I mean, as pessimistic as my view is, I want to be wrong about it. I hope the good stuff will make a comeback. And maybe it will, but the atmosphere has to change and it hasn't yet. And when I see guys like the 60s hippies longing for the good-old-days, my pessimism does kick in because I don't see the atmosphere ever changing that much to bring a return to values that we've tried and moved on from. The good stuff hasn't been completely defeated but it's under siege and it will be some time before atmospheric conditions change to where the sun shines again.

I agree that the scores that went with films from the early 70s were moving away from traditional Hollywood scores of the past. But how else were you going to score Robert Altman movies.

The Irwin Allen movies were made in the mode of old Hollywood melodramas (and Fred Astaire, Jennifer Jones, Olivia DeHavilland, and other old-timers show up just in case you weren't sure) and required that kind of score. Jaws and Star Wars too harked back to the 50s monster & sci-fi films Steve & George grew up on. In a sense, although more entertaining than the works which inspired them, all this was retro when it showed. It may have brought back the big, symphonic score and the popcorn movie but that was over a generation ago now. We still have the popcorn movie (POTC2) and we still have the big, symphonic score, but I agree, somehow (maybe it is the technical effects) neither are the same as they were even 30 years ago.

Lou, I absolutely agree with both you and Christian on this, and I'm curious about the question lying at the base of that mountain: Why?

Are they endangered because classically educated composers not named Williams are simply in very low demand, or because there are actually fewer composers like that working in film?

One is, IMHO, a short-term problem, while the other is distressingly long-term.

And of course the larger question is the correlation of the two, since the low demand could drive certain composers out of the industry altogether.

Movies are no longer art in the purest sense of physical art. Mostly virtual computer work now, and the whizzes sitting down for a day's work can cut and paste all kinds of sound samples together faster than a composer can sit down and write a score... it's no surprise who's winning that race!

It's not that there aren't good composers out there. There are. Even the guys I often see as hacks could probably write good scores if pushed to do so and told to give up their bad habits.

As counter-logical as it sounds, the good composers who are out there are being told "to tone it down" to the level of the hacks. And the hacks are getting work.

Pete's DP analogy is the right one. Why insist on a top-notch DP when you can make it look like Freddie Young in post anyway?

But it goes beyond even that. You don't use muskets in a world of computer-guided missles.

Since the look of films and the production mode of films has changed, the sound of films must change to match both the look of films and how they are being made as well.

A guy with pen and score paper who goes in a records with a real orchestra is just so 20th Century. It's an analog approach in a digital world. It's like using a land line instead of a cell phone.

When Yared got dumped the cat came out of the bag: "Old-fashioned" that was the excuse.

Think of it this way: it's not just that the score sounded old-fashioned, it reeked of past ways of doing scores, it's almost as if scoring itself is seen as old-fashioned. They haven't made the complete transition, they don't know what the sound of the future is yet, but at least they know what it isn't and that's one reason why you get dumped scores.

Whatever modern is in comparison to old-fashioned, that is the sound Hollywood is seeking, that is the look Hollywood is seeking too. The fear is that a script will be written, millions spent on production, and the film will be dated before it's even released to theaters. Hollywood is looking for the cutting edge in sound & image.

True, it's ignoring that there are certain basics to the human condition that don't change that much despite progress. Man's problems here haven't dissapeared. There are certain eternal truths. But Hollywood walks alway from all of this now. They want to provide you a roller coaster ride as if that's all the cinema were about. And if I say, well, people who want roller coaster rides should ride roller coasters and leave drama & cinema to the the eternals, well, that's old-fashioned too. Besides that's not where the money lies: people want to forget & escape, not be faced with things to think about.

Society's values have changed. The cinema is a part of society, it isn't independent of culture, it is culture. And film music is a subset. And it's also a barometer. If film music has changed it's because society wants it to be different than it was. For Hollywood to go against the wishes of the public is suicide. It gives people what it wants or thinks it wants. And today that is an invisible film music, still there in films but as Simmer said "shallow".

Think of this analogy: If I went to my job and didn't take it seriously, if I blew it off, or was playful with it, my boss would kick my rear out the door so fast it would qualify at the Olympics. So if the average Joe has to work & sweat on his job trying hard to do the best job he can, how is it Simmer & the boys can avoid meritocracy and get away with inferior work (that is if you view it as inferior as some people highly praise it)?

Any thoughts?

This is sort of off topic, but that Dallas Mavericks owner is a good example of what I am talking about. Younger dude spoiled with tons of cash, cries foul when his team loses the NBA title after being this close (<<<holding fingers reeal close together>>> ) to winning it. The referees' fault! No way could it have been his team's.

I don't know where I am going with this, but this is what's in my head. A generally large chunk of people who can appreciate valuable art and similar contribution to culture are no longer in charge. And yeah, it is suicide for Hollywood. Look at the huge decline in theater attendence the last 10 years (they always talk about revenues, but those aren't an accurate barometer... you can make the same amount of money as the previous year with less attendees, just charge more... which is what's been happening).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Goldberg:
Well there are those who like what Whore-ner and Simmer are doing.

