@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? 

@Chuck Green said:

[quote=jasensmith]Perhaps talking about Williams is a bit OT but since we're on the subject... Another of Williams attributes is when 

Jasen,

Not knowing for sure, doesn't the director have the final say as to what and how much music is applied to the video?  If that's the case, then I don't necessarily think we should hold the composer directly responsible....  Do they get paid on the number of minutes of music they write whether it's used or not?  I know that's not always the case as for some are paid by the project but that would be incentive enough to write as much as possible whether it get's used or not.  Not an expert in this area, maybe someone else would care to chime in and qualify.......

Hello Chuck and thank you for the reply.

Normally, yes the director does have the final say in how the film takes shape both visually and sonically.  However, in the case of Spielberg and Williams, I think there is enough mutual respect and professional courtesy between the two that Spielberg probably wouldn't have said anything if Williams decided to throw in a loud drum and fife score over the soldiers storming the beach in Saving Private Ryan or any of the other battle sequences in the film.  Sometimes less is more and Williams is skilled enough to realize when scoring is necessary to add to the story and when it just subtracts.  At the same token if, at the end of Schindler's List, Speilberg had told Williams, "you know John, to pay respect to those who perished during the Holocaust, let's just not have a score at all.  Let's have a moment of silence here."  I'm sure Williams would have obliged.  He may not have agreed but... 

I guess it could be argued that in some cases a director is ironically responsible for overscoring a film.  Spielberg requested Williams to purposely overscore the film 1941 and I think it worked to make the film funnier than the writing could do. 

My favorite scores are ones that I can remember after veiwing a film just once.  One score I remember very well is Morricones's Once Upon A Time In The West.  I especially loved the first 15 minutes of the film.  It's almost like watching an Italian opera.  Pacing.  It's all in the pacing.  As an aside, did you know that Sergio Leone originally wanted Charles Bronson to play 'The Man With No Name' character made famous by Clint Eastwood in Leone's Spaghetti Westerns?  United Artists said, "NO!!!"  Some things never change.   

Funny Jasen you mentioned this.  I spoke to it earlier in a post on this thread.  Even though I listened to the soundtrack many times over the past few years, I've never seen the movie until last week.  During the first 15 minutes, I found myself thinking, boy is this slow......  For some reason, I didn't flip the channel and continued to watch as it continued to pull me in.  

I'm still not sure if it was because of how the movie was done or if I was curious to see how Morricone incorporated the score into the movie.  About half way through, I was into the movie and analyzing the score became secondary.

As I am young generations, I can talk about the fast-cutting of nowaday films.

I have to say, fast-cutting really makes a film a "hit" feeling. Visually it did make the movie looks more paced, more "impact". And yes that definitely can make us young generations shout out "COOL!" or something like that. But the problem of that, (even I as a young man can see) is this technique cannot be second-thought. First time it may be cool, but if you think again, you will find it's useless, it's boring and there is no sense at all. It is not a thinking that this technique is good and unique for this film, it is not well thought but "everyone's doing that, why not us". No mind, no enough thinking is put into the film. So yes, may be when the film come out, we(as young people) will say it's cool. But after a little 3,4 years, no one will remember it.

And what worst is that, these non-sense, these "fuzao", makes people who watch them, listen to them, "fuzao" too. Many people will not pay much attention to the details even you did put your mind into it. Many people will find it strange if you do not act same as other "fuzao" musicians and directors. They will simply think you are not right. I really hate this. People won't try to feel the arts, they will only see, only listen to the representation. They won't try to see the soul.

So may be that's why people like these guys. creating music without soul. Because they won't see it. But on the other hand, they have to feed them without delay. More, more, more. Or, people will forget these guys, completely.

Yes - quite a lot of talk about Brian De Palma. Yes he's a very good director and of course it's no secret that De Palma's great source of directorial inspiration comes from people like Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles. Indeed he descibes Hitchcock as the Websters of film making. He's a huge fan of Bernard Herrmann too - but any director worth a salt would be. They understand Herrmann.  One of the films that caught me at the time was his clever remaking of Blow Up by Antonioni. His was called Blow Out and instead of using images to catch the offender he uses sound. Carrie was another film he made and indeed Herrmann was down to score that one but alas died.

