Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Forum Jump  
Is Modern Film Music Better or Worse?
Last post Mon, Jan 02 2012 by PaulR, 83 replies.
Options
Go to last post
5 Pages123>»
Posted on Tue, Dec 06 2011 11:12
by dagmarpiano
Joined on Thu, Feb 14 2008, Merseyside, UK, Posts 144

Older film music has more craft and musicality than a lot of the modern (Zimmer!) stuff. But the modern stuff can sound more cool, and can be more supportive to the action by being more minimal and repetitive.

Which is better? Here's what I think. The older stuff is better to listen to and has more artistic merit. The modern stuff can work better on action films, but worse on films with any complexity, emotion and imagination.  And even then, this Zimmer-style minimalism is getting a bit tired anyway. Chris Bacon's Source Code had a real old school action score and I thought it sounded really fresh.

What do you think?

i7 27" iMac | 16GB RAM | OSX 10.7.2 LION I Sandy Bridge PC Slave with OCZ Vertex 3 SSDs |
VI Symphonic Cube | Cubase 6.0.5 |

Dan Graham Popplewell

Indie Pop Star (c. 1999) - www.ooberman.net
Trailer Music Writer
Concept Pop Pioneer - www.themagictheatre.net
Sample Library Producer - Zero G Animato & Spiritoso
Trailer Music Label President - www.gothic-storm.com
Posted on Tue, Dec 06 2011 16:43
by uwemeinz
Joined on Tue, Oct 19 2010, Posts 5

I do not think that being more minimal and repetitive is an advantage for supporting action sequences.

In my opinion, action sequences gain more from points of synchronicity (I hope, this is the correct term in English) than from ostinato-type pattern repetitions.

Since action is never static, i think it is not the best way to score it in a repetitive and thereby static (although I admit very energetic) way.

John Williams was really a master in scoring action sequences. He based the tracks similar to the "modern" way with string staccati, but always remained synchronous to the picture. Not in a mickey-mousing way of course, but by increasing and decreasing the intensity, the tempo and/or the instrumentation and also by using the leitmotifs where they fit in. So you can nearly see the action before your eyes when you just listen to a track from the Star Wars or Indiana Jones films. I can hardly imagine this in a Transformers soundtrack.

I really think that Williams was the climax of action scoring. Action cues before him lacked the energy of the modern scores. These on the other hand lack the melodic and rhythmic link to the action and storyline.

Posted on Tue, Dec 06 2011 18:52
by Errikos
Joined on Tue, Jun 12 2007, Posts 1061

Most people here know how I feel about this, so I'm not going to go into a diatribe in this thread. I'd just like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the above regarding John Williams, and offer that at least one reason that the verb 'to suck' is too kind for the vast majority of modern-day soundtracks, is that film-composers a couple of decades ago were better musicians on the whole. People working in film today smack too much of their pop-music origins. One thing I've said before that I'm going to repeat here, is that these people don't necessarily prefer this so-called minimal school of index-finger scoring; it is all they can do. So,

a) Take the technology away from them and leave them with pen and paper and watch what happens...

b) Because of their background in pop-music and its severe handicap of the steady beat, these people cannot imagine any symphonic work in their heads without a constant buzzing at the bottom buttressing the otherwise non-existent structure. Without it, they possess no technique to move the music forward - hence, Zimmer's reinvention of the ostinati in order to replace the bass-guitar and drum-kit. In addition, and possibly due to pop-music also not being what it used to be, there is no melodic gift to speak of to be found in today's soundtracks either.

One reason that Williams' music sounds so energetic is that he employs proper counterpoint and nuclear motifs, allowing the music to take flight, instead of maintaining a locomotive chugga-chugga that leadens it to the ground no matter what happens on top, making it sound static (due to its looping mechanism - i.e. ostinato, literally "obstinate"), no matter how fast you play it.

P.S.: That opening track by Chris Bacon also suffers by this affliction of the semiquavers. Although this guy sounds like he has ideas, at least in this excerpt he remains anchored down.

If you can't notate/MIDI it yourself, it's NOT your music!

In these modern days to be vulgar, illiterate, common and vicious, seems to give a man a marvelous infinity of rights that his honest fathers never dreamed of. - Oscar Wilde
Posted on Tue, Dec 06 2011 23:58
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5512

dagmarpiano wrote:
Which is better? Here's what I think. The older stuff is better to listen to and has more artistic merit. The modern stuff can work better on action films, but worse on films with any complexity, emotion and imagination.
 