---

Lou, Just curious... do you write music, play in an orchestra, in a band, or play a musical instrument at all? If so, at what level would you rate yourself? Are you an accomplished musician, or just an amateur? (like myself)

I admit to not being tremendously enamored with most of the recent movie score offerings of the last few years, but I'll take LOTR:TTT over Spartacus and most of the rest of those Golden Age oldies. I don't care if it is PC to purport them to be unquestionably great... they don't do much for me.

I mention Spartacus in particular, because when the movie Gladiator was released there were tons of opinions about how much better Spartacus was (both the movie and the score). So, I watched Spartacus and came to 2 conclusions about it... (1) the movie was wooden & boring, even the fight scenes AND (2) so was the score. By the time I heard the 'love theme' for the umpteenth time I switched it off. While many will say "I'm Spartacus" I for one will definitely say "Not me".

It's funny. I was playing film music at work on the boom box at the counter and someone came up to me and said, "Oh, you like classical music. What instrument do you play?" as if you had to be a performer to have an interest in orchestral music. And I've had a similar experience just reading books. I was reading Euripides somewhere and someone noticed and asked, "What class are you taking?" Imagine the shock when I said, "No class. I'm not even trying to be educated. I just read Euripides for my pleasure the way someone else might read Grisham or King."

I don't know what to say about the whole Spartacus vs Gladiator thing. People come from different places of subjective experience. What I might love will make another cringe and what I might cringe over another might love.

All I can do is repeat what you said: Spartacus doesn't work for you. The film is dull and the score makes you cringe. Nothing I say in agreement or disagreement is going to alter your feeling about it. I might be able to point out this or that in the film but even if you say, Hmmmm, that's an interesting way of looking at it, you'll still find the film as you did, as something you had to turn off.

I think we no longer have the Golden Age style because it seems to make people like you cringe and we do have the Gladiator film/score style because it doesn't make you cringe.

You are the audience I mention above who wants a different kind of film & sound and since you are the paying public, you've gotten it.

But walk a bit in someone else's shoes as they say. If you were a person who instead of cringing and being bored actually liked Spartacus and if you were a person who also found Gladiator too visually polished and found the score to be nothing but Holst cribs and noodling, imagine how you would feel about the new look and sound.

And I'm saying there are people like that out there, people who love Spartacus and North's score for it who also hated Gladiator and Simmer's score for that.

Also, the people who love Spartacus probably don't want to see films made like Gladiator and the people who love Gladiator don't want to see films made like Spartacus. And, of the two camps, the pro-Gladiator camp is winning or has won, it's the larger position in both the modern audience and amongst those calling the shots.

Troy looked and sounded more like Gladiator than Spartacus and they went to extra effort to make sure it didn't sound "old-fashioned" like Spartacus by dumping it's first score.

All so you don't have to cringe Scorro. You should be happy. At least someone is getting what they want out of movies.

But we're not talking about individual films as much as trends in making films. Spartacus, Arabia, and fall of the Roman Empire represent a 1960s Hollywood way of making an epic while Gladiator and Troy are our way of doing them today.

For the record, I like Goldsmith. I like Zimmer. I like Horner. And I don't share the negative outlook on today's Hollywood output that so many of you go on about here. There is the same proportion of good and bad movies being made today as there was before, that's what I think. But this and the whole Zimmer debate is something I've debated for the 12 years I've been online, so I find it excruciatingly boring.

But let's look at the Zimmer quotes in the begninning of this thread again. In the first quote, I find nothing odd with what he's saying. Of course, an opera is more refined and deep than the latest Hollywood blockbuster. The only problem I have with the quote is that he neglects to mention film's ability to create art (both within and outside Hollywood).

In the second quote, he's actually LAMENTING the fact Hollywood industry concerns sometimes crush artistic ambition. What's so controversial about that? And it's not saying anything about Zimmer's own music.

I like the fact that Zimmer is being fortright while at the same time keeping things in perspective. I found nothing wrong or controversial with the quotes in question.

I've got many problems with synth orchestras, but unfortunately, few of them would eventually show in the final product. There's something wrong with electronic music, something very profound: it lacks performance. A musician plays a piece three times, and three times in a different way. A computer plays it three times in the same way.
It's a dead horse, but that's the point. Evoking emotions in films isn't just a matter of minor and major. Film music is not about a palette of emotions you can fill into tins and label, it's about the performance.
An educated composer works with the orchestra, he learns how instruments are played, and it helps them when writing pieces for individual sections; it helps the music.
Zimmer doesn't know any of this, otherwise I can't explain the dullness of the organ. He knows how instruments sound in certain registers, and that's all.
And it's not only about the product, it's also the process. It's REAL people communicating on the recording stage, that's what's ultimately pouring heart into a score.
Synths miss heart because contrary to a musician, a computer has no heart. Heart comes from real musicians playing with real passion, not from a nice- sounding chord.
It misses heart because the simple knowledge that the orchestra isn't real destroys it.