Directors who make films like video games won't be too interested in any of that. Simple as that. They need the constant drone of fast paced underscore (usually chug-a-chug- strings) to help their directorial deficiencies. Like pace and content for example. Don't blame the score writers because it's usually 99.99+% down to the director. You can't polish a turd.

Yes indeed Sergio Leone was a great director and at the time was underrated believe it not. If you're interested in the pacing of a film you might one day want to see Barry Lyndon. Another director who understood pace - Stanley Kubrick.

As I understand it, Hans Zimmer has more or less always collaborated with other musicians that he writes with, or gets to write the scores.

@denis said:

Does anybody know where to buy this sort of film scores? Are they available at all?

I downloaded mine from iTunes.  You may also want to check out Yo-Yo-Ma Plays Morricone.  That's when I first was exposed to Morricone through Yo-Yo-Ma's Album.

@PaulR said:

As I understand it, Hans Zimmer has more or less always collaborated with other musicians that he writes with, or gets to write the scores.

I wasn't aware that collaboration was alway Han's approach?

@denis said:

Does anybody know where to buy this sort of film scores? Are they available at all?

Now I understand Denis.... Not sure on that one.

@PaulR said:

As I understand it, Hans Zimmer has more or less always collaborated with other musicians that he writes with, or gets to write the scores.

I wasn't aware that collaboration was alway Han's approach?

I was merely trying to be controversial.  [:-*]

I only ever notice music in fllms when it's noticable as good music to me regardless of the film, or when I've noticed I'm noticing the music in the negative and I feel it took me out of the film.

I notice John Williams music a lot, and not because I liked any of it. I think he's a most excellent musician, orchestrator, he can knock out some catchy tunes, but to me, as a composer on this sort of elevated level like you guys are talking about here, he's an absolute fraud. The last time I noticed it was in one of the later Star Wars debacles, and I was saying repeatedly, 'please, back off this telegraphing to (at) me every single feeling with this overblown 19th century orchestra and the cliches attendant to, my ears are bushed".

But, both Williams and Hans Zimmer are heck of in demand and being emulated, so, they are doing their job right - and it is a job.

If I were a director, and wanted old hoary cliches to work for me, I'd do a Kubrick and stick to my temp track and save some $.

Williams can 'knock out' some catchy tunes?

I see.

You actually hit the problems for writers on the head though. Producers/direcors love tried and tested.  They understand what audiences like in an historical sense. Ergo, they tell the writer to sound like this or that. That's part of the deal. These people can't afford to have any imagination or put up with anything that might be experimental or new. Not that I can do either because I can't. They're not in the business of predicting something that an audience will really go for that's entirely original. Most original things in film are accidental and usually put out by an independent company. If it scores big financially then usually what happens is the big studio will pick up on it and then do the big budget copy many times over in different guises - or the big big budget remake. Same goes for all the stuff that make up the film from editing, cinematography down to the score. For example, when they were making Citizen Kane, the studio shiitt itself daily. After it came out, highly original and all of that, Hollywood decided that was the way to go for several years.

But the issue for anyone who gives a shyte is this. Every time these days on forums someone puts up a piece of music, 99 times out of 100 it will be derivative. You will have heard it before almost certainly in a different guise. The tune won't be the same but the entire style and orchestration will be. And that's part of the strength that scoring writers have to be able to demonstrate today. They have to able to copy. If you can be bothered to learn how to copy a style you will probably make money in this field.

On a personal note, I hear a lot of music done with orchestral samples on forums and websites. Imagine if there was no such thing as orchestral samples. How many orchestral works would you even hear in  a year. Hardly any. It would be as it was - almost all electronic. That's why a lot of scores pre orchestral sample days were in fact done a lot with synthesizers. And don't think that orchestral scoring with samples started when the samples were really high quality. Any writer using midi and samples would use just about anything of any quality. You think if there were orchestral samples when they made The Terminator around 1982 it would have been electronic?

I think it's extremely wasteful for musicians today to religiously copy Hans Zimmer and John Williams. It never ever sounds as good and simply sounds like a second rate copy. Clever - but  boring. But that's what directors want.

