Brian, your points are well taken, and I probably was not particularly clear.

I do think that even if unconscious, philosophies do lie behind the choices people, in this case composers, make.  I don't think that you can separate that aspect out.  Again, it is likely that in many cases, philosophical trends end up getting absorbed without real thought - as concepts from the "ivory tower" eventually works their way down and in to contemporary culture - often in rather different ways from the original concept.  Even design choices, as Zimmer made with how he designed and decorated his studio, reflect his ideas, philosophy, and beliefs, and/or personal values, if you will.

I sometimes wonder if what we consider "success" really actually is, in the end, beneficial.  Of course, there are many who would insist that even thinking about, or asking, that sort of question, falls outside the bounds of what is to be allowed, as the question could imply an over-arching value judgment (a value judgment that, by definition, cannot be made, since there are no real values).  A case in point would be your mention of the Sex Pistols.  Yes, how one views them will be different from how another views them.  One could certainly maintain that they have been successful.  One can maintain that they had a real measure of popularity, and that they impacted many with their ideas.  But, given all that, does that mean that we are truly better off as a result?

 Brian, I actually agree with just about everything you said.  In fact, they are very good points.  Also, "obliterate" is a silly term to use. 

@BrianH. said:

They are just not concentrating on the fraction of sonic creativity which classically-minded musicians call 'composition'.

On second thought, there are some questionable assumptions here:   "classically-minded" ?  What is that?  Stockkausen?  Xenakis?  Ligeti?  Varese?  Or perhaps you're thinking of  Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.  So-called "classically-minded" music of the modern era has moved far beyond film music in timbral experimentation, harmony, actually any musical aspect conceivable.   It is actually the exact reverse of what you imply:  film music is just a tiny fraction of what has been created by "classically-minded" composers.

I believe Brian is well-meaning, unlike some know-(f)alls here. It is just a sign of our wonderful times, that people are made to think (so that others make money), that they can buy a computer and some recorded sounds, and suddenly they are orchestral composers, heirs of Stravinsky, Williams, and even Hans! As simple as that...

This statement is not specifically directed at Brian (whom I don't know at all), but I have noticed how very much young people today can know about how to record symphonic music, and how very little about how to write it, as well as labouring under the delusion that 'classical' music stops with Stravinsky and begins again with Williams and Hans... Maybe the gap in between can be argued to be not so important in terms of beautiful output, but it is absolutely vital in terms of experimentation and innovation, and people can be hilarious and embarass themselves without even knowing it, when they talk about new sounds in film, and I cringe watching them gape at the "magical" cello depicting the Joker in Batman...

Really people... If you're even half serious about pursuing music as a profession, stop spending more money on gear. Spend it on education...

@noldar12 said:

To ask a more positive question: How does one go about encouraging the recovery of what has been largely lost?  How does one encourage others to actually take the time and effort to learn and/or master a particular craft?

That is indeed the most important question about modern culture; as we move forward much, too much is lost that really does not need to be. However, a large key player in the formulation of what modern culture will be is the education system in conjunction with the media and as of today, the two are talking past each other. Media pouring off TV tubes, other video outlets and printed press often pour a syrupy schlock over all and fail to teach. Schools struggle with programs entitled 'leave all children behind except those of the very wealthy' and we move on.  We on this thread love the music and art that is the root and stem of who we are, but yet even in the concert halls and on the recorded media, producers look to what will sell so we get endless performances of Sibelius sym 2  but what about #3? #6?

I, for one am protesting the Detroit Symphony doing #2 yet again this year after just scheduling it 18 months ago.  The purveyors of culture are to blame for much of the decay in culture by catering and bowing to the sphinx like flame of sales, they, in doing so, then kill of the culture they purport to support. If we could just tell producers we will vomit en masse on their front door  if another release of Beethoven's Symphony 5  is even thought of then perhaps those so called  guardians of taste will get the idea and exhibit a bit of creativity in scheduling concerts and releasing recordings.

Yes, for example - "Microphonie" by Stockhausen which came out in the 1960s, a composition created by wiring with transducers a huge tam-tam. 

rverne10, good points.  I don't need a copy of the 397,286,541th recording of Beethoven's 5th.  But, if a company feels that they will lose money by record "X", how can it get released?  Other than certain governments, if the company loses enough money, it will cease to exist.

