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

"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."

Dave,

Who was that? Just curious...

William,

Tom Keane my good friend and neighbor. He's worked (written for or produced) everyone from the Black Eyed Peas to Celine Dion to Burt Bacharach to Streisand. He wrote "Through The Fire" with David Foster and also co-wrote "Will You Still Love Me" Chicago. He's developing and producing young hip hop artists now. His brother John M. Keane is the composer for CSI. Talented guys. Tom is a gifted classical pianist as well.

When I examined his orchestral arrangement I expected to find a few problems because as you know, one must be very careful to see if all the ideas laid in are working with each other. Usually by default there's a handful of voice leading problems when someone uses their ears and drops in a nice line here and there. Any line must relate to another simultaneous line well, or you have problems. Not a single problem. This guy has golden ears. I always have to sweat a little.

DC

Appreciation of music should be subjective
Analysis of music should be objective

Music has always had context; film music is no different, but Opera is intended for a stage and demands consideration of the story, Symphonies are intended a concert hall and Chamber music was, well, intended to be realised in an intimate setting.

This does not mean you cannot take an Opera and have it performed by a bunch of soloists in a concert hall, or that symphonies cannot be recorded. However, the intention with which the music was composed remains.

However, it may not matter to you - everybody appreciates music in their own way, and I often enoy listening to film music on CD. However, if I'm going to analyse it (objectively), I have no choice but to consider its original context.

With regard to errors, yep, craftsmanship does not appear to be a priority at the moment for a lot of successful composers in the film music profession. It's a shame but, as long as the music is valid in its context (supports the film, does not disturb me whilst I'm watching the film etc.) I can cope with it. As long as I'm intending to appreciate the film, rather than analyse the music. This is usually not such a huge issue these days, since the music is often so low in the mix (below the effects) that the intricacies of the orchestration are hidden, so in the auditorium at the cinema you often cannot hear very well how the voice leading is working. So in that context, it may not be a problem - subjectively.

It's all a matter of context, and for what purpose you are considering the music.

Feel free to disagree violently.

I agree with what you're saying. The original impetus for the music is the most determining factor, especially with film music, and if it is successful in that regard, then it is good from an objective standpoint. Not necessarily good to listen to isolated, but good in achieving its purpose.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, sometimes simple, even simplistic music can be absolutely perfect for a scene, whereas a brilliantly developed symphonic movement filled with masterful counterpoint and excellent voice leading can be completely inappropriate and nothing more than a demonstration of irrelevant skills of a composer completely out of touch with the film.

I agree as well and in fact have been musing on the very points you made. Particularly that music should serve the picture and therefore is constrained even in a musical sense (lack of development or even lack of interest so as not to call attention to itself and conflict with picture.) The latter (static i.e. uninteresting music is more recent, as film music has moved away from it's operatic heritage.)

The two issues I do have are these:

Music that is so poorly constructed that it draws attention to itself. (Please understand I'm watching the film, not focusing on the score and then get pulled out by some colossal musical gaffe. Maybe I'm the only one in the theatre that happens to, but as a composer I'm trained to respond to music.)

Music that is so insipid and unimaginative due to either laziness or carelessness or complete lack of talent in understanding the difference between good and bad.

I know there are deadlines and all. I just don't know how someone can write absolute drivel and not expect a howl from some quarter.

Dave Connor

@dpcon said:

Music that is so poorly constructed that it draws attention to itself. (Please understand I'm watching the film, not focusing on the score and then get pulled out by some colossal musical gaffe. Maybe I'm the only one in the theatre that happens to, but as a composer I'm trained to respond to music.)Dave Connor

Completely good point Dave. We've talked of this before. 'Lay' audiences can be affected by this in my opinion. They may not realise the reason why suddenly, they are glancing around the cinema in a distracted fashion. But I 've seen it happen and indeed, looked for it in a sixth sense sort of way, and its not necessarily because the film is bad. Anal? Definately!

Bad music in TV or film is either an aural 'trained' notification that something isn't working, or a subliminal 'lay' reaction, which leads to loss of concentration. No doubt of it, in my view.

It can't just be because of bad writing either. After all, who gives the final go-ahead on the score? For me, and others may have different views, its when the score is constantly changing its style and does not remain within its original form and ideas. The Mark of Zorro is a good example of this, as I've said before. Music in film or TV is there to enhance the images. It can lift a poorish film and it can bugger up a good one.

@dpcon said:

music should serve the picture

Bingo. This is why I teach that the script should very much be strayed away from with a cross.

It's film music. Not "script music".

Evan Evans