Back in the old days, there simply was no time for extravaganzas. If a director didn't really like what he heard, he had basically just two choices: leave the score alone and make edits where possible, or replace the composer altogether.
And they didn't have the possibility of creating guide tracks; a director wanted to hear a cue, he either had to wait for the orchestra sessiom or the composer would play it on a piano.
The problem today is that a score, or even cues, can be presented to the producer/ director very early on. Everybody has suggestions and ideas, and they will persist because it's easy to change the music. In the end, the cue is a mishmash of ideas, but not the vision of one man.

You don't have to consider schedules, limited availability or concentration of the performers, and that's what ultimately leads to a decline in musical quality. If you've got limitations, and just one or two shots at a scene, you'll have to push yourself to your limits each and every time. But on a computer, you've got these things ready, you can use them whenever you want, you don't have that pressure of perfection (of course you've got some, but not as much).
You don't have to know how to write for the instrument, so what do you care?

By supporting that notion, the industry will inevitably turn into a horde of Zimmer clones who "do the job" more for the money than the artistic result. They have seen how successfully a composer's star can be hitched to a movie's wagon, so why should they care about their artistic integrity? Film music is NOT just a product, exactly like movies are not just products. They have turned into that because of companies' greed and mass-product-mania, but what they really are is art.
Only because it has become a nasty habit in the industry doesn't mean we have to put up with that.

The films in which the director did care about the sound of live orchestra have the most critically acclaimed scores, don't they?
A decent score might serve a film, but a great score will always help movies to transcend cinema.

The whole rather ironic point is that computer programs are desperately trying to mimic the quality of a real orchestra performance, including possible "mistakes" and other things that makes an orchestra sound real, when the real thing is at hand. It may be a little harder to organise, but hey, with that pressure we'll at least sort out the composers who really love music and will go through any troubles to make their visions a reality.

John Williams retained that old way of working, and he has enough credit to make directors/ producers have faith in his work (except for hack Lucas). IMO that's why he's still better than the rest: the man can simply work in peace.

Thor, Thor, Thor....Yes, it's boring to debate the merits and demerits of the same composers year after year but what else have film music fans to do with the extra time they have on their hands? If people stopped debating the Whore-ner vs (put name in the blank) thing this place would become a ghost town.

On the one hand, you are correct. If you look at any time in history, there is bad art, good art, and great art. If you narrow this to film & film music you can pick any year, say 1942 or 1978 and find bad films, good films, and great films and the same goes for music.

I don't consider it reactionary to notice that overall things were of a different (and more likeable to some) quality at an earlier period in time and to associate that quality with both a list of composers & directors & studio practices that were going on at that time.

For instance. We might be able to look at 2006 and say we have bad filmmakers & composers, good filmmakers & composers, and great filmmakers & composers, but we don't have Orson Welles & Bernard Herrmann making films together, THAT combination belongs to the early 40s and to lament its passing seems perfectly legitimate to me.

I also agree with you over your description of Simmer's quotes. However, this only feeds into the implications raised here that in order to fit into a non-operatic, quality-crushing production mode, he's just going with the flow to do the work.

That means he's either a professional taking on a tough job and playing within its rules or he's just a hack. And there will be some debate over that (2 pages worth so far).

gkgyver follows you with his own "reactionary" lament for composers with training and old studio system modes.

His key statement is this: "The problem today is that a score, or even cues, can be presented to the producer/director very early on. Everybody has suggestions and ideas [about the music] and they will persist because it's easy to change the music. [go tell that to the poor overworked composer, it's easy] In the end, the cue is a mishmash of ideas, but not the vision of one man."

Wow! "The cue is a mishmash of ideas, but not the vision of one man."

I've been writing tomes about the current state of things and the g-man sums it all up in one short sentence. This is the problem in a nutshell.

It's true to a certain extent that film is a collaborative art with all sorts of gifted people working together to create a whole. There is a great deal of compromise in the process. However, if you are building a building say, you leave people with individual talents alone to do their job: you let the bricklayers alone to bricklay, the painters to paint, the special molding carvers to carve, the interior decorators & designers to do what they do best, etc. An architect or the building owner may have an overall vision that they keep everyone organized around but if they micro-manage and control freak the whole project, the individual talents won't be able to do their work properly and the building will suffer if not fall down around their ears.

Film music just seems to work & sound better when you leave a single artist, the composer, alone to do what he does best, compose.

gkgyver also says of earlier modes: "and they didn't have the possibility of creating guide tracks."

This isn't entirely accurate. Jerry Lewis writes in his book The Total Film-maker about using temp tracks for composers in the 60s: "I want you to compose this music, just change the notes slightly."

And even Orson Welles talks to Peter Bogdanovich in an interview about the use of pre-recorded music selections/pieces because he couldn't be certain of just what a composer would bring him and because he hates to hurt a composer's feelings by rejecting music (how's that for an attitude! Resnais shocked Rozsa with it as well), he would rather use selections he picked out (though to the end he stuck with original music).

But getting back from the aside, the change in production modes from past to present has both pros & cons.

In the past, the producer/director had less of a say, especially under the major Hollywood studio system. And the result was, if not more artistry, a composer who could (within the studio's own restraints) produce something with a personal style.

