-
-
To be a professional instrumental/orchestral composer in the western tradition (film or otherwise) you have to satisfy at least one of the following two requirements:
A) Your work has to be of professional standards, as those are recognized internationally,
and/or
B) You get paid regularly for your compositions.
A superlative sounding mock-up, one where nobody can tell whether those are real strings/brass/woodwind playing, is NOT - I repeat, is NOT an orchestral work of 'professional standards'. It is a work consisting of treated synthesized sounds. I want to see a score! Everybody will judge a score! That is where people will determine whether you are professional instrumental/orchestral composer or not. That is where they will determine your orthography, they will read your trombone lines (which a sampler will perform perfectly at any speed), and whether those are possible. That is where they will read your harp scoring and how possible that is in real life. That is where they will see how sensitive you are to the Eb Clarinet intonation issues, whether you know the trumpets' useful notes (which don't begin at the bottom of their range), horn scoring, approaches to different ranges, dynamics considerations, true balance among the sections (your mock-up probably consists of about 200 strings, 16 horns, etc.), the list is virtually endless...
,ow few measures it takes one that knows music to discern from an actual orchestrally recorded cue (not a mock-up) whether the composer of the cue knows music or not, even if the composer has made more money from that cue than most will ever see.
Bottom line of argument? If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
Dear Errikos,
When I was creating scores for my acoustic music I took every pain to create scores that were up to current professional standards. I don't have particularly good handwriting or graphic skills so it was difficult for me. But as I became more and more committed to the virtual orchestra, I began to question why I was even creating scores at all. I realized there are other reasons to create a score that is not intended for live performance. Here's a a brief article I wrote on the subject if you are interested: https://www.jerrygerber.com/markings.htm
Your definition of serious orchestration is that you've defined (and perhaps limited) working in the virtual medium to being a "mock-up". Have you considered it possible that for some musicians it may be a legitimate and serious artistic medium in its own right, deserving of exploration, commitment and developing techniques that are indigenous to that medium?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you've written, but it seems you've created an either/or situation: Either you're a trained orchestrator and write for live players, or you don't know the first thing about orchestration and work with sample libraries, sequencers, MIDI, etc. I see it as normal and possible to be both. For every technique a traditional orchestrator has to master, the musician working in the virtual medium also has an equivalent number of new techniques that need to be mastered. Synth programming itself is an art-form that one could do and spend a lifetime exploring the possibilities. Sequencing a melody that has expression, gesture, nuance, dynamics, the right attack and releases, the right kind of note connections--this is a time consuming and very detailed process that someone attempting to "mock-up" a piece probably won't engage in. Then there is mixing, mastering, maintaining a studio, troubleshooting--these are all related skills that go into producing recordings using relatively new tools. And this is in addition to one's knowledge of harmony, counterpoint, form and structure and composition. No wonder one lifetime is barely enough. No wonder I sometimes still feel like a complete beginner when I sit down to work.
Technology has given us new ways to make music, new ways to record music, new ways to edit music. There are some that are going to approach these new tools seriously, some will ignore them like the plague, and some will dabble in them from time to time. These differing approaches to new music technologies have nothing to do with one's knowledge of music, one's musicianship, or one's seriousness as a musician. Some excellent composers are simply not facile with technology; other than using Sibelius or Finale they are not interested in what computer-based instruments can do. That's fine, there's room in this world for every and any approach. Seriousness of intent is not determined by the tools we choose to make music with, that's how it appears to me.
-
But it seems we're expected to conform to the opinion of a certain contributor here, otherwise he'll go on and on and on; trying to smear, belittle and invalidate the "opposition"; playing the victim; playing the BIG BOSS who will brook no contradiction; and generally reminding everyone - grandiosely - that nobody else has his status or can possibly understand the absolutely unique work he does, and that his opinion MUST therefore prevail. All without providing anything substantive to help win others over by means of fair, well informed and respectful debate. Moot, it seems, doesn't exist for him. His game is zero-sum.
Macker, enroll in an anger management class, don't give yourself a heart attack. Your pride has been injured and you are sounding like a guy who's revenge fantasies knows no bounds. Learn mercy and compassion. They will serve you well.
-
Errikos, yet more nice points, and all so well put. All excellent nutriment for this debate.