A crazy idea: what would happen if an individual (or group) decided to start a recording label, and release neglected/obscure pieces using VSL libraries?  It would not be "perfect" since it would not be live, but done by the best VSL users (I do not put myself in that class) doing so might be good enough.  One of the key issues would be time involved.  One would need to make enough money to cover the cost of one's time.  Sales of an hour's worth of music created using VSL to 37 fans would not exactly cut it.

It took a certain amount of time (to me, being of Italian mother-tongue and Culture) to read all these comments.

I'm listening to Kenyon Hopkins' "Baby Doll" soundtrack. I'm not a big fun of jazz (or similar), having been "classically" trained and having graduated that way, which means actually very little....

Anyway, this means I'm enough open to multiple "genres" or "styles". Nevertheless, how could I prefer HZ with his endless meaningless "musical" idiocies? KH is (was) far more musically competent and freaking able and talented.

I also remember KH signature tune for "Hawk", '60s tv series with Burt Reynolds as main character...

This is just one out of a million examples, in my opinion, of music wich is just "right"...

But, maybe also HZ's "The dark knife"...was just right, in the sense that our times do not allow anything else, but real crap.

@BrianH. said:

composers in 2012, I'm merely recognizing that the keen arrangement of notes-on-paper is no longer the only means to musical immortality. We now have music that exists as a recorded (and digitally-sculpted) performance. I don't see any reason to deride composers who embrace these new developments in sound and are skillfully carving their import to music.

This makes the assumption that mere manipulation of timbre will give you musical immortality.  Keep on dreaming.  Digital stuff is fluff that comes and goes like crap in a sewer.

I am not trying to be insulting, but I actually think about this sort of thing on a daily basis.   What is of lasting value?   Is it Hans Zimmer fucking around with some timbres?   Or is it J.S. Bach creating something that had no timbre, no scored instrument,  absolutely nothing but some little scratched notes on a fragile piece of paper but was pure, great musical ideas.  And now, centuries later, people all over this planet are playing what he did.   He didn't need all the digital, electronic, advanced, latest, state-of-the-art, gigashit crutches of today.

All he needed was a pen, a piece of paper, and his mind. 

That will never be surpassed, never be equalled by all the timbre-mongers who are so cool and win all the Oscars and get all the jobs.   I would love to see Hans Zimmer - your God, the God of the Forum here -  compete with Bach without all his digital crutches.  Because what people today do not understand is they are weaklings, because they need digital support for everything they do.  They can't operate without it.  They are NOTHING without it.  Just look at the wretches clutching their stupid little texting gadgets as if they are the orgasmic Orb.  If they had to do pure analog, all the time - they would be non-existent.  Because you can't hide with analog, or physical reality.  With digital fakery, there are infinite possibilities for the Emperor's New Clothes.  

William, I seek to model my approach after J.S. Bach, particularly his attitude (humility).  No one comes close to his output.  I cannot even begin to fathom having to write a full - roughly 20 minute - cantata every week.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to me that he too, was considered outdated and terribly old fashioned by his own kids (J.C.; W.F,; C.P.E.) and was completely consigned to the dusty bins of history until Mendelssohn rediscovered him.  In a way that is also encouraging.  However much one generation may disregard a composer or a valuable form of music, it is at least possible that someone of a future generation may come to recognize what is of real worth.  I guess one key will be to leave things that can be either discovered, or rediscovered.

 Well, to get off the Dimension Strings thread for a while, and take a break from anxiously monitoring the download, I haven't seen the new Batman.   That is disturbing - so it is Zimmer again? 

Now just think about this - the first Batman film.  Danny Elfman doing a score that was influenced by Herrmann at times AN D very good. I remember the end scene, with the camera (very well directed by Tim Burton and photographed by his excellent cinematographer not to mention envisioned by the genius production designer Anton Furst who died shortly later) tilting and panning slowly to the top of the fabulously film noirish cityscape where Batman stands darkly triumphant in the night and the music crescendos with the same motif it started with going down into darkness at the beginning in a minor key, but now in a major key.  It was so far above the pop origin of the material that it was absolutely brilliant image and music, totally in harmony, combined into one.  I completely admire that score and many scenes of the film.  It had such design and visual ideas as well as music.   But what is it now?  Why did they get rid of a great film composer like Elfman?    I guess because they were "re-imagining" the story and of course, the music. 

