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.

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. 

@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.

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

@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.

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 :)

@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....

 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. 

@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?

@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?

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...

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.

@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........[;)]

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?

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.

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.

@PaulR said:

ou 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.

I believe that depends on whether your defining "good" as to how the music fits the picture or "good" as to how the music stands on it's own.  There may be some well defined parameters to help individual experts make a determination on whether a film is considered good or not based on the standards used in developing the parameters in the first place.  That in itself is not to say that the individual doing the listening to the end products is going to like it or not.  That is purely subjective as to the individual's likes and dis-likes (personal taste).  No expertise required there......

Yes William. I don't like the music they are making, and I don't like the music they did in the past. The music in the 50s, or 60s, was really awful. However, not everything is so bad. Dance with Wolves had very simple music but extremely moving...well, it was an independent project I think.

The real problems surge from treating the orchestra as if it were a rock band. I have to admit that this type of orchestral behaviour has its merits. But having such a constant and loud dynamic behaviour is unpleasant, at least for some of us. Other people never complain about this. In fact, people are very happy with it.

Wait some time and we'll probably see this type of music be replaced by others...better I hope. Today, that's cool and practical but music has always been in a constant state of change, a constant flow we cannot control.

There's one more thing I'd like to add, if you allow me. Super productions are only a small part of the story. Yes, they are widely distributed and have certain advantages and so on. But they are not the only ones. There are lots of films with excellent music.

On the whole, I feel that the music that is applied to films is good. People who add music to films are not stupid. They may overdo it a little here and there but, on the whole, they do it quite well. In the case of certain types of super productions, they are overdoing it a little. They are always in a hurry and cannot allow themselves to hum a tune during 2 to 5 years in order to let it mature. Considering the time schedules they are given, they are very good at it. You cannot expect too much, it will always be fast food.

The important thing is not to focus too much on super productions or Hollywood. It's like watching the news and thinking "that is reality". The news is not reality, the news is compressed reality for capturing an audience. Zimmer, Elfman, etc can only put music to a few films per year (I don't know the numbers exactly). The enormous quantities of films produced around the world nowadays are not scored by them. They can't...fortunately, ha ha ha!

(By the way, I'm not a film composer so I don't give a...cue. Ha ha ha!).

@Chuck Green said:

To understand what makes a film good, you have to sit through truck loads of crap throughout the years. For every 1000 films made today you'll be lucky, very lucky to find maybe one that's any good. Unless of course you have a high boredom threshold, low self esteem and need lots of bangs and explosions and like to text and eat a lot while watching. Which of course you don't!

When it comes to music in films - can you remember how the score goes in Chinatown? Or Bringing Up Baby? I doubt it. Music in film in general is way overrated by other musicians because they have blinkers on. Music in film is just there because it works most of the time - mainly to send signals to audiences. It helps to set mood and forthcoming events. That's all a film is - forthcoming events whether the thing is set over a day or over eons. So the average audience doesn't generally come out of the cinema remembering much about the filmscore.

These days films are made mostly for the lowest common denominator. For instance, you're not going to make much money if you make films for the likes of me. You make money these days in film, by making them for people who can write and send texts while in the theatre and still not have missed much when they turn their attention back to the film 10 minutes later. They can send their texts and listen to the music and dialogue can't they without having to look up.

What they don't need is Bernard Herrmann frightening them.  You've got as much chance of seeing and hearing a Bernard Herrmann again as you have a Mozart. People that watch lots of films don't care about any of that stuff.

You can't make films in Hollywood today like Chinatown. No one would go and watch it. I envy places like Sweden and France with their attitude towards film making while at the same time trying to preserve their own cultures and interests. They tend not to make films for obese people. 

When what can only be described as an idiot says they can't stand film music from the 50' and 60's - you'll begin to understand where I'm coming from.