 - and an admirable skill it is... a job well done. He's Super Pro . I just wanted to illustrate, not everybody thinks it's the shizzle (I remember Obama's inauguration and this Appalachian Spring ARRANGEMENT he did for that, with his own name on it just like he made a composition all by himself. What a cheap move. 'Hey, no one will notice this has already been done, this piece, esp. if we call it 'Air and Simple Gifts'... screw Copland'. WE'VE HEARD IT, OK. This applies to every single thing I ever heard out of the guy. It's fine, he knows exactly what to do, but where it's exalted as if it's more than someone meeting the demands of the job (selling popcorn), I don't buy that). Great *movie composer*. Fraudulent 'Art'.

Using one's imagination is risky, where It's strictly from commercial/there's a lot of money on the line... there is this tendency to second guess what an audience will go for. I don't think that's *very* intelligent, but the reality is, this is a corporate gig, a big motion picture... 'art by committee' rules ok.

Hard for me to see at this point that anyone in a movie audience is going to object to (or prefer) this or that in the music score. I write with a person who is not a musician, and really doesn't have any of this information we do, and I discussed this with him more than once; for instance he noticed nothing about Zimmer's Batman score - as a fan of the movie (I see very few big commercial films, didn't see that one, but I'd seen some making of the score on youtube; I asked about the Joker's... underscore, which I thought was effective in establishing a really unsettling vibe in the clips I saw. Nope, didn't register that anything went on). He has a quite different take on a music score than do I. He doesn't know that music is necessary. Unaware of it. He sees movies in moviehouses regularly. He would notice when something is really overdone, and I think something like this loud score Zimmer did for - Inception (which I only know of from an audio forum, people asking 'what brass?') - would register.

You can hear some musical imagination in some horror or terror genre films, 'scary music'. (Ghetto-ized, kind of...)

When John Carpenter scored his own pictures, how many people noticed it wasn't music from a composer-by-trade? It got the job done, kept the budget down, a success.

I don't have that much invested in movie music anymore, and as I've learned to write a screenplay have another take on it. I'd prefer not to notice it usually, I'm trying to have a... holistic kind of experience in a movie house. I personally notice the hegemony of European 19th century symphonic orchestra, which isn't to my tastes as a music listener, but I don't expect that to change much for a big-budget picture, because it's the safe move, and I understand that. If it's really cookie-cutter, it takes me out of the scene. I can experience the film on two levels if I notice, 'that's INTERESTING', but there is some scoring to make me disrespect the whole project... usually I'm looking at it on TV, so no prob.

@Gianna said:

I notice John Williams music a lot, and not because I liked any of it. I think he's a most excellent musician, orchestrator, he can knock out some catchy tunes, but to me, as a composer on this sort of elevated level like you guys are talking about here, he's an absolute fraud. The last time I noticed it was in one of the later Star Wars debacles, and I was saying repeatedly, 'please, back off this telegraphing to (at) me every single feeling with this overblown 19th century orchestra and the cliches attendant to, my ears are bushed".

To call Williams an 'absolute fraud' when we're on the topic of film music goes beyond the question of personal taste and well into the realm of ignorance... You confirm this twice: a) when you contradict yourself by attributing excellence of musicianship and in orchestration skills to an 'absolute fraud', and b) when you bring up Star Wars as an example. Any instalment of this saga would be unwatchable without Williams' constant symphonic backing - it is nothing like a Kubrick film. It is a space opera i.e. constant music with action and dialogue instead of singing. If you don't like this that's fine, but to call the only man that could have brought a joke like those movies to life an 'absolute fraud'....

And what elevated level (compared to Williams) have we been talking about? The names that have been thrown about here were those of Hans' (sic), Herrmann's, Goldsmith's, and the like. It's not like we put Williams' name next to Wagner's, Beethoven's, Mozart's, and Bach's. Let's get perspective here...

Finally, being in demand and being emulated are not necessary consequents of 'doing a job right'! That has been the point of this whole thread... MacDonald's is in demand and has been emulated, that doesn't mean it feeds you properly... It's quick for all the lazy, it's right there when you feel a pang, it's established etc., but you eat crap! It's great business, it fulfils a "function", but it's NOT quality, and that is what this discussion has all been about.

We are hoping that a generation of young directors and producers who have been brought up with such diets will be able to appreciate and demand the equivalent of chateaubriand and eye-fillet with bone-marrow sauce for their films. They take much longer to prepare, only a handful of people can do them, and the masses are quite happy with their fillet-of-shit with large fries. Why bother?...