@Another User said:

...J.S. Bach creating something that had no timbre, no scored instrument,  absolutely nothing but some little scratched notes on a fragile piece of paper but was pure, great musical ideas.  And now, centuries later, people all over this planet are playing what he did.   He didn't need all the digital, electronic, advanced, latest, state-of-the-art, gigashit crutches of today.

All he needed was a pen, a piece of paper, and his mind. 

Whether you can accept this or not, an instrument is technology. Instrumental advancements such as Well-temperament, which happened hand-in-hand with eg., JS Bach's idea of harmony, are per se evolutions of technology. The inventions of instruments, the development of the orchestra over the centuries is all about NOVELTY OF TIMBRE. Wagner's orchestra... He wanted [new! LOUDER] instruments to suit his conception. The use of electricity to amplify, to record... Les Paul... Hendrix and feedback. Electronic Music. Stockhausen was mentioned. If we are to be consistent with your premise - and it sure looks like you're begging the question having profferred an argument out of it - these are all fluff and will have gone down the crapper.

@Errikos said:

Youngsters must realize that EVERY SINGLE PITCH OR FILTER TWEAK by either camp is either crass, old news, embarassingly rudimentary, or a combination thereof. There is only a single way for youngsters to realize this for sure, and that is only through familiarity with 20th century music history and its repertoire.

But it's necessary to tell kids that every move that's possible owing to A TECHNIQUE isn't worth doing? You're unhinged. EVERY SINGLE USE OF (a_technique)!!!!  I am in total agreement with the POV here, but these wild absolutist assertions are incredibly funny.

It is exactly the same as telling someone 'IF YOU USE A MAJOR SCALE surely you should know that the grownups are embarrassed for you. IT'S BEEN DONE!!!!'

Yes! REALLY!! Somehow, you put it right! "Surely the EDM infants that think what they do IS electronic music are clueless about the history and as such believe the supersaw is really amazing" (Please don't use abbreviations next time that I have to look up - these nomenclatures are too genre specific)

While you felt like being self-important and sarcastic, you actually were factual instead! Yeah, the EDM infants are clueless IF they think the supersaw is anything to write home about... Now I'm not saying that everybody that is involved with EDM is necessarily ignorant (EDM might just be their genre of preference for their personal expression), but those who are not ignorant, would very much know their position in the Electronic Music pyramid - much as every aware orchestral composer knows his own in the symphonic pyramid. However, you certainly don't know it (as the last paragraph of your post shows), and neither do the "supersaw" geniuses (if they thought they were being innovative that time), who are more akin to modern day Cro-Magnons rubbing sticks together and crying "Fire! We made fire!!" inside an ultra-modern, blindingly fluorescent-lit laboratory...

OF COURSE you should tell someone 'IF YOU USE A MAJOR SCALE surely you should know that the grownups are embarrassed for you. IT'S BEEN DONE!!!!' IF that someone thinks they are being innovative, posting around YouTube and VSL blathering "Check out MY NEW piece" and it is just a major scale run... Somebody has to snap them out of embarrassing themselves through exorbitant ignorance, don't you think? It is the only friendly thing to do so they can grow artistically IF they have it in them, and rid the rest of us of additional noise pollution. These are the unfortunate results of ignorance. Same if I blithely posted my "new" technique of 'Errikos' Bass', and it was actually the same as the 'Alberti Bass'. If you don't know the latter however (and how can't you unless you are completely ignorant...), you might find it impressive...

And by the way, I didn't say the use of a major scale should be discouraged, any more than any specific technique. BUT! When that technique IS the main feature of a work (and every work after that) - like Hans' spewccati for instance, AND it is not original in any way, then yes, it should be pointed out and threateningly discouraged.

I did say in another thread, there is nothing wrong about being simplistic when you start out (what else could you be?), but this "supersaw" mirth is just too-too much coming supposedly from the cutting edge (pun not intended but welcome) of the industry...

civilization3

I don't actually disagree with some of what you're saying.  But this set me off ---  

"I'm merely recognizing that the keen arrangement of notes-on-paper is no longer the only means to musical immortality. We now have music that exists as a recorded (and digitally-sculpted) performance..."