Today, the producer & director have more of a say. This would seem on the surface a better thing, an improvement, because the director has more control over the final totality matching his vision.

But the results haven't always led to better artistry. The poor composer has much less style or independent voice as a result, the cue has become a mishmash of inputs, neither man nor beast, half temp track, half producer/director, and some of the composer after 2 or 3 re-writes. [They wanted him to re-write it again but with the deadline going they just didn't have time to...but wait! Have the orchestrator re-write the cue!]

So I'm with g-man here about the current production mode "ultimately leading to a decline in musical quality" and against Thor's bitching about it by saying oh, there will always be good & bad stuff.

There is wind in the sails of the old vs new, this composer vs that one arguments after all.

As for Simmer and "Film music is shallow"? No, film music is not shallow it has become shallow, thanks in part to over-controlling producer/directors and the compliance of weak hacks like Whore-ner & Simmer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
As of now, still being a young student, my films are still short and sans budget.

---

****There's something wrong with electronic music, something very profound: it lacks performance. A musician plays a piece three times, and three times in a different way. A computer plays it three times in the same way. It's a dead horse, but that's the point. ***

Wow, that's some AMAZING prejudice right there!! The synth is capable of creating sounds that no orchestra can ever replicate. If put in the hands of someone who knows their stuff (like, say, Vangelis or Zimmer), it becomes just another instrument....like an oboe, a french horn or an entire orchestra, for that matter.

But this is also one of those boring old topics I'd hate to go into again. We discussed it quite recently in this FSM thread:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.asp?threadID=34156&forumID=1

***Thor, Thor, Thor....Yes, it's boring to debate the merits and demerits of the same composers year after year but what else have film music fans to do with the extra time they have on their hands? If people stopped debating the Whore-ner vs (put name in the blank) thing this place would become a ghost town.***

Hey, I have a novel idea! What about using one's brain to come up with NEW and FRESH topics? You yourself is pretty good at that, Lou (although you tend to be a little long-winded...but you knew that ).

***I don't consider it reactionary to notice that overall things were of a different (and more likeable to some) quality at an earlier period in time and to associate that quality with both a list of composers & directors & studio practices that were going on at that time.***

Oh, you better believe I consider it reactionary to HAMMER in the points TIME AND AGAIN how everything used to be so much better and how everything has deteriorated today. Many of you go on and on about this. OK, it's great to be passionate about something, but never lose sight of nuance, that's what I say. And then there's the whole "open mind" thing. Those are two good virtues in Thor's Book of Film Music Appreciation.

***For instance. We might be able to look at 2006 and say we have bad filmmakers & composers, good filmmakers & composers, and great filmmakers & composers, but we don't have Orson Welles & Bernard Herrmann making films together, THAT combination belongs to the early 40s and to lament its passing seems perfectly legitimate to me.***

Well, sure, I lament the loss of that pairing too. It was great. But it's not like we're without pairs of a similar calibre today.

***Film music just seems to work & sound better when you leave a single artist, the composer, alone to do what he does best, compose.***

I don't think there's a one-to-one relationship there. There are plenty examples of brilliant (film) composer collaborations, even in your beloved Golden Age.

***So I'm with g-man here about the current production mode "ultimately leading to a decline in musical quality" and against Thor's bitching about it by saying oh, there will always be good & bad stuff. ***

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
The synth is capable of creating sounds that no orchestra can ever replicate. If put in the hands of someone who knows their stuff (like, say, Vangelis or Zimmer), it becomes just another instrument....like an oboe, a french horn or an entire orchestra, for that matter.

---

Thor, the orchestra is not broke (unless it's a Silva-hired orchestra, right Lou?), so there's no need for nerdy keyboard experts like Zimmer to come in and sample every note of the scale once and forever to be used in every electronically-built orchestra music from that point on. People like gkgyver and me, we like orchestral scores performed at more than one note at a time.

I agree with both you & the g when it comes to synths. g-man is right in that the synth is canned & artificial, that the energy of performance is lacking, and a lot of all-synth scores can overstay their welcome very quickly. Then Thor is right in that it really is just another instrument, another color to add to things. I love the use of theremins in a lot of scores for example and that goes for synths too. However, on a personal note, I disagree with Thor about just who the masters of the synth are. One thing the g has over Thor is he knows the synth in the hands of current composers is more of a pathetic crutch than a useful orchestral color.

And I hate to go ad hominem here Thor, but you are just plain out of your mind if you really believe "it's not like we're without pairs of a similar calibre today." No one and I mean NO ONE can reach the level of Herrmann & Welles or Herrmann & Hitchcock. NO ONE. And certainly NONE of the currently existing composers. Williams with Lucas or Spielberg is good but not even he comes close to earlier collaborations. True this is a matter of opinion but at the same time I want to shake you & tell you to get real.

There just are no current composer-director combos that can compare with Rota-Fellini, Herrmann-Hitchcock, Tiomkin-Foreman or Hawks, Jarre-Lean, and Delerue-Truffaut. I repeat NO as in NONE as in NO WAY!