What do you mean by older stuff?  For example, the scores to the first Conan, the first Predator, the first Batman.  Those are absolutely great pieces of scoring and music also, yet fairly new.  Are those "older film music" ?  You say action scenes are better scored with Zimmerian drones. 

HAVE YOU HEARD THE SCORE TO CONAN???  Have you watched the blistering scenes of that film with music that practically rips your guts out and stomps them into the dirt????  You think Zimmer can even approach that level of shocking power? 

On a calmer note, one other thing to consider is the minimalism of Herrmann.  Your thread seems to be saying that old film music is nice music but bad film scoring, and new film music is bad music but good film scoring.  However, Herrmann did both well and had an extremely minimalist style that was never too complicated or fussy.  You are right that some old film music was too complicated in musical development, counterpoint, etc.  But now we have the reverse of too little.  Even individual composers of the past - like Max Steiner - occasionally went too far but on other films were perfect. 

So I would infinitely prefer to have a genius like Korngold or Steiner going off on musical tangents and giving me too much than a lowbrow like (fill in the blank) staying on target and giving me too little. 

What I find really weird is the last Oscar winner.  Which had an outraged thread of its own a while ago here.  When you think of what John Williams,  Jerry Goldsmith, Erich Korngold, Max Steiner, Dmitri Tiomkin, Alfred Newman, Alex North and above all HERRMANN  - "Praised be Thy Name, I am not worthy! I am not worthy!"  - what, I say, those GENIUSES did, and what that little goofy guy poking and noodling with a synth did...

IT IS NAUSEATING. 

But then Little James Horner sitting in his plagiaristic corner got an Oscar too, so never mind.   The Oscars - as everyone who has watched them since "Out of Africa" got Best Picture over Kurosawa's "Ran" knows - are a joke.

Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 01:10
by rverne10
Joined on Tue, May 26 2009, Southfield, Michigan, USA, Posts 110
dagmarpiano wrote:
Older film music

Not sure what this means, but as a youngster I was greatly impressed by the likes of Exodus and Gone With The Wind-saw that on a 25th anniversary tour of the USA.

dagmarpiano wrote:
can be more supportive to the action by being more minimal

I agree-I just saw Coppala's version of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein and although the score was rather well written, it too often intruded into the action rather than supporting it-I wish sometimes film producers would realize that their audience would be ok with having  the music  just stop to emphasize what is passing before the camera, the action of the film can sometimes be much more gratifying if local sounds are brought to stage front and center. Then, slowly, introduce minimal scoring (harp and flute or drum and shakers or . . ). If the minimal sounds are created artistically-as Rembrandt did with pen and ink-   http://www.rembrandtpain...lage_and_trees.htm  - - -then something is added. The definition of great art can be given by looking to continue to take  everything away in a work  that is unnecessary until only the essentials remain-something Mahler never knew much about (I love  Mahler's music but than he had a great many composing skills not usually found today) and certainly something that the modern film score writer, particularly those who write with full orchestral palattes, know nothing of as they keep adding too much sound and too often in a style that is not well thought out. The film score in Thor is very full but the producer kept the soft pedal down the whole time the full orchestra is playing Fortissimo so it comes out as though they are playing on another stage than the one the movie is being watched on.The music is written in a late 19th Century Romantic style, (I've ranted and raved up here before on this so I'll just mention in passing that the music style of the film score should match the era of the film setting, ancient musics had no knowledge of Wagnerian Chromticism!) and just does does not fit into scenes of the ancient world.

The only recent film that I can think of that has a score in keeping with the action is The Robber Directed by Benjamin Heisenberg-lots of drums, but it works. Interestingly, the sound effects that I was talking about (local sounds in and at the vicinity of the camara focus) are used to great effect through out the movie which proves my point-when it comes to music to back up the action-less is more. That does not mean it has to be artlessly written or performed. Look at all of Rembrandt's sketches to see what I mean. I actually like those better than his massive painterly works.