I must say I too find the continuation of this thread curious. The topic I started is essentially an opinion, and of course opinions are like ar**h***s, everybody has one, lol. The problem with differences of opinion in open forums can sometimes be that we ordinary members are not part of one cohesive, formally structured organisation, and hence the "Simon Says" rule doesn't apply and can't be enforced. I love that freedom, though freedom for all appears to rankle with a few here.
It seems we're expected to conform to the opinion of a certain contributor here, otherwise he'll go on and on and on; trying to smear, belittle and invalidate the "opposition"; playing the victim; playing the BIG BOSS who will brook no contradiction; and generally reminding everyone - grandiosely - that nobody else has his status or can possibly understand the absolutely unique work he does, and that his opinion MUST therefore prevail. All without providing anything substantive to help win others over by means of fair, well informed and respectful debate. Moot, it seems, doesn't exist for him. His game is zero-sum, and anything goes.
Well his lack of decent debating skills would be dreary and deadly boring, save for the fact that there's a new game in town! (Readers of my posts here probably know what I'm referring to.)
Let's see if we can get him to extend this thread more and more and more, y'know, for the benefit of all mankind, Lol.
First, here's another mightily helpful item of news from JP Sears:-
Also, for good measure, let's hear an example of the work of another member here called up by the BIG BOSS as an ally, so that we can fully understand what we must aspire to and achieve in our music-making in order to impress the BIG BOSS, win his approval and become an honoured member of his tribe. The BIG BOSS obviously has very, very high and strict standards and it would be remiss of us not to study them.
I'm sure you'll easily see the similarity. Oh and that reminds me, Let's not forget that scientists, engineers, mathematicians, music theorists, etc, stand no chance, according to the BIG BOSS, of matching his talent in music-making, and I agree; none of these types tend to be terribly good at being a mechanic.
Happy mooting!
-
Technology has given us new ways to make music, new ways to record music, new ways to edit music. There are some that are going to approach these new tools seriously, some will ignore them like the plague, and some will dabble in them from time to time. These differing approaches to new music technologies have nothing to do with one's knowledge of music, one's musicianship, or one's seriousness as a musician. Some excellent composers are simply not facile with technology; other than using Sibelius or Finale they are not interested in what computer-based instruments can do. That's fine, there's room in this world for every and any approach. Seriousness of intent is not determined by the tools we choose to make music with, that's how it appears to me.
This is how I see it too. 50 years ago, the symphony orchestra was the sonic palette that composers had to work with, but today we have all manner of instrumentation, literally limitless sonic potential with electronic instruments, filters and all manner of timbre and modulation at our disposal. If Mozart or some of the other great composers from their time were alive today; they would probably not confine their work to only symphony orchestra when there are all these other sonic tools out there. IMHO. Unless they were film score composers hehe 😉
There is definitely a certain tradition associated with the symphony orchestra and a historical legacy. We honor this history and will continue to do so. A relatively small number of individuals are able to work in that musical context. To execute works for this medium requires extensive training and understanding about the symphony orchestra, a lot of which comes only through actual experience. And that is fine. Its extremely expensive, financially, for an orchestra to muck its way through a score created by someone that doesn't know what they are doing. I think its completely valid to say that actual symphony orchestras and their committees should be (and are) discerning about which works they will be willing to perform, which meet a certain level of competency in that specific field of music. No argument.
I am thankful that VSL and other sample developers have made it their mission to make these kinds of sample based tools available for the rest of us mere mortals to compose and learn about the symphony orchestra and try ideas out. I actually specifically chose the VSL VI series initially for exactly the reason that it was not a big set of layered trailer music tools...it was a set of articulations covering the instruments of the symphony orchestra and would REQUIRE me to learn how to properly articulate instrument parts, layer instruments to create sonic timbres, balance them and work with them in ways that might be closer to reality. I realize its still possible to do things completely wrong with sample libraries that would never work with real players...but I feel VSL has done an incredible job of staying close to the original instruments. It honors the symphony orchestra, its tradition and legacy. 20 years ago, this was simply not possible (or may have been out of my budget at the time).
But I also think that we have a lot more sonic potential beyond the symphony orchestra. We have instruments made possible by modern technology. Its easier to work with, less expensive to work with and can be used to create endless sonic possibilities, perhaps some that have not been tried yet.