Also, whatever director-composer collaborations you can point to, the composer (in my beloved Golden Age, as if that's the full extent of my cares & knowledge) always sounded like the composer. No matter what director he was working with, the composer was an artist who produced music with its own style and personal imprint. The music was not a mishamsh of inputs (or if it was it surely didn't sound like it).

Also, those composers who were allowed the freedom to be themselves are also the composers who produced the best film scores. So to say the one-to-one composer-artist relationship didn't exist is not only wrong, it's not even something you should promote against.

As for being reactionary, I think those of us who go on & on have earned the position. It may seem like we're prejudiced but really it's based on experience. We have open minds. We've heard the music. And we've been burned over & over & over. And so when Whore-ner or Simmer or Silva or whoever it is announces they've another upcoming project, the nausea kicks in, because unless there's a miracle, we KNOW what's coming, more crap. So yes we're against it and against it and against it, boringly over & over & over until we're dead in the grave.

But that's where the BIG misunderstanding lies, Peter (per my comments in that earlier FSM thread). Zimmer does NOT "mimic" orchestral sounds through synth samples and leaves it at that. Other composers do (and I don't like that), but Zimmer does NOT. What he does is to use the ORCHESTRA as an ELEMENT in his particular synth/orchestra blend. In this blend, the musical style is closer to rock or pop and that's why people always complain about the orchestra playing "at once". What happens is that he uses the orchestra in a rock idiom...he has rarely composed orchestral music purely on the orchestra's own terms. So in my opinion, that's just a different STYLE which should not be denigrated in comparison to traditional orchestral music. DIFFERENT...not necessarily better or worse.

Is there sampled brass in his compositions, for example? Sure there is, but they are often supplemented by acoustic ones and so you get that unique Zimmer sound. He pioneered it, after all.

The trick is to be nuanced and succinct at once! But hey, your long posts don't bother me that much. I used to do that a lot myself back in the day (before I got "bored" by the repetitiveness of subject matters).

***One thing the g has over Thor is he knows the synth in the hands of current composers is more of a pathetic crutch than a useful orchestral color.***

He doesn't KNOW anything. He THINKS it is. And he is entitled to his opinion. Besides, "current composers" is a vague generalization anyway. I also believe that a few fit this category, but many, many do NOT.

***And I hate to go ad hominem here Thor, but you are just plain out of your mind if you really believe "it's not like we're without pairs of a similar calibre today."***

No, I'm not. I'll GLADLY put Williams/Spielberg, Burton/Elfman, Shore/Cronenberg and many others up there. Furthermore, there may be pairs forming JUST AS WE SPEAK that may reach the same level in the future. This discussion is all off-topic, though.

***Also, whatever director-composer collaborations you can point to, the composer (in my beloved Golden Age, as if that's the full extent of my cares & knowledge) always sounded like the composer.***

I'm talking about films on which SEVERAL COMPOSERS collaborated. That's what you talked about, anyway. What about THE EGYPTIAN, for example?

***As for being reactionary, I think those of us who go on & on have earned the position. It may seem like we're prejudiced but really it's based on experience.***

Well, while you may be older than me, I don't think you're necessarily more well-versed in film history or film aesthethics than I am. If that's what you mean with "experience", that is. Besides, I think that your "re-naming" of certain composers is a sign of a STRONG, agenda-like polemic that lacks some nuance. That's where I get the whole 'reactionary' bit.

NP: JULIUS CAESAR (Rozsa)

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
I will explode if anyone dares to think about comparing Hans Zimmer with Patrick Doyle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
[B] Players' hands hurt after performing some of Doyle's scores from the early and mid 90s. No ones' hands are hurting performing a Hans Zimmer score. Computers don't have hands, and you can't hurt yourself performing only two notes at a time.
B]

---

Well the players hands may not hurt after playing a Zimmer score, but after playing one on CD my ears usually hurt.

;-)

James

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
Forget the traditional sense of the orchestra for a while. Zimmer doesn't use it that way.

---

Because he doesn't know how, which is my point. He wants to use an orchestra, so he does the best he can with the computers and orchestral sampling palettes he employs. And again, he's good and cutting and pasting acoustically-made electronic sound files. I am awed by his ability in this regard. It's neat, but it does get tiresome because it doesn't transcend truly compositional music, nor does it sound like a live performance (what gkgyver was on about). It's mostly a wall of sound (called this by many) with little orchestral phrases here and there (what I suppose you call an ELEMENT). I had assumed he was using these orchestral elements in the traditional sense, but since you have suggested we forget about the traditional sense of orchestral stuff, I am wrong... and even more confused about Zimmer's music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
What do you need an orchestra for if you don't let it do the things it's best equipped for?

---

Because it's capable of creating sounds that electronics cannot (to the same degree) and vice versa.

What you and PeterK (and many others) do wrong, in my opinion, is to use orchestral music of all ages to judge Zimmer's music. That's just plain unfair. To my knowledge, Zimmer has written few (if any) scores in which the sole purpose has been to let the samples "mimic" an orchestra. Other composers have (like Mancina's MOLL FLANDERS), but there's always something else going on in Zimmer's stuff.

