@vibrato said:

But who decided that Film music should only be symphonic?

John Williams cant do electronic music the way Zimmer or some others can.

No one did; in fact during the late 60s and 70s a lot of scores were ensemble/jazz scores; but even with those you could discern the artistry of the composers (Schifrin, Grusin, etc.). That wasn't the argument. IF Zimmer can do good electronic music - and has some artistic integrity - he should stick to it and leave symphonic scoring to others. Maurice Jarre tried his hand at electronic scoring (with the help of Jean-Michel), he was quite good at it, nobody said he was Vangelis but no one complained either, and those scores are really not the reason he is remembered today. As far as fusion is concerned, one of the pioneers to include electronic sounds in orchestral scoring was Goldsmith, but not as a crutch to compensate for symphonic inadequacies...

As far as posting music here that is Zimmer-like, I am prepared to spend some of my time in these collegial discussions but not waste days of my life to make an obvious point. There could be some guys here that would do it, just give them access to Hans' equipment for a few days or even their own setups could still do (mine could not). And wait a while... Soon you will be able to buy Hans in a box! That's how hard it is...

And for the thousandth time, my problem is not with Zimmer per se. It is with the industry which fosters his cloning. And if we MUST have clones - we were doing fine without them a couple of decades ago - I prefer Williams clones (like Mike Verta - example you brought up) who at least know music, than the myriads of Zimmerines spawned exponentially in Hollywood and in personal websites around the Internet, especially YouTube! - "Here is my latest !@#$%^& trite action track for your enjoyment!.. I did it in one hour only!" (Naaah, I could never tell.....)

And lest we forget, clones are never as good as the original. With Williams at least there is a lot of margin left for music, with Hans... brrrrr!......

@vibrato said:

Today a young composer is not only interested in orchestration and orchestral music. There are many more possibilities - not available at the time of Herrmann and Williams.

So just as a curious composers, we like to head into many other directions. And sonically speaking, Zimmer has introduced some great stuff into the film music world. Sculpting a sonic picture throughout a film to give it that polished sound has also somewhat become a composer's job.

Sure, you can be John Williams and just focus on the orchestration etc. But, when you dont have to do that like you did in ET because the orchestration is not as complex in Inception - then you focus on other things.

Interesting comments Tanuj,

As I was reading your post, a thought entered into my mind, something I've been pondering for awhile.....

Some composers, like Williams, use only the acoustic orchestra instruments in their compositions.  The one score that comes to mind in "Memoirs of a Geisha '.  There were some unique sounds but they were created using the acoustic orchestral instruments.  I know this because it was featured on the extra's on my DVD of the movie.  (VSL offers some of these along with some other libraries I have).

On the other hand, some use synthesizers to get unique sounds not found in Western type orchestral music, (i.e. Zimmer and Horner).  I would be curious how individuals in this discussion feel about the blending of synth sounds with the standard orchestra?

@PaulR said:

All a filmscore writer can do is to lift a couple of notches what is already a good or great film. For example, take The Magnificent Seven. A film based on a terrific Japanese film called The Seven Samurai directed by Akira Kurosawa in 1954 (can anyone remember the score to that?).  

The year I was born......

@Fiery Angel said:

Perhaps this continues to happen because Zimmer's music is so simple that it cannot be studied or discussed at length because of this..  D'ya think?

I saw in a Zimmer interview once where Hans commented on how, (paraphrasing) when asked he replied that he felt his music wasn't great.  This was in response to a reference on how successful he has become in the film industry.  He went on to emphasize how great Williams was and that he could only hope to write as good as him someday.....

@vibrato said:

Today, we live in the digital world - and I think its foolish to seperate technology from music now. Technology in music is also an instrument and at the end of the day its a composers loss if he/she is not able to make friends with technology. Even herrmann used technology to his advantage at the time.

I agree with this statement.  The orchestral purist would most likely disagree.  I've always felt that if the technology enhances the final product then it's a good thing.  That being said, it shouldn't reduce the quality of the composition by overshadowing sound orchestral techniques and composition as William refers to in an earlier post.

A recent Horner interview on the Avid website has Jim stating (speaking about Avatar) how he is know moving away from Western type Orchestral Music and blending in electronic sounds -- something Zimmer has been doing for some time......

@Errikos said:

And lest we forget, clones are never as good as the original. With Williams at least there is a lot of margin left for music, with Hans... brrrrr!......

I think that an important concept and goal for a new composer today is the ability to be able to master in coming up with their own unique sound and style setting them apart from the rest instead of trying to be someone else..... 

@Another User said:

All a filmscore writer can do is to lift a couple of notches what is already a good or great film.