Cubase 10, Windows 10 64 bit version 1809, MOTU Audio Express, M-Audio Oxygen 88 keyboard contoller, USB connection, Radeon Rx 480, AMD FX 6300 six core processor 3.50 Ghz
Total Physical Memory 16 GB
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 01:11
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
IMO there is not better or worse music, there only is good or bad music in both (older and newer) depending on the listener criteria and they may be good in the way they born. For example, if you put more notes to the modern music, maybe it would not sound as good as now it sounds, the same for older stuff (less notes and complexity). I dont think something is more artistic for having more complexity or more details, I think the artistic manifestation may be something more simple but with imagination, creativity and passion, it depends on how good the composer communicates his/her feelings and thoughts through music. Sometimes action scores may have just premade harmonies and technical demostrations and that it is, cold and lifeless... but Williams is not a genious for being technical, he is good for the imaginative melodies/leimotivs and musical intentions he has composed. I think details and technique are tools for composers, but not the main purpose in music or in art... sometimes, some pieces require a big technical effort because it should sound like that, but that is the main reason I think, not because it needed to have hundred of notes and rhythmic variations just because the composer needed to demostrate he was a serious musician (in fact, that would tell me a lot about the internal maturity of the composer). The same for Zimmer, IMO he is good for the melodies and sonority he has created... alive and warm... I dont care if it doesnt have enough notes or variations, music and art IMO is not only technique, it is a type of human communication.

Thats is my opinion :) good question BTW
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 01:24
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
Friendly question: do you think this is not emotional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8

question 2: do you think this is not original? (talking about imagination). IMO it is a very dramatic piece and I havent heard something like this (sorry if there was something similar and I havent heard it yet).

http://www.youtube.com/w...mcajBEJs&feature=related rgds :)
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 09:42
by Errikos
Joined on Tue, Jun 12 2007, Posts 1061

Friendly answers:

First, you have to define the terms 'emotional' and 'dramatic' (especially if it's "very") a little better and in musical terms if possible, so that there be established a more common frame of reference for everybody, otherwise any one of us can say "for me, so-and-so sounds 'emotional' and very 'dramatic', etc."... One has to try and explain what is great to them in music (as ultimately elusive and futile an endeavour as that is). 

With this in mind, I would say that the two You Know Who's tracks you provided are in my opinion the best tracks, absolutely quintessential in demonstrating the degree of unmusicality, ineptitude, and charlatanism in film-music today. The first track emotional? In what way exactly, and how was this achieved musically? I would reserve this track for a video that featured blades of grass grow (slowly), gradually panning away to an establishing shot of a lawn as the dynamics increase and more pads (for that's what they are) are added. Similarly, how is the second track original? Imaginative?!? Either of them melodious?!?!? Always in musical terms. If you have never heard something like this, it is because no one before You Know Who that wrote this badly ever made it to a professional recording studio. However, it does ring quite a bit like a lot of loud Philip Glass of the '70s, only Glass had more music in his pieces (and that's saying something).

I'm saying all this with a very friendly attitude, but keep in mind that symphonic music (filmic or otherwise) has been developing for hundreds of years by the most imaginative and brilliant geniuses, who possessed incredible ears and talent for the art. Technique, whether one likes it or not, is something that has been shared by everyone that has made an indelible mark in the field, and whose music has been revered and enjoyed by millions, or even smaller number of connoisseurs. Of course some may have had more talent and technique than others, and it shows! It is a little like literature. It is that much harder to articulate higher thoughts or deep feeling when one's vocabulary is restricted to no higher than two-syllable words.

But if simplicity and economy are also much coveted qualities in composition, we must not confuse them with vacuity. To cite two great examples of many (if not the whole of Mozart), the opening of Fanfare for the Common Man, and the genius score of the Adagio for Strings (which in my opinion should hang on every student composer's wall), they're almost empty pages; almost no ink... But Power? Emotion? Drama? Landmarks! It is not necessarily complexity that adds quality to a musical work. In fact, Star Wars' main title is not as busy on the page as your ears may trick you to believe. Williams is great primarily because of his technique (he's no melodist to brag about you know...), which (among other things) allows him to communicate maximum content with maximum transparency (the least "dead weight"). No matter how inspired you are you cannot create a score like The Prizoner of Azkaban without copious amounts of technique. H.Z. uses the same number of instruments (if not fewer) but sounds like he's dragging a mountain behind him. Don't shy away from technique because it's bloody hard and takes years to develop. Even Copland's and Barber's deceptively simple pieces mentioned above are products of highly skilled technicians. Another way to think about it is: Name three composers who deliberately use less technique than they possess (and again technique is not synonymous to complexity). Even Hans is doing what he can and no less.