He pioneered the "blend" in the late 80's, in which electronics and orchestral sounds integrated seamlessly, and the style was always something inbetween prog rock and symphonic pop - never strictly symphonic.

Perhaps this is what he meant in the quote above when he said that his film music is not classical or opera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
Is there sampled brass in his compositions, for example? Sure there is, but they are often supplemented by acoustic ones and so you get that unique Zimmer sound. He pioneered it, after all.

---

Which makes the acoustic brass all the more useless and increases the criticism that Zimmer is incompetent when it comes to orchestral writing. Compare the sound between Drop Zone and Dead Man's Chest (or any other supposedly orchestral Zimmerscore) and the sound is virtually identical between the all-synth, 100% sampled score and the one that supposedly uses an orchestra.

It's one thing to use synths to create sounds which an orchestra cannot. It's another thing to create something like Beverly Hills Cop or Broken Arrow. It's a completely different thing to use an orchestra just because you want to use one, but you can't really write for it, so you just turn the orchestra into a synthetic texture when you could have just used the synth to begin with.

***Which makes the acoustic brass all the more useless and increases the criticism that Zimmer is incompetent when it comes to orchestral writing.***

Huh? The acoustic brass is not useless because it has a different timbre than the sampled one. They complement each other. As far as Zimmer's purely orchestral writing is concerned, I really don't know how to assess it because he has rarely - if ever - written in a purely orchestral idiom. He may be incompetent, he may be competent. We won't know untill he selects to go down that road. I say that he did a brilliant job of arranging his scores for the orchestra in the Ghent concerts, though (but even here, he used a synth).

***It's one thing to use synths to create sounds which an orchestra cannot. It's another thing to create something like Beverly Hills Cop or Broken Arrow.***

What are you saying here? BEVERLY HILLS COP is a purely synth-based score. BROKEN ARROW is - as far as I know - also FAR removed from the orchestral idiom (although there might be the occasional acoustic instrument....I don't have the score anymore). It's got a twangin' electric guitar, for Chrissakes.

***Zimmer's problem is the exact opposite. He mimics what he could do with synths by using orchestral sounds which he then cuts and pastes like regular samples.***

Again, I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Yes, he uses the orchestra and orchestral sounds in a unconventional manner. What else is news?

NP: "I Feel For You" (Shakakan)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
I must admit that I have a hard time grasping what you're really saying here, Dinko. You seem to be a little all over the place in your argumentation.

---

Reread. Relisten. Compare. You'll get it.

quote:

---

Huh? The acoustic brass is not useless because it has a different timbre than the sampled one. They complement each other.

---

Nope. One is superposed over the other. The other is mixed in an unconventional way to make it sound like the one. They don't complement each other. The acoustic version is completely useless because Zimmer can achieve virtually the same sound as he can with his previously recorded samples.

quote:

---

As far as Zimmer's purely orchestral writing is concerned, I really don't know how to assess it because he has rarely - if ever - written in a purely orchestral idiom.

---

K2, Das Geisterhaus... The action cues in K2 have (stylistically) very similar brass motifs to what Zimmer does elsewhere. Though you have to wonder how much Fiachra Trench was involved in orchestrating those.
Backdraft has long strides of purely (or at least mainly) orchestral elements. There is a significant sonic difference between Backdraft & K2 vs Peacemaker & Pirates of the Caribbean. When he wants to, he can create almost entirely orchestral scores.

quote:

---

What are you saying here? BEVERLY HILLS COP is a purely synth-based score. BROKEN ARROW is - as far as I know - also FAR removed from the orchestral idiom

---

That's the whole point, you darn film score fan! Synths can be great when used for what they are. I can't imagine the London Symphony Orchestra on Beverly Hills Cop. Synths worked great there, but Faltermeyer wrote for synths knowing perfectly well what his instruments were capable of. Zimmer wrote for Broken Arrow and mixed in a bunch of pianos with a choir and a trumpet. The rest was electronics. And everything worked great. Synths ain't bad. They're excellent. But there is a way to write for synths (Bev Hills Cop, Broken Arrow) and there is a way not to write for synths (Pirates).
Depending on the score, synths can be either really cool, or completely out of place.
Depending on the score, an orchestra can be either really cool, or completely out of place.
Depending on the score, synths and an orchestra can be either really cool, or completely mismatched and out of place.

quote:

---

Again, I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Yes, he uses the orchestra and orchestral sounds in a unconventional manner. What else is news?

---

Ok, with that said, let's go on to attack everything you've said in these posts!

Actually, I agree with when you say Vangelis knows his way around a synth. I disagree when you same the same for Zimmer. They are not in the same league. I think Dinko defines those moments where Zimmer's approach works better on some films than others and he is flexible about synths & orchestra overall. He doesn't want to diss their use altogether and that strikes me as right. But in the end, I'm with everybody who listens to Zimmer and ends up hurting somewhere. This is the bottom line. Yes/No. Good/Bad. No nuances there. You either Like/Dislike. And Simmer just can't hack it most of the time.