This states an equivalence between manipulating timbre and composing music.  That is very questionable especially looking at 1) what has lasted through the centuries and 2) the huge ocean of noise that floods all around the world today with an infinite variety of timbres.  One can create a composition purely out of timbral changes, and it has been done seriously.  But in general the excessive concentration on timbre alone is shallow.  This happens today of course with film scores.  A three line sketch is handed over to an orchestrator and a huge symphony orchestra is smeared all over the most vapid little beginning-harmony exercise. 

On the other hand, it is ironic that in the past, even great composers were sometimes accused of having no musical content, and disguising the fact with pretty orchestration.  An example of that was people ridiculing Mahler for his complex orchestration.  They were wrong of course.  But the same kind of critics (back earlier in the days of the Pro-Wagner, Anti-Brahms conflict) thought Brahms was better and his orchestration was very spare and austere.  So no complexity or tone-painting with orchestration was associated with profoundity.  That of course was also wrong, and not why his music is so great. It is the actual musical ideas in it.  And the orchestration he did expressed it.  I remember Edgar Varese pointing out that Brahms did, contrary to the usual accepted dogma, very good orchestration, because the instrumental expression was exactly suited to the ideas.

On the Bach comment I brought that up simply because it is the classic example of pure musical thought, divorced from the "clothing" of orchestration or intrumentation.  (Though yes, Bach was a great improviser on the organ.)  And that without all the technological crutches that we have today it is played all over the world.   The pure musical ideas are so strong that they have lasted through centuries of time without all the advanced technological support system that film score composers today depend upon. 

I believe in what, very simply, René Leibowitz wrote on his (and Jan Maguire's) "Thinking for Orchestra": I have to translate, but more or less it sounds like this:

"Music theory is necessarily determined by the past, real composer is esteemed by his contribution to the future".

The "negation" (absence, lack, but I like best negation) of present age (or up-to-date) music is determined by the present-day (film or not) "composer".

Behind this modern subject ( the composer) there's an entire industry of men and women, filmakers, sound engineers, samples creators, producers, executive producers, mtv stuff, recording engineers, personnel managers and the list goes on, you name it...

All of them conspire against music. All they want is to make money, even with cinematic idiocies. So, a name like the usual Doltish (de)composer, gathers ranks of as much doltish and illiterate movie goers.

So, what once could be a sound and healthy aesthetic sense, to-day is corrupted by a global paramount stupidity.

T. W. Adorno, knew it all. Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie..., 1962.

William, I found your comment about Bach interesting.

At the time of his death, Bach's sons already viewed "dad" as being passe.  All those glorious notes were silent.  It was not until Mendelssohn rediscovered J.S., that his music again took flight, and eventually became heard around the world.

As for creating music by manipulating timbre, if one is not careful, one can accidently throw out the entire world of jazz, a musical form that makes much of timbre.  Granted, to be a fine jazz musician requires far more musical knowledge than simply being able to turn dials and knobs (Note: it is also interesting that Wendy Carlos started turning dials and knobs creating timbres to use with the music of J.S. Bach).  The point is simply that - though stating the obvious - significan musical forms exist that emphasize something other than paper and pencil.

IMO, it takes considerably more musical knowledge to create tonal compositions that say something than to write atonal whatever.  With the atonal music harmony and counterpoint do not have to "work".  During my college days, I learned far more about atonal concepts (even though not studying composition), than I would ever end up using, or wanting to use.  For my interests, one of the subjects I really wanted to learn about was 18th century counterpoint.  I took the class, but the professor spent most of his time - when he was there and the class actually met - talking about 20th century atonal and electronic techniques.  I went in knowing nothing about 18th century counterpoint, and came out knowing nothing about 18th century counterpoint.  Since it was a passe, "old" technique, that type of counterpoint simply wasn't necessary.  I could write all the atonal stuff you'd never want to hear, but a fugue that actually worked, and worked well... no.

To me, it takes far more technique to write traditional tonal music that says something (thereby generally excluding a certain film "composer" and his legion of clones) than the atonal forms.  I do wonder how many composers had educational experiences similar to mine - where they simply were not taught the basics of traditional technique (self-study then becoming the option).  One wonders how much of what is going on today relates not so much to lack of ability, but to basic ignorance.  Throw in the demands of the culture, directors, et al, and the situation is far worse.  But, if composers no longer have the writing skills, chaning the situation will be even harder.