Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

196,195 users have contributed to 43,015 threads and 258,397 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 1 new thread(s), 9 new post(s) and 171 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Orchestration & Composition
  3. Your Music
  4. Hans Zimmer scores

  • Hans Zimmer scores

    W
    W

     I recently saw "Inception" which featured a very loud score by Hans Zimmer.  He also did the Dark Knight with the same director. 

    I am NOT trying to trash Zimmer out of envy and am glad a musician can make lots of money and be successful.  However I find this music so terrible to listen to that I was actually grimacing in pain while it was playing.  It is so monotonous, like a wall of sound that won't stop, that when it is over you feel good to hear the silence.  It is also horribly bad as music.  There is no contrast orchestrationally, no themes of any memorable nature, no counter themes,  no conception of the instruments of the orchestra,  nothing but massive walls of sound that are set up inpenetrably. 

    I am seriously trying to understand what is good about this music. I am wondering if anyone else is upset by these scores.  Or do you all want to do something just like it because Zimmer is your god?  I am a huge fan of great film music such as Bernard Herrmann, Erich Korngold, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, Max Steiner, Nino Rota, Ennio Morricone, Danny Elfman, John Williams, Zbignieuw Preisner, Phillipe Sarde,  and others - all composers who write themes, counterpoint, changing tonalities of harmony, orchestration (in some cases in varying collaboration with orchestrators) - in other words, real music.  But this is not music. It is a musical sound effect and this person is now the biggest film composer on the planet.  That is disturbing.  To me it shows a total collapse of artistry in film music.  
  • T
    T

    I agree with you on the Inception score. However, the fact that Hans Zimmer is currently the best-paid and most sought-after composer in Hollywood doesn't necessarily make him a genius, much less a god. I, too, prefer Rota and Herrmann and many of the people you mentioned. The collapse of artistry in film music is not very disturbing if you take into account the collapse of films in general :)

    Just my 2c.
  • E
    E

    If that's the best "he" can do (including all of the minion composers he keeps in little rooms in a cave), that's the best he can do. It's the producers/directors that have dropped their standards  d r a m a t i c a l l y. It's their fault. The worst thing that Zimmer has done - unwittingly, is to encourage LOTR-like hordes of giftless, gauche, inept non-musicians to attempt a career in film music. They saw the Gladiator, etc. and they said to themselves "hey, I could do that!". I haven't heard 'The Lion King' - for which his colleagues awarded him an Oscar - to have an opinion, but I'm not curious enough to investigate.
  • P
    P

    Yes but a lot of films these days don't have music per se. They have sound. 

    Sound is different to a music score for a film or anything else for that matter. I haven't seen Inception as yet so can't comment - but I can imagine.

    There's nothing worse as you get older than to be watching a film and the background noise is just sound. Sound, if used extremely effectively can still make signals to the audience. An immediate example of that would be Forbidden Planet which was pretty ground breaking at the time. But no sane audience could take that for every film.

    I watched a nondescript film the other evening where the director and writers ran out of ideas after about one third of the way into the film. Film is called 30 Days - or something like that. The photography was good but apart from that the background sound/noise was obviously what was asked for and became irritating. 

    With the advent of more and more sample libraries that deal in noise and sound you will find that these tv and filmscores will become more prevalent as they pander towards score writers that specialize in noise and not music scores in the traditional sense. These sample libraries must be a Godsend to these type of writers and good luck to them too because earning money is hard enough at the best of times. 

    This is what you wind up with in the greater scheme of filmmaking though. When you pander to instant this or that in the world of mobile phones and texting, a low boredom threshold and the attention span of a gnat - you're going to get mostly crap films along with crap editing, photography, dialogue, direction, production values and even filmscores. 

    Crap is of course extremely subjective mind you. What is crap to me having been brought up going to the cinema from the 50's onwards - may be the best thing to a 20 year  old that thinks holding a number of notes on midi keyboard that's triggering a noise makes for good scoring. But what's irritating to me is not necessarily irritating to a moron.

    Let's face it - if you want to make money making films today based the above criteria you have to take the lowest common denominator route. That's where the money is based on todays education and values.
  • J
    J

    Yeah I was rather surprised when I saw Hans Zimmer's name under the music credit at the end of Inception.  I just saw Sherlock Holms and I thought that score was quite imginative.  So at the end of Inception I was expecting to see a nobody's name in that credit.  After some reflection, however, I think the score for Inception is much like the film, a good idea but slopily executed; it's hard to follow, it moves too fast, and it was overstuffed.  Entertaining?  I guess if you're in your late teens or early 20's. 