As for how Zimmer uses the synth is something Peter K and gkgyver can discuss with you. Even if Zimmer is doing something impressive with the synth technically, at the end of the day, it's just noodling around if he can't produce listenable music that helps out a film from it all.

In general I don't mind the use of synths if you can really create soundscapes with them. But even here the space atmospheres thing has its limits. There is only so much Jean-Michel Jarre one can listen to before turning to something else. The same goes for TV shows with Sonic Wallpaper or scores by Jeff "Drona".

I want to discuss nuance with you because you keep saying I'm avoiding it. So please define just what it is you mean by it that I'm not doing in my writing. You may be correct that I don't (and won't) do those things in the end. And it's possible that nuance is the wrong thing to do like trying to comporomise with a bullet. But before I discuss it I want to know how you are defining the term.

I'm sorry you are bored by certain topics repeating. I try to discuss other things but those topics get 0-3 hits and disapear from the board because no one is interested. Meanwhile, this one has had over 70 hits! What you consider boring turns out to be the meat & potatoes of the site, liking or not liking new scores/composers and fighting over them.

Well you can put some of the existing composer-director combos on your pantheon list & that's fine. I don't buy it personally but so what, I'm just one guy after all (even if I do think the universe revolves around me, me, me).

Actually, on scores like THIS ISLAND EARTH, THE EGYPTIAN, and others, it's pretty obvious just where one composer stops and the other picks up, especially in THE EGYPTIAN, the Newman stuff sounding like Newman & The Herrmann stuff sounding like Herrmann. I'm sure if my ear was sharp enough I'd even be able to pick out Paul Sawtell from Bert Shefter though I can't personally do that as yet.

But the point is that Herrmann scores for Hitchcock do not sound different from Herrmann scores for Welles, Truffaut, and other dynamic directors. They sound like Herrmann no mattter who is producing or directing and any time the producer or director threatened to take over, Herrmann walked or did as he pleased and was canned. And the end result were the Herrmann scores which are the finest scores ever done for film by anyone ever.

Today if a composer combos with a director he sounds like the temp track that director wants and winds up sounding like no one, least of all "himself" whatever that sound might be (we'll never really know).

When I said experience I wasn't talking about age or having read more books on film history or aesthetics. It simply meant that I've heard a lot of film music old & new and that from that personal survey over the length of film music's history, it seems to me that the best music written for movies both in terms of making a film work and as music to listen to as music, comes from the Hollywood studio system period where the music department had control and individual producer/directors had less control over/interference with the composer.

If I keep mentioning the same names it's because they are the proven greats. I keep mentioning the same names when it comes to the worthless talentless hacks too (some of whom you happen to like).

But I don't mind being called reactionary. I don't even mind being reactionary. I do mind having you try and cut me down though. You can, but I'll punch back.

In the end, the same things are obvious to many. Synth scores are just tiresome compared with orchestral ones unless in the hands of a real master. And Zimmer is not that master. He may be a good player who know the ins & outs of what to do to stay on the A-list without going crazy but that doesn't make him a great composer of film music.

In the end, I have to go thumbs down on Zimmer, on badly-used or overly-used synths, and all the people whose tastes allow this crap to be ok with them.

That's not the way I hear it. The sampled brass somehow packs a more direct punch while the acoustic is more dynamic in scope.

***K2, Das Geisterhaus... The action cues in K2 have (stylistically) very similar brass motifs to what Zimmer does elsewhere. Though you have to wonder how much Fiachra Trench was involved in orchestrating those.
Backdraft has long strides of purely (or at least mainly) orchestral elements. There is a significant sonic difference between Backdraft & K2 vs Peacemaker & Pirates of the Caribbean. When he wants to, he can create almost entirely orchestral scores.***

None of the scores you mention in this reply qualify as a purely orchestral score, based on the traditional orchestra's own terms. There is plenty of synth in all of them (to a varying degree). What's great about all of them, though, is that they're ALL easily recognizable as Zimmer.

***That's the whole point, you darn film score fan! Synths can be great when used for what they are.***

Glad that we agree on this, at the very least!

***It's not unconventional. It's stupid.***

Well, I would hardly call something innovative as Zimmer's synth/orchestra blend sound "stupid", but hey, it's a free world and you're allowed to have your opinion.

LOL! I can assure you that I'm perfectly relaxed and in a festive summer mood (man, it's hot here in Norway today!). What, because I'm disagreeing a bit with you in this and the "Italian System" thread, I'm contrarian?

I will give you one thing, though, Lou. Over the last four years or so, I have distanciated myself more and more from various "soundtrack nerd" habits, one of which is to bombastically lash out opinions as facts without the often-mentioned word nuance.

***Even if Zimmer is doing something impressive with the synth technically, at the end of the day, it's just noodling around if he can't produce listenable music that helps out a film from it all.***

You call it "noodling" around. I call it creating wonderful, ethereal textures with state-of-the-art technological instruments.

***There is only so much Jean-Michel Jarre one can listen to before turning to something else.***

Not for me. Then again, I'm a huge Jarre fan and love electronic music in general.