Hans Zimmer's score from Dune is an awesome example of this, IMHO.
-
Hey BIG BOSS - isn't there something in your law about the absolute impossibility of a software front-end script kiddie (or whatever he was professionally for a few years) having anything valid to say about composers and composition? C'mon, where's the BIG BOSS law now?
Well I'm disenchanted, disappointed and dis-everything else. Just when it seemed we're all going to fall in behind you and be happy to obey the new BIG BOSS law of this forum, it all falls apart!
Jeez, now somebody else will have to replace you because obviously, we can't be doing with this kind of flip-flop inconsistency and lack of clear leadership from our BIG BOSS.
Well I guess dudboy will make a great new BIG BOSS,
Hahahaha.
(No, no, that's laughter of relief that hope is at hand - honest!)
Lololol
-
There is definitely a certain tradition associated with the symphony orchestra and a historical legacy. We honor this history and will continue to do so. A relatively small number of individuals are able to work in that musical context. To execute works for this medium requires extensive training and understanding about the symphony orchestra, a lot of which comes only through actual experience. And that is fine. Its extremely expensive, financially, for an orchestra to muck its way through a score created by someone that doesn't know what they are doing. I think its completely valid to say that actual symphony orchestras and their committees should be (and are) discerning about which works they will be willing to perform, which meet a certain level of competency in that specific field of music. No argument.
I am thankful that VSL and other sample developers have made it their mission to make these kinds of sample based tools available for the rest of us mere mortals to compose and learn about the symphony orchestra and try ideas out. I actually specifically chose the VSL VI series initially for exactly the reason that it was not a big set of layered trailer music tools...it was a set of articulations covering the instruments of the symphony orchestra and would REQUIRE me to learn how to properly articulate instrument parts, layer instruments to create sonic timbres, balance them and work with them in ways that might be closer to reality. I realize its still possible to do things completely wrong with sample libraries that would never work with real players...but I feel VSL has done an incredible job of staying close to the original instruments. It honors the symphony orchestra, its tradition and legacy. 20 years ago, this was simply not possible (or may have been out of my budget at the time).
But I also think that we have a lot more sonic potential beyond the symphony orchestra. We have instruments made possible by modern technology. Its easier to work with, less expensive to work with and can be used to create endless sonic possibilities, perhaps some that have not been tried yet.
Hans Zimmer's score from Dune is an awesome example of this, IMHO.
There are many things said here that I would disagree with, and not bother to respond. But one thing you said compelled me respond: you used the phrase 'sonic possibilities' and immediately followed it with Hans Zimmer as an example. In my opinion the two dont go together. HZ single handedly killed sonic possibility for generations to come, thanks to sampled instruments that he had in his finger tips. If there is no electric current there is no Hans Zimmer, and Debussy or Strauss or John Williams created infinitely more sonic possibilities simply using their imagination (and training!), pencil and paper and the orchestra....no electricity needed except for recording.
You imply that sample libraries help create limitless sonic potential even in the hands of amateurs as opposed to the good ole symphony orchestra. Wrong again, IMHO. Do you think orchestral music ended with Mozart? Listen to some 20th century music all the way till Dutilleux and the likes. It is impossible to create sonic potential beyond what they did with sound libraries without knowing how an orchestra works or having solid musical training. All we get is moronic and monotonous HZs thump thump ostinatos and the same goddamn drone shit that permeates every movie.
It is amusing that you think the symphony orchestra is some relic of the past and things have evolved into something better. LOL
As an example of 'sonic possibility' just listen to the opening of this movement from Arnold Bax. This score from a 100 years ago hands down beats anything possible today with the most advanced tech. I wish some intelligent director used this incredible score in a sci-fi movie! The Dune score is toilet paper compared to this.
And just the other day I was watching The Shining, with Penderecki and Ligeti's incredible and complex string textures. Just mind boggling variety of sound.
There is something those composers knew that today's drone zombies don't, and THAT is the craft that is dying. Everyone thinks making orchestral music should be easy, and as we sow, so we reap.
Hope you educate yourself!
Cheers
Anand
-
There is something those composers knew that today's drone zombies don't, and THAT is the craft that is dying. Everyone thinks making orchestral music should be easy, and as we sow, so we reap.
ooohhh zombies. wow. I haven't ever seen one of those.