    Most films are like that nowadays.  They're like watching commercials.  It's just cut and cut and cut and cut.  And notice how the camera is just constantly moving, swooping, panning, swishing.  I kind of wish somebody would dig up Stanley Kubrick and have him make movies again.  I miss that slow methodical pacing and attention to detail that he was famous for.  Today, you don't have time to digest anything in a film anymore. 

    With regards to scoring, I think we've come to a point were the director has maybe 3 choices:  A score, a sound design, or a combination of the two. 
  • T
    T

    @Errikos: the problem of directors lowering their standards dramatically is only part of an entire industry doing the exact same thing, and for many different reasons – a lot of them very technical. Around ten years ago I saw an interview with Francis Ford Coppola who talked about the wonders which will come out of the democratization of video. He said something like, "In an industry which was traditionally very difficult to get into, you may suddenly discover that your next door 12-year old neighbor is the next Mozart." You can now write, shoot, edit, grade and do sound with very little money. A great many more people have access to the tools needed to create audiovisual media. Whether this democratization is good or bad is a very complex question. Moreover, because of the dramatically lower costs, production companies' budgets get tighter and tighter: you're expected to do more with less all the time.

    I don't think this is a directors/producers issue. The short span of attention and the ever-plunging quality of films (and film music) is a symptom of the fundamental spiral of addiction our society has for the new, the fast and the furious. I'm not sure how many 20-year-old people today could tolerate Andrei Tarkovski's "Nostalghia" with its 7-minute shots which I love very much (which doesn't mean I can't enjoy "Goodfellas"...) It's also very difficult for grown people to understand how people in their 20s can tolerate the stuff they're listening to. This is not a new phenomenon.

    I, too, can't stand those Superman or Spiderman or whatever trailers which always have the same Stormdrum 8-bar pattern compressed into -0.3db oblivion. I, too, prefer what Bernard Herrman could do with a string section and a couple of clarinets. But like all periods of decadence, this one will pass, too... And those who are dissatisfied with the music they hear should do their best to write music they like. All this isn't Hans Zimmer's fault :)

    Just my 2c.
  • A
    A

    I don't know, I actually thought the score was great and "fit" the mood of the movie quite well.
  • E
    E
    last edited
    last edited

    @Talino said:

    All this isn't Hans Zimmer's fault :)

    I also said it wasn't. As far as Coppola's interview is concerned, I find his statement very optimistic; in fact you're going to find that your next door neighbour is your average twit - as he should be in all probability. Access to tools - as you point out - is no panacea for crassness, and I am not going to touch the 'democratization' discussion with a 10-klm. pole, or I'm never going to finish what I'm working on. I admit that I couldn't finish 'Stalker' (and 'Solaris' barely), not because I am not educated, in the same way that being educated doesn't necessarily mean you can sit through Lachenmann's offerings. 

    I don't entirely agree that due to the ever shorter attention-span and ever plunging quality of films, soundtracks should suffer the same. I submit Williams' tour de force soundtracks to the first three Potter films and the execrable Star Wars prequels and E.T., Morricone's masterstrokes to the Tornatore films (yes, miles better than mainstream cinema, but still not in the same ballpark as Fellini or Visconti), Goldsmith's scores to Legend, Final Conflict, Barry's to Lone Ranger, Jarre's to Top Secret, the list is endless and I included older films on purpose to show that this is not a very recent phenomenon. Mediocre or bad films do not necessarily carry bad music - I don't think Hangover Square is a cinematic masterpiece - just good enough; however, the music is!

    No, it is strictly the falling aesthetic standards of the big paragons combined with the continual access to tools that charlatans have come to enjoy that are to blame.

    Lastly, thank you for deriding the abominable, pandemic 'Stormdrum 8-bar pattern'. The moment I hear that on anyone's show-reel, I know I've heard enough.
  • T
    T

    And thank you for leaving the "democratization" issue where it is, because otherwise I wouldn't finished anything myself.

    An anecdote about aesthetics (I pay the bills mainly by editing documentaries and short programs):

    I hear jasensmith's comment about Stanley Kubrick. I was recently asked to do a one-minute trailer for the Turner Classic Movies channel in France to be broadcast for their Kubrick retrospective. Because I feel that essentially Kubrick's work can't be reduced to a trailer, I created a (relatively) slow-paced edit of different close ups of faces, just looking at the camera and not moving, from all of Kubrick's films. Not a word was said, and the entire edit was accompanied by Haendel's sarabande from Barry Lyndon. I thought it was subtle, dignified and faithful to Kubrick's work, which is so focused on the act of watching. Several friends told me it was great.

    The company, of course, thought it was too "intellectual", made for the "elite" of Kubrick fans, "too subtle" and not suitable for the "young audience" the company wants to attract. I therefore produced a four-cuts-per-second sex-n-violence edit accompanied by "They did a bad, bad thing"' from Eyes Wide Shut. I was hoping they would see the irony, as well as the total and absolute betrayal of everything Kubrick fought for. They said it was perfect.