Often true, but not always IMHO. I don't think what Nino Rota did with Amarcord (or Hermann with Psycho, and there are many examples) was to lift it up a notch or two, but much more. These compositions set a tone, on the same level as the language spoken, the camera angles and movements, the acting and the cutting.

Just a quick side note,

There's a sky writer above my house spelling 'GO BLUE' and the big 'M' for Michigan.  I live about a mile from the Michigan Stadium (The Big House) and todays the opening football game with UCONN.  Haven't seen that kind of thing in many years.....

@PaulR said:

All a filmscore writer can do is to lift a couple of notches what is already a good or great film.

Often true, but not always IMHO. I don't think what Nino Rota did with Amarcord (or Hermann with Psycho, and there are many examples) was to lift it up a notch or two, but much more. These compositions set a tone, on the same level as the language spoken, the camera angles and movements, the acting and the cutting.

When people were coming out of the cinema after Psycho as I remember it in 1961 - a lot of them, particularly the younger audience, were all going wee wee wee wee wee wee in high pitched sounds to themselves re: the shower scene. No one - and I mean no one - would have been able to recall the rest of the Psycho Suite. For example, the Driving Scene or the opening Over Phoenix scene cues. So while Psycho changed the course of scoring films in a certain genre (and you still hear it today in a variety of poor forms) - it was the high pitched strings that audiences remembered linked to the infamous two scenes  it was used in.

Just as Herrmann set a new scene, so did Bernstein for future western film genre after 1960 too. John williams brought orchestral music back into vogue in the 1970's. He scored I believe Hitchcock's final film of which I can't remember any of it.

People often forget that producers in the 50's and 60's would also insist on some type of song to be included in a film. Usually lame, but not always.

@PaulR said:

People often forget that producers in the 50's and 60's would also insist on some type of song to be included in a film. Usually lame, but not always.

Do you think this was the case so that the movie industry would have something to market on mainstream radio so that people could associate with the movie?  I could be wrong here, but I don't believe that soundtrack recordings nor do I recall hearing much of orchestral soundtracks on the radio prior to Williams and Star Wars.  Soundtrack markets appear to be more prevalent now a days compared to let's say 20 years ago.

@Fiery Angel said:

Perhaps this continues to happen because Zimmer's music is so simple that it cannot be studied or discussed at length because of this..  D'ya think?

I saw in a Zimmer interview once where Hans commented on how, (paraphrasing) when asked he replied that he felt his music wasn't great.  This was in response to a reference on how successful he has become in the film industry.  He went on to emphasize how great Williams was and that he could only hope to write as good as him someday.....

If Zimmer said that it changes my attitude completely - that humbleness is very impressive. Though as I said in the first post I was not trashing him personally but rather criticizing the overly block chordal scores I have heard of his that are for the biggest films in the world which makes them seem very dominating, as if they are the "greatest" when they are far from that.   Sorry if these posts were a bit harsh to vibrato, etc. - I am just enthusiastic!  [8o|]  I do think Paul is onto something when he talks about how films have changed.  Perhaps Zimmer is correct to some extent to score a giant monolith of undifferentiated sound if the rest of the soundtrack is constant explosions and gun battles.  Though that doesn't make it any better unfortunately.  On the Inception film the director/writer apparently thinks that dreams are Matrix style FX action sequences. Maybe his are. But I was hoping for some Dali-deChirico style surrealism (with the oppotunity of Herrmannesque music - ha-ha! Yeah right sure) and was severely disappointed just as I was with the boringly dull production design and simplistic music of Dark Knight.  Oh well, not that it matters...

Haven't been here for a long long time.

I have read through out the posts. so I am only state my thought here.

I am trying to write orchestral music about 7 years ago. But i soon find i have not enough knowledge for doing this. So i turned to electronic music. Now I am doing some electroacoustic music and also mainstream electronic music(trance, dance, etc). But I really think I will back to writing orchestral music someday when I think I am good enough for that. Actually I enjoy creating new soundscape using synthesizers and other new techniques. But I really think, when I listen to electronic music done by others, or some film music with electronic elements mixed in, (e.g. by Zimmer), is that it is boring. Boring for repeated chords, repeated mode of structures, repeated feelings. As a composer, or musician, I can't bare a repeated feelings for my music.

People can be creative and hard-minded with limited possiblities. They can think of ways to get more, or even endless things done with limited possibilities. It is really a enjoy to listen to John Williams film scores. Listen to how detailed and how creative he use the instruments, the sounds, the arrangements, or when not to score. Or in another simple word, he put his heart into his score. Not only for the represention, also for the soul. There are much mind put into the music. That makes him a really great film composer.