I certainly didn't say orch music was easy and I don't think anyone on this thread has said that either. With modern tech we have endless new possibilities. You don't like Hans Zimmer, fine that is your opinion. I certainly am not going to compare him to some of the composers you mentioned, no doubt about that. But I think future great composers that rival them will use these new tools, perhaps in addition to the symphony orchestra...or perhaps not. Its also possible the symphony orchestra will eventually die due to the cost required. The main thing that symphony orchestra does very very well is combine the talents of 80 players on a stage, which bring in humanism and dynamics that are very very difficult, if not impossible, to perform using current midi devices, etc. But this will change in time.
-
Seriously now. As the originator of this thread, I've a few observations on its development.
1. The theme of the thread has been essentially an opinion piece; a bit of (non-academic) philosophy, if you will. I really do not believe there's enough scope to underpin the discussion with hard objective facts, to the extent that a logically solid and universally valid conclusion could be derived. It's not science. There is no scientific paradigm to guide us, nor to be broken and replaced by a new paradigm. Hence at most it's mere philosophy.
2. A good number of useful perspectives and insights have been contributed and have, I hope, enriched and perhaps even enlightened some readers in their thoughts, feelings and attitudes on this topic. I can certainly say I've appreciated and also learned from much that's been said here.
3. We hit an obstacle early in the course of the discussion when, it seems, a certain member objected to the topic being discussed at all by anyone he deemed to be an 'outsider', or otherwise 'unqualified' to offer opinions on the topic. The discussion grew somewhat ugly as a result of that, but nevertheless yet more useful perspectives and insights were contributed by others. Even so, the dismissive, grandiose and illiberal attitude of this one member has persisted. In my book this has on the one hand sullied the debate, but on the other hand been met by others with trenchant and illuminating contributions. Whether or not the illiberal content has inadvertently served as pieces of grit from which pearls grew, is difficult to answer; but the 'illiberal member' is now, sad to say, a marked man.
4. The debate remains open to all of course. But I for one have said my piece and enjoyed the free part of the debate, especially the contributions of the two main luminaries, William and Errikos. My sincere thanks to them both for their contributions.
5. Of course in any lively debate there is much cut and thrust, but at the end of the day there is always the need for agreeing to differ on disparate or even diametrically opposed opinions. Any who can't or won't do that would be foolish to think that anything goes these days; certain things are most assuredly not tolerable for most of us who enjoy living in what remains of our free democracies. One of those intolerable things is the attempt to shut down free, decent debate. (Trolling is also not acceptable - mind how you go, trolls.)
Happy moots!
-
Hope you took note of what I said about trolls and trolling, dudboy.
Talking about needing to go pro, here are some great tips from JP Sears:
I like the brown water bit - reminds me of a certain piece of junk hacked and hyped by an irresponsible amateur as a great improvement over VSL's equivalent.
Happy new career as a troll.
Lol de lol de lol.
-
I will say this about Hans Zimmer...as it pertains perhaps more directly to the thread topic... I am a huge fan of the Dune score, as I already said. But prior to that, I have not been a very big HZ fan...and one of the reasons is precisely because he has represented the ultimate commercialization of music. His studio in L.A. is famous for creating an assembly line process whereby film scores could be cranked out very efficiently under deadlines and lowest possible cost, using sampling, percussive beds and other tricks that sound cool, big, catchy...but do not necessarily involve the same kind of symphonic craftsmanship that some on this thread have advocated, and I would agree with you by the way.
HZ fundamentally changed the game in the film scoring world. He also happens to be kind of gifted in terms of the art of film scoring, meaning...coming up with the right music for the scene to capture the feeling needed for the story telling, etc. But unlike John Williams and others who were masters of the symphony orchestra, he used modern tech, numerous ghost writers and created essentially a film score factory in L.A.
Back to the topic, doing this for fun or for livelihood. HZ is the ultimate representation of what will happen when "livelihood" is the focus. He fully embraced that goal and we can now 40 years later observe the outcome. Master of deadlines! Yep...HZ and his factory did exactly that!
-
use of the blue font means this is passing difficult to read in dark mode.
