"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!

All right Dave, who was the composer you were nauseated by at the very beginning of this thread? I want this to become controversial again! No more Mr. Nice Guy. I want outrageous statements and unmitigated gall.

Evan? Oh, Evan...

Um...

ehem (clears throat)

The best music does for the majority of people, the same thing. Any takers?

[:)]

Evan Evans

If I interpret this cryptic and taoistic statement correctly, you mean that great music is itself controversial. You're right. A good point.

Though I still want to know who Dave was so disgusted with. I love trashing people who've made lots of money. I wonder why that is...

My guess is Zimmer. Any more bids?

@Another User said:

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

And then only ONE velocity layer is captured!!! [8-)]

6. <----------please fill this line in [[;)]]

@William said:

Though I still want to know who Dave was so disgusted with.

Yes. me too. Dave could you please leave a very cryptic "tell" of who it was?

We'll know.

[[;)]]

Evan Evans

James Newton Howard is the composer that has shown glaring weaknesses in his part writing as well as towering banalities in his music. But as I said before he's also done some very good work. I liked "Dave" which if you listen sounds very much like a keyboard player's ideas set in the orchestra. Conversely if you listen to "The Fugitive" (and other works) you will hear parallelisms that will jolt you right out of your seat (no matter what's on the screen.) I see this as endemic to the principle of pop music person being shoved in front of an orchestra (so-to-speak.) This phenomenon didn't exist with feature composers of prior generations (even on lesser films.)

JNH has actually done pretty okay for a guy with no real chops (no counterpoint, part writing and so on) because he is so talented. I thought "The Sixth Sense" was very good but again that was orchestral effects (clusters etc.) Apparently he's a very gifted keyboard player (Chopin specialist at one point.) His arrangements for Barbara Streisand were quite good but that's a far cry from an art that's supposed to be informed by even Beethoven. John Williams has used fugue in his films. Goldsmith in Patton uses classical forms with total command.

I hate to see the dumming down of film music. As I've mentioned, when four legendary film composers reviewed Horner's Titanic (LA Times) they savaged it far more than anything I've said here. At least three did (with David Raksin refusing to comment.) I would never want to be a composer that some legend refused to talk about because I was a universe away from comprehending him.

Exceptions? The Newman Brothers, Danny Elfman. Whoever guessed Zimmer as a candidate for banality I think is right. I think he's capable of much more. "A League of Their Own" was a wonderful Big Band score from him. I don't recall the type of weakness in his musical construction being on par with JNH. Horner understands compositional technique (his choices in Titanic did him in.) He should have been a copyist though cause he's so darn good at it.

DC

Just jumping in on JNH's defense. He has the chops. I disagree with you dpcon. Sure most of the stuff he chooses to write doesn't "show" chops, but you missed PETER PAN and it's glaringly obvious.

Check it out. later.

[:)]

Evan Evans

"... towering banalities..."

Love it.

Evan,

I can accept "He has chops now" not having heard this one score you've mentioned. I did hear just the music from some recent work of his (it was dreadful and doesn't even qualify as music to these forgiving ears. Is Yanni music?) In most of his work I've heard errors that should be filtered out of a composition students work within a few weeks. - no exaggeration. I don't blame the guy, it's just a fact. My concern is for the craft. I think he's improved a lot and done some really good stuff within his means and abilities. But of course I'm troubled by any disintegration of an art form (just as I am about pop music.) Major motion pictures now can contain very badly crafted music. I honestly don't hear that in even old B movies. There was no way to cheat that with synths back then, and the line between pop and orchestral writers was very clear.

This is a modern phenominon which I hope doesn't persist. Danny Elfman is an example of someone without the training that through whatever means doesn't exhibit this trait. His scores are very solid musically however appropriate one may deam them.

Glaringly obvious weaknesses in musical construction, I would think would bother a composition student with even modest gifts.

Dave Connor

I am not really familiar with Howard, but agree with Dave's general emphasis on musical technique being optional today. Perhaps the reason for the general level of ability among film composers in the past being higher was the predominance of crossover classical musicians and composers in the field. Today, the main crossover is from pop artists.

Though on a contrary note I think the reason Elfman who comes from a pop background does not write crap is because his great talent - maybe genius - overcomes any deficiency in his education. That's why I was disturbed by that one magazine altercation between him and the person from classical music who was ridiculing him. Did you read that? Elfman was not being arrogant at all - he admitted he was not educated at a conservatory - but this other guy completely ignored the fact that genuine musical ability, if great enough, can overcome a lack of technical knowledge, or even inspire an individual to acquire that knowledge in unconventional ways, as in Gershwin learning how to orchestrate from books, Ives being a self-taught amateur, etc.

William,

I agree totally with your post. It's true there are guys who are so talented that somehow they avoid the many pitfalls of part writing, voice leading, orchestration etc. I was once asked by a friend to examine an orchestral arrangement he had done (via midi.) Not one error in any fundamental aspect. I was baffled. It's so easy to stumble somewhere. In fact it wasn't just sound it was very good, very creative.

As far as the rest of us: I guess if you're not a genius, take a few lessons.

Dave Connor