But nowadays, this world is too fast-paced. Although technology makes many new things possible. We have new ways to do things. But people, when face so many new possiblities, they don't know what should be done. May be this is because the possiblities is so endless that makes explorartion meaningless. So many people choose to stay to a "ruled" life. Or "ruled" arts. Don't want to change, don't dare enough to try or even don't want to think. So are the people who entertaining them.

For me, I can't hear the soul from many nowaday composers(not only film composers).

Also, I can't see the soul from many other media, not only films.

In chinese there is a word "fuzao", I don't know if the english translation is right, may be it is "fickleness". It means that want to do things without enough knowledge, without enough experience, without enough mind. Just want the results. May be this can be describle this fast-paced world.

I won't trash Hans. Because he also put some mind into his music, and be liked by so many people around the world. Yes, as someone says, he uses the electronic elements well in his film score. But as an electroacoustic music researcher, I have to say that the possiblities of electronic music is endless. This can not be limited by some famous synthesizers, or some "classic" electronic sounds. Hans successfully bring this elements into mainstream. He may did great things, but for a new, endless possible world, he is far from what can be called great.

william, I am really support you. But i have to say, may be this world is not good enough now. But people will finally know what is great. Anything without soul will not be passed by generations. They will just vanish. And not be talked anymore.

Just do what we think is right. And do it with mind, and soul.

also, sorry for my poor english:)

YWT

@Chuck Green said:

Do you think this was the case so that the movie industry would have something to market on mainstream radio so that people could associate with the movie?  I could be wrong here, but I don't believe that soundtrack recordings nor do I recall hearing much of orchestral soundtracks on the radio prior to Williams and Star Wars.  Soundtrack markets appear to be more prevalent now a days compared to let's say 20 years ago.

Part of it was that I would think. Take a film like The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) for instance. Why would Que Sera be in film like that for no other reason to make the producers money and for publicity. This went on for ages in films and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is a prime example - that western is almost a musical.

I saw The Bourne Ultimatum for the first time last night. It was on TV and our national TV guide, namely the Radio Times gave it a  5 stars rating (maximum is 5 stars).

I thought - my goodness this must good then. So we watched it.

After about 10 minutes I felt sea sick and there was a low droning noise going on all the way through the film that I later realised was John Powell's  score. I thought there was something wrong with the TV. The film editing was a constant click click click and in the end it was like watching a crappy Channel 4 docu-drama. Nothing wrong with the actors but Paul Greengrass couldn't direct his way out of a paper bag. This is the type of cynical crap that's produced for the great uneducated teen audience - including wankers that work for the Radio Times. If they'd put a song in that film it would probably helped it a lot and I hate songs in films.

The mistake all directors make these days when attempting to make thrillers is they always forget humour. All the great thrillers have humour. Constant film editing and a constant drone does NOT give a film pace. It just makes it a mess. 2 hours of any film is not real life for sure, but 2 hours of 30 edits per second is a fucking headache.

That is very interesting YWT - I think your use of that Chinese word is absolutely right.  Also it reminds me of some reading I have been doing recently of some very good new translations of  Wang Wei and Tao te chien  who seemed to know exactly what is going on RIGHT NOW in the world even though they lived about a thousand years ago. 

I am glad that several mentions have been made here of the fast cutting of recent films.   It is an absolute abuse of cinema techniques, not a style at all.  For example - a director today, to prove he is "hot" will take fifty different angles on a simple scene that could be done in ONE TAKE and then cut them all together rapidly.  This is an artificial distortion of human perception being used in an infantile way, almost literally - the rapid changing of colors, images, angles delights the infantilized audience in the same way a baby is delighted at a spinning plastic mobile over his crib. 

Contrast this to another example - Kurosawa.  He is the absolute master of action in in cinema, because he varied the pace immensely.  At the beginning of Kagemusha, he has a take that lasts the entire roll, completely static - BECAUSE THE SCENE IS ITSELF STATIC.  In other words he does not fake anything.  If a scene is static, he films it in a static manner.  If it is action, he films it with brilliant fast cut shots.  Directors today have absolutely forgotten this, and use every angle, every lens, every camera movement, zoom, and cut they possibly can all the time to show they are bigshot directors.  But they are destroying the cinematic expression within their very films.  Hitchcock once stated that a close up in film is like  "Big Brass" in an orchestra. But if you use all your big brass constantly, what do you have?  Boredom.   You can't have pacing without variety and contrast, and contrast has been lost in all these new films.  I first saw this in a james Bond film aboout 15 or 20 years ago, in which James Bond never sat down and said anything. He just kept moving, skiing, running, jumping, driving cars, flying planes, running motorboats, you name it -- and it became completely boring because there was no contrast.  It actually became mentally SLOW MOVING with the physical non-stop action. 