Perhaps just as well, as this kind of post strikes me as less than collegial, frankly
-
Ah, dammit, I'm sorry about that - wierd, the text is black on my iMac screen in Monterey. I copied it across from Apple text editor. Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to fix it. ....... Done, any better now?
BTW I left college an awfully long time ago; a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then.
-
I've noticed Zimmer's work twice in my life, that is outside this subforum of VSL Forums anyway. The first was a Youtube going a little bit into his use of cello for the Joker music in one of the Batman pictures. It was quite interesting, to me. Very creative, and stimulating in terms of ideas.
The second time was a Superman picture I very much liked, and the music at the end of the picture really impressed me, a 20th c. style a little reminiscent of Jerry Goldsmith, very well crafted and in an advanced harmonic style.
Somewhere in here was one of *these* threads where certain members were here to pontificate on what an awful hack is Zimmer. One thing that I checked out here was a Youtube where HZ discussed how he came up with a song in a flick. Ok, the modi operandi here was not at all the usual you've done the part-writing up the yinyang and you talk in terms of figured bass and that area of technique, but a lot more like a rock guy writing a song from chord blocks. Now, I relate to the former and didn't do much of the latter for most of my life, and when I was more naive I wasn't composing that music, but arranging it. The upshot of this story is, the song was freaking gorgeous. :shrug:Didn't matter at all to the usual suspect doing that dissing, it was however obviously a major confirmation of their bias.
-
Afterthought - Apples v Oranges
All the fanboy talk here of Zimmer jolted me into a realisation - apples and oranges are being conflated; knowingly or unknowingly. How many music-makers hired for film scoring really are composers, as distinct from what I'd call "music mechanics"? What's the difference?
Usually, composers and mechanics come from two very different cultural backgrounds: middle class and working class, respectively. During the European modern era (from about 1500), the middle class grew and became distinctive owing largely to the exalted role and status of the intellect within their mental physiology. Indeed Hegel insisted (incorrectly, as neurobiologists now tell us) that the intellect is - or should be - sovereign in the mind. Working-class culture, by contrast, characteristically treats the intellect as a service faculty and chooses not to let it ever dominate the mind anything like as much as in middle-class culture.
Popular music is essentially a working-class endeavour; 'serious music' written by composers, essentially middle class. A simple, straightforward, widely recognised typology thus far, right?
Probably so, at least up until the internet age began to bypass or undermine traditional cultural norms, standards and strictures. But furthermore, especially nowadays, we are blighted by a certain widespread and particularly toxic type of so-called "personality disorder". These types are fundamentally weak in musical intuition and sensibilities but try to compensate by forcing the intellect to outwardly mimic a normal personality. And they can all too often manage to masquerade as musically competent and intellectually able to compose music. Yes I'm talking about our old foe - aka the most toxic personality on the planet - NPD.
NPDs typically do not respect boundaries - whether interpersonal, cultural or national. Honesty is ruthlessly pushed aside as needed by the crucial expediencies of maintaining control over their supremely important "fuel supply", (i.e. attention, status, acquisition of character traits and residual benefits). Empathy with others is poor or non-existent. Management of their public image is their art. Controlling others in order to secure their fuel supply is their game.
NPDs have a gaping void where a real, normal, adult personality should be. Instead, they acquire character traits from others and use these to concoct what seems, outwardly, to be a good, sound character of their own. Thus they are unable to speak truthfully and honestly from their heart or soul. This is one of the most obvious giveaways when an NPD attempts to create music, especially orchestral music.
The NPD intellect, despite all its cunning and ingenuity, cannot fake good music. It ends up sounding like it comes from a music-mechanic totally out of his depth and class. Honest, normal mechanics of course know their limitations and don't attempt to stray beyond their well-established boundaries. NPDs don't bother with such 'trivialities'. Elsewhere in modern life, NPDs have been able to hide in plain sight - but not in music!
I'm in no way professionally qualified to diagnose NPD. However, as the fast-growing wealth of incisive tutorial videos (including many by licensed clinicians) on the topic tends to indicate, making an informal, well-informed guess at a diagnosis of NPD is well within the capabilities of most of us, once we've taken the trouble to learn conscientiously as much as possible about NPD. So I'll leave it to you to learn to make your own guesses. Join the new game in town!
Good hunting!