As far as complexity is concerned, there are footages and directors that ask for it, and there are many moments in film when it has sounded appropriate. I admit that repetitive passages can, and have been appropriate in scoring certain scenes, and great composers have used ostinati very fittingly. However, to replace complexity for scoring action, thriller, comedy, cartoon, sci-fi, with endlessly copy-pasting lines on top of one another in different octaves while miking some taikos and tumbling them down the stairs is not 'minimalism' (Adams, Gorecki, Kilar, Reich, Nyman); that's just fraud...

If you can't notate/MIDI it yourself, it's NOT your music!

In these modern days to be vulgar, illiterate, common and vicious, seems to give a man a marvelous infinity of rights that his honest fathers never dreamed of. - Oscar Wilde
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 13:03
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
I think it is not an option to discuss this, because you or others are not going to change their minds, no matter what argument comes to the table. I just want to say that there is not an absolute truth in opinions, that art is more complex than technique itself (example: hyperrealism technique and expression in in visual arts vs Picasso's expression and technique), and that no all people has the same capacity to perceive emotion in the same way. It depends on your personal perception. rgds
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 14:14
by Errikos
Joined on Tue, Jun 12 2007, Posts 1061

You didn't bring any arguments to the table for me or others to change our minds, only opinions; and there is a great difference. Also, why should we be prepared to "change [our] minds, no matter what argument comes to the table", when you're not? I actually argued my point(s) to a little extent and asked you to clarify your vague and personal opinions and elaborate on them using musical terms and ideas, so that we can all relate to you and be able to contribute. You chose not to answer anything.

To say that it's all personal, means that nothing anybody says (including yourself) has any value whatsoever. To say that "art is more complex than technique itself" also fails to contribute anything to the proceedings, since nobody disputes that. However, technique/sophistication is a vital aspect to any art, and more so in music, which I would say is the most "honest" of the arts. If one deliberately eschews technique from the equation during the creation of a musical work (say John Cage), they'd better have a great reason for doing so. Hans doesn't, and like I said in my previous post, he actually uses as much technique as he can muster. Because his best technique is actually bad technique, he may be giving you the impression that technique for him is not important; and that is just not so.

If you can't notate/MIDI it yourself, it's NOT your music!

In these modern days to be vulgar, illiterate, common and vicious, seems to give a man a marvelous infinity of rights that his honest fathers never dreamed of. - Oscar Wilde
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 15:39
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
I didnt argue because to me this has no sense, because I think it is impossible to deal with people that thinks that their truth is the only that exists (also I am not negating other people's tastes, so the "burden of proof" does not correspond to me, since I am not negating something initially). Also because when we talk about subjective topics, of course, you cant simplify everything to notes, numbers, etc., there is human criteria and perception inside, which is more complex than that kind of analysis (of course, if we make this discussion musical, the "older suff" has more to say, that is why I wont discuss about musical terms to talk about subjective concepts). BTW the piece I put I said is emotive, which is a clear word, but emotion is subjective, I may feel emotion when I hear that, other people not. Also the creator of the topic put the same words and you understood very clearly, so I dont see the point. On the other hand ,about this "To say that it's all personal, means that nothing anybody says (including yourself) has any value whatsoever", that means that you are not understanding my comments and you are distorting it to what you want to read. I dont say that my opinion, or your opinion has no value. My opinion has value to me or to others, same as yours, but your opinion has any value to me, for example, I am saying that there is not only 1 point of view (I actually like both, older and newer music, that is why I understand your point, but I dont analyze only technique in music to have an opinion, that is where we differ I think). About your last statement, I would say that you maybe are correct (I am not sure, because I am not Zimmer's friend nor I have not read about that, do you have backup of that?), but that is not the important thing IMO, the important thing is that IMO he is very expressive, communicates very good, has original ideas and has a lot of public who likes his work. Why your opinion should value more than mine or the rest of the people who dont think like you?, that could be arrogance. Now, I am out of this discussion because I have said all I wanted to say (in fact my question was not for you, it was for the creator of the topic who seems to be a person opened to hear or read other's perspectives, nothing personal) rgds
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 15:53
by dagmarpiano
Joined on Thu, Feb 14 2008, Merseyside, UK, Posts 144

Donethur - yes I have to be honest and say I thought Inception was an extremely emotional soundtrack. I watched the film not knowing it was Hans Zimmer, thinking it was amazing. Not necessary amazing as a piece of technical orchestration as such, but amazingly emotional to hear and perfect for the film.