    True story. Not really related to the topic (Hans Zimmer), but rather to the "standards-lowering" debate started above. I'm not alone in this predicament, of course. The vast majority of people in this industry find themselves producing stuff they wouldn't watch nor listen to themselves, just because they have bills to pay (or kids to feed, or both). It's a sad story. Watch the discussion about black and white movies at the end of Wim Wenders' "The State of Things" (1982).

    Then sit down at your keyboard and do something useful :)
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @William said:

    However I find this music so terrible to listen to that I was actually grimacing in pain while it was playing.

    Hi William,

    Personally, I like a lot of Zimmer's material and then there is some that I pass over.  Hans is a very successful film composer who is able to identify what the customer wants and delivers the goods.  That's business and it is what pays the bills......

    Having discussions I found in comparing musical taste is a lot like having discussions about politics and religion.  You either like it or not and no one is going to convince otherwise.  Fortunately, the creation of a PLAY LIST has been God sent.  I have many (too many to mention) film scores in my music collection.  Generally, it doesn't matter if it's Zimmer, Horner, or Silvestri to name a few, I find myself picking out the "good ones" and placing them into my play list for those times I want to sit back and chill.  Listening to a battle scene or car chase just to listen generally doesn't do it for me.  It's a different story if I'm watching the video along with it.  The music then becomes, or at least it suppose to, become a supporting role to what is being viewed.

    One exception, for me, and that my own personal taste, is I include all of John Debney's and Ennio Morricone's works in my play list.  I don't recall a single cue that I have not included from any of their scores.

    As far as Zimmer goes, have you listened to the Crimson Tide and The Da Vinci Code, and some of the Pirate scores?  You may find them more enjoyable than some of his latest works.

    FWIW....
  • W
    W

     Chuck,

    Yes I know personal taste is what it is, but the universally simplistic and stupid nature of this stuff is what disturbs  me.   Repeat two phrases scored for every instrument in the orchestra in one huge mass, over and over again.  Is that your personal taste?  The composers  I mentioned did not do that, ever.  Herrmann for example would repeat simple phrases, but with great care as to the musical effect .  There are many others that I don't personally like but completely respect who also do not do this kind of musical idiocy,   Also, maybe he has done some good things - I just have heard this one, the Troy score (if I remember right he did that, correct?) and his Dark Knight Symphobia rhythm pad score (which was done with an expensive studio orchestra I am sure though need not have been done so since a chimp could have done it with any current synth/rhythm pad library).  So when you hear things that are that execrable you are not exactly inspired to seek out more of the master's work.

    Talino -

    that story is disturbing  and very appropriate for this thread.  I find it sickening that an over-the-top ironic joke was taken as great work.   But what this shows is exactly how one can succeed:  do something that sucks so bad it is a joke. You will succeed beyond your wildest dreams.   Try to do something sensitive and intelligent and artistic - like what you did the first time with your knowledge of Kubrick  - and it is rejected. 

    Why?

    Because an art form is controlled by non-artists with total power.   A recipe for disaster. 

  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @William said:

    Yes I know personal taste is what it is, but the universally simplistic and stupid nature of this stuff is what disturbs  me. 

    I believe I hear what your saying William....  Today's movie scores is more about orchestral textures mixed in with other sound designs, compared to the writing of orchestral works of the past that would stand on it's own.  The question is why?  Is it because today's composers aren't as good and capable as in the past or does it just appear that way in their attempt to achieve a contemporary sound?
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @William said:

    Yes I know personal taste is what it is, but the universally simplistic and stupid nature of this stuff is what disturbs  me. 

    I believe I hear what your saying William....  Today's movie scores is more about orchestral textures mixed in with other sound designs, compared to the writing of orchestral works of the past that would stand on it's own.  The question is why?  Is it because today's composers aren't as good and capable as in the past or does it just appear that way in their attempt to achieve a contemporary sound?
  • W
    W

    You're right about it being sound design rather than music.  It is striking how at the same time that this is happening in film music, there are various programs coming out that automatically generate a music score, even one for consumer home videos from Roxio! 

    I don't think it is because composers are worse today, but they are being attracted to this kind of sound because it is successful in contemporary scoring.    It is an exploitation of a simple fact of film music - that a single sound or series of sounds without any real musical value CAN be used to underscore a scene.  Not as well as real music, but in a basic way.   Some composers who are not capable of doing real music exploited this fact, and producers have grown to accept that sound as real film music.  Maybe Zimmer can write a great symphony on the side, I don't know, but his film scores don't show it.   It takes a full blown genius like John Williams to do the type of scoring he does and he is ultra expensive so perhaps that contributes to this shift as well.  Also, Bernard Herrmann was famous for being incredibly obnoxious.  Probably producers don't want to deal with the hassle of a great composer, and prefer a slick pro guy who just comes in and provides an efficient, predictable, useable sound for their film. 