So in a way, Zimmer is being shunted into doing this very thing in his music by the films he scores.  Of course John Williams scored a lot of action packed films and it never seemed to happen.  Why?  I don't know...

@William said:

f Zimmer said that it changes my attitude completely - that humbleness is very impressive. Though as I said in the first post I was not trashing him personally but rather criticizing the overly block chordal scores I have heard of his that are for the biggest films in the world which makes them seem very dominating, as if they are the "greatest"

I'll try to find it on the web and pass you the URL.  It was I believe an interview for some magazine.  I think if I recall correctly, it was a video interview.....

@PaulR said:

If they'd put a song in that film it would probably helped it a lot and I hate songs in films.

I did like the way that Horner handled the Titanic, placing the song at the end credits yet the theme was orchestrated throughout the film on different variations.....

@William said:

I am glad that several mentions have been made here of the fast cutting of recent films.   It is an absolute abuse of cinema techniques, not a style at all.  For example - a director today, to prove he is "hot" will take fifty different angles on a simple scene that could be done in ONE TAKE and then cut them all together rapidly.  This is an artificial distortion of human perception being used in an infantile way, almost literally - the rapid changing of colors, images, angles delights the infantilized audience in the same way a baby is delighted at a spinning plastic mobile over his crib. 

That's about as perfect an explanation you can get.

Chuck - I'm not  big fan of Titanic although I appreciate the work that goes into it. Back to Bourne. I just thought why get in a very good actor like Matt Damon for the Bourne Whatever when all he does is run. I can still run. I can run around for $15 million at any angle Greengrass wants.

Tonight I'm watching Throne of Blood followed by a depressing little number called This Sporting Life (which is great btw).

Good evening.

Fast cutting is one thing.  The other technique that I find distracting is the Big Text identifying some building or location.  I feel like I left the movie and began doing a search on Google World or something.......

I first noticed it in Fringe but recently have seen that technique used on the big screen.  It seems that one person uses it, then everyone has to jump on the band wagon.  The same thing happen with "Fast Cutting"....

@William said:

I am glad that several mentions have been made here of the fast cutting of recent films.   It is an absolute abuse of cinema techniques, not a style at all.  For example - a director today, to prove he is "hot" will take fifty different angles on a simple scene that could be done in ONE TAKE and then cut them all together rapidly.  This is an artificial distortion of human perception being used in an infantile way, almost literally - the rapid changing of colors, images, angles delights the infantilized audience in the same way a baby is delighted at a spinning plastic mobile over his crib. 

 

Yeah, I had mentioned this in my first post to this thread, films today are shot like comercials or music videos.  Just rapid fire cutting and a hypoglycemic camera that can't sit still long enough to absorb what's going on.  Not to mention the "wall of sound" soundtrack going on.   This sort of manic style can be effective but what these so-called "hot" new directors don't undersand is that there is a reason why the camera and shots stay fluid in films such as Matrin Skorsese's Goodfellas.  This style isn't really innovative either.  Brian DePalma did it in a lot in his early thrillers and he did it to give these films a sort of Hitchcock aftertaste.  An homage if you will. 

When you ask you're typical film school graduate, " In Scarface, why did DePalma orbit the camera around Tony Montana in the opening sequence?  This was never repeated in the film and why only Tony?  The typical answer is, "Cuase it was cool!  Cause Tony's a cool guy and it's a cool shot."  No, you boob, Could it be that Tony is lying and giving the Immigration Officers the runaround in order to conceal his past, hence the camera is "running around" Tony?  Get it?  I got it.  Apparently a generation of film school graduates didn't.  But they use this technique along with all of the fast cutting to "look cool."  In reality they look foolish. 

Take a look at any dramatic television show these days.  Aside from the jump cuts notice what the camera is doing.  Notice how the background is constantly shifting and how the camera is rotating around subjects, dolly in, dolly out, and panning.  It's only natural that the music would go along with this style of instant gratification or "fuzao."  The music fits the style. 

William, Congratulations on another thought provoking thread.  I've been away from the forum this Labor Day weekend and was quite surprised to see this many replies to your OP when I came back.   

@William said:

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

Another though on Zimmer for discussion:

How do you feel William about Zimmer's collaborative approach to writing film scores?  Some thoughts I have is that is has the potential to be a great score considering that generally speaking, things accomplished in a group many times turn out better then if it was done by a single individual.  It can also be more productive considering there are more individuals working on the task at hand and time constraints.

That being said, do you feel that it also has the potential to water-down the uniqueness of the scoring style.  When you listen to Bach or Beethoven, you know instantly who wrote it based on the style and approach.  Where multiple writers are involved, do you loose this?  If so, is that all that important?