***I want to discuss nuance with you because you keep saying I'm avoiding it. So please define just what it is you mean by it that I'm not doing in my writing.***

In the "Italian" thread, it's basically just a matter of SPECIFYING a too-broad category. In this thread, it's about playing your own devil's advocate once in a while instead of lashing out bombastic attacks that often go beyond level-headed criticism. That's all.

***Actually, on scores like THIS ISLAND EARTH, THE EGYPTIAN, and others, it's pretty obvious just where one composer stops and the other picks up, especially in THE EGYPTIAN, the Newman stuff sounding like Newman & The Herrmann stuff sounding like Herrmann.***

I agree. My point was that there is nothing inherently wrong with several artists collaborating on a piece of art. I also prefer when you are able to pick out the true voice of a composer.

***When I said experience I wasn't talking about age or having read more books on film history or aesthetics. It simply meant that I've heard a lot of film music old & new and that from that personal survey over the length of film music's history***

So have I.

***I do mind having you try and cut me down though.***

Excuse me?

NP: THE GREAT ESCAPE (Bernstein)

In the end, people have their own tastes & experiences which form where "they are coming from". This makes all debates about likes & dislikes and subjective opinions projected as facts pretty pointless. However, you're missing out on all the fun of being a soundtrack nerd if you rise yourself above all of this. I for one love to say Whore-ner sucks and to berate people for liking Simmer. I guess I'm just a cyber bully & sadist using this nerdy stuff as an excuse to be annoying to people. That said, screw your nuance!

One man's noodles is another man's gourmet pasta. Well, I'm glad somebody can enjoy that Simmery stuff. I just wish it were me. Because it ruins a lot of movies for me since I don't like it.

One thing though which relates to the topic as it started. I think all Zimmer is saying is that film music is light music, not opera. He used the term shallow but perhaps he just meant that it should be seen as light music, not heavy Wagnerian opera. However, his comments did have the slight tone of "I don't take this music seriously" which for those of us who do take it seriously is a provocation. Perhaps if Zimmer did take it more seriously, he would compose it better. But actually, he said the opposite: if he took it more seriously, he'd lose freedom and would compose it worse than he already does! Egad, is there just no way to improve this guy?

As for the Italian system, I think I'm doing a pretty good job there of explaining why it's not too broad a category. Instead I have to accuse you of inflating the marginal examples into an attack on the whole thesis. You claim I have to be "nuanced", but if I do that, I would have to throw out what seems a very solid depiction of what is going on in Italian cinema to take in a few mongrels. I mean I could say, "there is an Italian system except for these 3 films", but that's pointless. What is more important is to see that for the majority of Italian movies over the significant period of their production similarities exist in how things are crafted. [And it's funny, now that I think about it, that Italian cinema would trend towards centrality since it seems that Italians stereotypically do nothing but argue with each other!]

I have played devil's advocate to myself on a number of occasions. However, it's hard to present "level-headed" criticism about what boils down to an emotional response. Oh sure I can talk technically about how best to use synths in a film score, but in the end it's what you call the "bombastic attack" that bottom-lines and underlines any rational debate: Simmer sucks. But not to you. So, we're just on two sides of a fence.

In the end, there is little "level-headed" criticism about film music. We fanboy/soundtrack nerds like what we like, hate what we hate, and fight over it. And that's perfectly ok. What I object to is having the ethics & etiquette police out in force trying to keep conflicts civil or rational. Peace is nice but every once in a while these guys need to have their noses rubbed in the sh-it to see what real life, real primates, and real conflict are all about.

The irony about these guys is they tell people to mind their manners or argue logically, then go to the movies to watch heroes beat bad guys up with fists.

But I digress, so let me get back on topic...

Even if we don't see eye to eye on Zimmer or synths, we can agree on other points. For instance, I'm with you when you say there is nothing inherently wrong with several artists collaborating on a piece of art.

Now some purists might say that fine art means one man-one work. And so film as a collaborative art is not fine art but craft or folk art or just communication. But that's an instance where I think the purist lacks nuance.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with artists working together on a project. And most films that we know couldn't have been made otherwise. And the results of collaboration have been amazing in many cases.

However, when it comes to current practices regarding film music, what we're seeing in "collaboration" is more like a dictatorship the composer slaves under, more like Too Many Cooks Spoil The Broth.

When the cue becomes "a mishmash of inputs" to paraphrase gkgyver's great summation, then collaboration becomes defeating and the composer should reclaim his old position where he worked more on his own and expressed a more singular, personal voice (which was the idea behind a whole other topic I started about composers striking for respect).

Of course, if you don't think film music is in decline to begin with, or if you write it off as "there is good & bad stuff in any period", then you won't see things as needing any changing for the better.

When I said that I had the experience of watching a lot of films and listening to a lot of music, I was just trying to tell you where I formed my opinions from, I wasn't trying to say I've seen more than you so I have a better, more-informed opinion. It wasn't about one-upmanship, just about where I was coming from.

Lastly, I thought you were being snide in a few comments & trying for one-upmanship yourself, but perhaps I missed the eye-wink icons.