...)... we know that Silvestri's score was rejected from Pirates of the Caribbean... and what replaced it... was Silvestri's score WORSE (lol) than Zimmer and his legions? Probably not... were those 12 or more composers out of inspiration when doing the current score? I don't think so either... The Producers must have asked for that specific kind of score because it probably reached more marketing- targeted people than the other one (this makes me remember how I loved Zimmer's spicatto theme in Crimson Tide...I had this score and my "no musically trained" neighbour had the Rock, which contains a similar theme but to me, less precise and rougher, but he liked it better...)

Film music is something so different than personal music, it has a complete different purpose and inevitably it is created and aimed to fit a product... its conception is necessarily different

mmm I already got lost [[;)]] hehe this to say that I think extreme attitudes should always come after a thourough thinking and analysis of what has been created...

man, what did I had today for breakfast?? [:D]

Regards,

Iván

PS: and I don't like pop music either [[;)]]

"this to say that maybe music should'n be judged through a personal sensation but it should also be analyzed in which context this music is happening... "

That's an excellent point - I completely agree with that. That's why I was a little bugged by Christian Marcussen seeming to think I was looking down at things that were not "sophisticated." I never do that because music isn't good because it's "sophisticated" or complex. It's good because it's good or bad because it's bad.

BTW I've noticed Silvertri's things before and thought they were good examples of a very effective, simple, direct approach to scoring - a total contradiction (and therefore disproof) of the leitmotif and overwrought orchestrations of bigger composers. Maybe he didn't provide enough "classy" frills for the producers on that film you mention.

Ivan,

I agree with your basic point and with Williams response to it as very much like my own.

Let me clarify. Listening to music in context is absolutely correct of course. I wouldn't hold a piece of film music up to a symphony as far as the content because they are entirely different forms, mediums, and genres. I also wouldn't compare a three bedroom house to a palace. However, a house and a palace must be built on a good foundation or both will collapse. It's the foundational or fundamental aspects that underly the music that I'm talking about. As William said it need not be "sophisticated": that is not the criteria. I love simple strait forward music (which is not simple to write in my opinion.)

If the construction of the music is weak or if the harmonic movement suggests no effort to rise above the trivial, then some basic element that should be present in ALL music is absent. Maybe it's just a lack of care. But those who do care, just may notice

Dave

Another thing that happens over here a lot is:

WE WANT IT FAST! - FASTER!! - FASTER!!!

CHANGE IT ALL!!! - IS IT DONE YET?!?! I'LL CALL BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES - (9 minutes later) doorbell rings - I'M HERE TO PICK UP THE ENTIRE RE-SCORED/RE-RECORDED/RE-MIXED MASTER!

Sorry for the rant (obvious it happens to me alot so I got to be guilty of some of it [:O]ops: )....ooops there goes the phone...... *sigh* [:(]

@dpcon said:

cm,

You're the least disturbing person on the whole forum.
Dave

And who's the most distrurbing person?

Evan Evans
(chiming in after a few weeks of loving this topic)

@Another User said:

... but I didn't think you would be sneaking around this part of the forum.

this part of the forum reads for me like, hmm lets say, an essay. it covers topics where i know the least and can learn most, so you would find me here just as a lurker ...
christian

cm,

Here is an analogy of my point about film music (using sampling as an example.)

Say there are 5 basic funamental keys to sampling:

1. Good mics
2. Good players
3. Good room
4. Good engineer
5. Good recording medium

If another company came out with the same samples as VSL but had inferior elements:

1. Cheap mics
2. Average players
3. Bad engineer

All VSL people would hear it and say, "This is not so good. Some of the fundamental keys to sampling are very weak and inferior."

You would be right of course.

One can't have glaring weaknesses in the key elements of composition without identical (and identifiable) results.

It is not subjective. It is objective. Scientific if you will. Just like sampling.

I should have been a lawyer.

I rest my case.

Dave Connor

Objection, your honor!

You mean,

OBJECTIVE, your honor!