i7 27" iMac | 16GB RAM | OSX 10.7.2 LION I Sandy Bridge PC Slave with OCZ Vertex 3 SSDs |
VI Symphonic Cube | Cubase 6.0.5 |

Dan Graham Popplewell

Indie Pop Star (c. 1999) - www.ooberman.net
Trailer Music Writer
Concept Pop Pioneer - www.themagictheatre.net
Sample Library Producer - Zero G Animato & Spiritoso
Trailer Music Label President - www.gothic-storm.com
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 16:13
by Errikos
Joined on Tue, Jun 12 2007, Posts 1061

Your reasoning is really blinkered, hilarious, and at some points indecipherable (lines 6-8) so I'm just going to mention three more things:

a) The creator of this topic did not use the same words as you did. He's actually well versed in music, and you'll find he didn't say much that was different to what I said. And how am I supposed to know you were addressing Dan specifically since you started your post with the words "Do you think..." without mentioning his name?

b) Do you consider people to be open-minded and willing to explore new ideas only when they agree with you? I'm quite open-minded for I took the time to click on your links, listen to the entire tracks, and discuss them while expressing my ideas and whatever logic behind them. You on the other hand refuse to enter into a friendly discourse, or take the time to contradict my points sequentially, logically, and offer any counter-arguments of your own. Instead, you just flatly deny any credence to my positions, invoking subjectivity for aesthetics (how hard is that...)

c) Even after all this, you still finish your post by insisting that Hans - in your opinion - is "very expressive,..., has original ideas, and has a lot of public who likes his work". Well, how is your opinion of any interest to any of us here in a symphonic forum, when you don't communicate to us any ideas about it at all, so that we may partake of your thinking? "very expressive"? Very?? How? Compared to what music that is, say merely expressive. "Original ideas"? Where? Which? That is not even an opinion... "Lot of public who like his work"? Since when is that a criterion for excellence? Bieber has a "Lot of public who like his work". So? This isn't YouTube or Facebook. This is the VSL forum; we tend to be a little more specific in the presentation of our ideas here (not required, but useless othewise).

Nothing personal of course.

P.S.: Dan posted before me, so I would also invite him to elucidate what he found in that music to have been "extremely emotional", with comparisons to other soundtracks of note which are by his standard significantly less expressive than Inception's.

If you can't notate/MIDI it yourself, it's NOT your music!

In these modern days to be vulgar, illiterate, common and vicious, seems to give a man a marvelous infinity of rights that his honest fathers never dreamed of. - Oscar Wilde
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:02
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5512

The score to Inception is heavy and obtrusive in a  far, far worse way than any older film music I've heard.  In fact, it is so obnoxious that it is PAINFUL to listen to.  The fact is, Zimmer is writing for the distorted listening mentality of people today who have been conditioned to NEED A WALL OF NOISE.  That is what he composes - WALLS OF NOISE.  EVeryone now is terrified of silence.  They are afraid to be in a still, calm, beautiful forest with no wall of noise surrounding them, and actually become physically disturbed as a result of their mind-control conditioning by modern corporate culture.  The idea that this Zimmer pablum is deeply emotional and expressive music is grotesque. It is slick, decadent, idiotic and dumbed-down pop trivia that passes for film music.

Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:20
by uwemeinz
Joined on Tue, Oct 19 2010, Posts 5

It is of course true, that great technique does not automatically make a great composer.

On the other hand, technical skill enables a composer to express what is required for the film more easily.

I think, Hans Zimmer is a good film-composer for the energy, the drive and - yes - also for the emotion that his tracks contribute to films, but if he knew more techniques of expression than string staccati and swelling string carpets (sorry Hans! Only metaphorically speaking - I know I´m being unfair here) he could be much better.

For example, I would have found the dramatic track Donethur linked even more dramatic, if it was less steady in its way to the climax. I also think, the track would require more atonality. That is what I think of the whole Inception soundtrack. It really drives the film forward and gives a lot of energy and emotions, but it lacks the disturbance of the situation of travelling in dreams.

On the other hand, I really like the emotionality of "Time", although it has these swelling string carpets again...