    Though again, part of what bugged me about this particular example of Christopher Nolan and Zimmer is that it now seems that they are forming a duo.  But if you look at the great director-composer duos of the past - Herrmann-Hitchcock (the ultimate), Truffaut-Delerue, Tim Burton-Danny Elfman, or even Spielberg-Williams (though Spielberg is nowhere near Hitchcock or Truffaut) none of those composers are the lowest common denominator, minimal type like Zimmer and are maniacally serious about creating a richly detailed musical work.  I actually enjoy listening to the music of those guys as much as any concert music!  Oh well, this is just my wondering what the hell is going on.  I don't know what to think about it...
  • C
    C

    I agree with everything you said.  One other thing to consider.....  In today's corporate climate, speed, speed, & speed is of the upmost importance.  They speak of efficiency without costing quality.  I question the quality part coming from 30+ years in the automotive industry.  It's about the bottom line and share-holder profits, sometimes coming as a cost to the end-customer in quality and value.

    I know that's not being preached by the various mission statements, but then there is reality....  I'm sure the film industry is the same way and thereby influencing the points you have already made.
  • C
    C
    Some insightful replies in this thread, I'd like to add just a bit. Pardon me if I'll be imprecise, I'm just a musician. The written law of the modern movie-making states that the success of a movie is heavily affected by the 'risks', that is, by those elements for which the audience's reaction is not known in advance. If you have one risk, it's quite alright, because a movie without risks at all will be called 'dull'. If you have 2 risks, then you're doing something new already, and the movie's success will be multiplied or divided by two, depending on the unknown yet reaction. If you have 3 risks, your movie is very likely to fail. So, what's the outcome of the above? The music is excluded from the risks entirely. Do the wall of sound and be done. You don't need 'Requiem' for the likes of "Dark Knight" anyway. The movie-makers already have enough risks to add the music to those risks. This basically repeats what was already said - it's strictly business. BTW, the 'Rain man' score is quite good, in my opinion.
  • C
    C
    last edited
    last edited

    @crusoe said:

    Do the wall of sound and be done.

    Interesting point.....  Doesn't carry as much water when it's a soundtrack album that one is purchasing to listen to.  What I'm trying to say, is that it may work in the movie (for which it was designed for) but doesn't work well in the Audio Soundtrack that has now become big business.  This may be what William is really struggling with and me too now that I think about it........[;)]
  • C
    C

    To add to my previous point....

    The PLAYLIST is a great feature, as I said in an earlier post, used to purge out the cue's that don't fit in the flow of things when I'm listening to a soundtrack.  One might say, why not only purchase the cues that you enjoy?  The pricing structure is such that in most cases, there is enough good material in the total soundtrack that it would be more costly to purchase individual cues versus buy the whole thing and then using the Playlist, purge out the pieces that don't fit one's personal taste.  Make sense?
  • E
    E

    There's no 'risk' involved unless one licenses Le Marteau sans Maitre for the latest Jennifer Aniston film. With my limited (compared to Hollywood) experience, I can remember of no exception to the rule stipulating that the director always looks to the composer to enhance/enrich/punctuate/complement, even decode, his film. Everything else is pretty much done except the soundtrack, and no director/producer I've ever met, ever had the attitude "Ah, this will do, don't sweat it...". They always put the best possible music to their film they could get their hands on; OR, to come to a point I will always hammer (pun intended) - they always put what they thought was the best possible music to their film.

    Face it everyone! With few exceptions, directors and producers today have the aesthetics and sensibilities of a skunk. It's not the streamline industry or the irrational deadlines (not that those help). It's that they just don't know the difference anymore, period. You can tell when you watch the 'Special Features' of some mega-production where you see the director/producer going into raptures about the recording session, beatifying the marvellous composer who "knew exactly how to capture that particular moment" - while you hear the most basic pads and voice leading - "the film was in jeopardy before the master came and saved it" - loud percussion clichés triggering the basest and most colourless subconscious reactions, etc. etc. etc.
  • P
    P

    Just  as an aside: Why do people keep going on about the Dark Knight? It's a fucking crap film. Nolan is a classic case of an English director that's sold out to Hollywood. He obviously has talent because he made that detective film set in Alaska which shows a lot of talent. Then he starts making Batman films? Go figure.

    You can't talk about filmscores unless you understand what constitutes a good film in the first place. Don't tell me it's subjective because I'll then have to pull experience. It's not subjective - there are definitive parameters that make a film good whether anyone likes it or not.

    This conversation is beginning to irritate me.