I think Zimmer has introduced some good things into scoring films that were unknown before him, but he is not as widespread in expression as many of the "older" composers (and even some of the younger ones like Desplat) are, which sometimes gives (at least me) the impression of "all Zimmer scores sounding alike"

Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:21
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
I think, sorry for interruping William, that in older times people said the same of Stravinsky (same words). :)
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:26
by Donethur
Joined on Mon, Aug 08 2011, Posts 33
"On the other hand, technical skill enables a composer to express what is required for the film more easily.



I think, Hans Zimmer is a good film-composer for the energy, the drive and - yes - also for the emotion that his tracks contribute to films, but if he knew more techniques of expression than string staccati and swelling string carpets (sorry Hans! Only metaphorically speaking - I know I´m being unfair here) he could be much better.
" I think I agree with this... technique is a tool. Assuming that Hans needed more technique to improve his music, it is okay... but I dont know really if he would compose the same again... it is hard to determine. I personally like popular music, I enjoy sometimes doing and listening simple stuff, loving it in the way it is... sometimes I listen Wagner, Beethoven, JS Bach, etc... I think the music is something to love, not to hate (yes it is a bit cliche, but what I mean is that we waste a lot of time talking about what we dont like instead of the opposite). ps: sorry my English, I am not a native speaker. ps: how do you separate paragraphs?, I cant do that!... rgds :)
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:28
by dagmarpiano
Joined on Thu, Feb 14 2008, Merseyside, UK, Posts 144

william - it wasn't an intellectual appraisal, I just found that the music made me feel emotional and heavily involved while I was watching the film, when I was ignoring it. it was a subconscious effect it had on me. If you found it painful to listen to then that was your experience, but this is subjective. It can't be that I'm 'terrified of silence'. I like peace and quiet.

Listened to on its own I found the music to have some quite effective chord changes, and it makes a nice atmopshere but yes it's a bit boring and repetitive. All I can say is, for me, when watching the film, it did its job very well. It's subjective maybe, or maybe you just can't hear its good qualities because of your tastes and prejudices.

i7 27" iMac | 16GB RAM | OSX 10.7.2 LION I Sandy Bridge PC Slave with OCZ Vertex 3 SSDs |
VI Symphonic Cube | Cubase 6.0.5 |

Dan Graham Popplewell

Indie Pop Star (c. 1999) - www.ooberman.net
Trailer Music Writer
Concept Pop Pioneer - www.themagictheatre.net
Sample Library Producer - Zero G Animato & Spiritoso
Trailer Music Label President - www.gothic-storm.com
Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:36
by William
Joined on Sun, Nov 24 2002, USA, Posts 5512
Donethur wrote:
I think the music is something to love, not to hate

I agree with you there.

Maybe more than anything it is the universality of Zimmer now that is irritating to me.  Like having that same stuff shoved down your throat over and over, as if it's better than anything else when there are many guys as good or better who don't get the time of day.  That is what gets me... 

Posted on Wed, Dec 07 2011 17:51
by PaulR
Joined on Mon, Dec 22 2003, England, Posts 2370
Donethur wrote:
Friendly question: do you think this is not emotional?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0kGAz6HYM8
question 2: do you think this is not original? (talking about imagination). IMO it is a very dramatic piece and I havent heard something like this (sorry if there was something similar and I havent heard it yet). http://www.youtube.com/w...BEJs&feature=related rgds :)

Dramatic? Ok then. That's great if you're just a member of the audience and a musical moron at the same time. Haven't seen the film but the music is just the same. Chord, chord, chord chord etc with no real justification about anything. It's about as dramatic as my asshole during a fizzy fit of gastro enteritis.  I get worried about chords that people think are marvellous. I can write chords. But  I can't write this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPWU084wUi8&feature=related

The master of minimilsm in film is Bernard Herrmann. But what you have to understand is that Herrmann defines minimilism in film. Psycho is minimilism. Chord chord chord chord fucking chord is just that, A collection of chords played on a synthesizer and idiot children think it's great because they're idiot chidren with no education or imagination. And that's great because why frighten musical morons with something difficult. 

I have very little interest in films today. Last night I watched Fallen Angel from 1945. Ever seen that? Know who did the score? It's not a great score and film noir can be weird but you may as well listen to Raksin as anyone else writing for film today. Most people today would s h i t themselves if they sat next to someone who can actually play an instrument really well. People walking the street with day jobs are better players than most of the bozos who write for film. You need to understand that. I know children aged 12 that play keyboards in the way that guys like Hans Z can only dream of.

5 Pages123>»
You cannot post new threads in this forum.
You cannot reply to threads in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.