Jump to content

Zimmer vs Williams


The Psycho Pianist

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Stefancos said:

The working practice has changed. That hardly means that Zimmer is equal to Williams.

 

Like I said. Williams can write an entire score, or concert work using just a piano, pencil and paper. He needs to imagine what every single instrument will sound like while writing in his office or at home. Everything playing in his head. And not untill he stands in front of the orchestra does he hear the real thing.

 

Modern composers use all kinds of samplers, sequencers, software to basically do much of the work for them. They don't need to imagine what it will sound like. They can click a few buttons and hear a close enough approximation than and there. They don't need to anticipate in the way John Williams or other composers who still do it old school do.

 

You can't tell me that thats little more that a semantic difference?

 

You don't even read music, what special insight do you bring to what you comment on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I will say is that this paradigm of digital creation vs. physical creation played out in the world of visual effects and thousands of other fields.

 

A mechanical clockmaker can build a beautiful mechanical clock. But he cannot build the Large Hadron Collider. 

 

The use of digital tools in creation enables more ambitious and complex feats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 But it also creates templates, loopholes, work-arounds. Ways to get a bit more while investing less. Endulging the human urge to be idle.

 

Thats why I like screenprinting. It's an ridiculously complex and convoluted for doing something when similar or better results can be achieved much easier.

 

Work for the music, Gentleman!

Show a bit of fucking passion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Modern composers use all kinds of samplers, sequencers, software to basically do much of the work for them. They don't need to imagine what it will sound like.

 

A computer cannot give you a musical structure. You cannot tell a computer to write a cohesive musical composition for you (there is computer-generated music out there but it's experimental for now - you feed in "rules" and it returns a fugue). If you want to communicate via music you have to use not only your imagination but you must also have an understanding of what you're writing. You can have all the tools in the world, but unless you have a good understanding of what it is you're writing, your compositions will be passable at best. This is what separates the people who "toy" around with samples from the people who can write something profound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BloodBoal said:

Plus, McCartney is more versatile than Mozart was.

 

If Mozart was alive today, he'd blow every other composer off the face of the fucking planet.

 

1 hour ago, Blumenkohl said:

 

The use of digital tools in creation enables more ambitious and complex feats. 

 

Really? Listen to a selection of cues from MAN OF STEEL, and then listen to THE BATTLE OF HOTH, and tell me what's more complex.

 

6 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

But so much what is released now has no soul!

 

Neither has it got imagination. Some think it has, but...it's just an illusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Richard said:

 

If Mozart was alive today, he'd blow every other composer off the face of the fucking planet.

 

Don't let hornist see this, or he'll be very cross with you for suggesting anyone could be better than Williams.

 

30 minutes ago, Richard said:

Really? Listen to a selection of cues from MAN OF STEEL, and then listen to THE BATTLE OF HOTH, and tell me what's more complex.

 

Complex in what way?  Harmonically?  Texturally?  The orchestration?  In its production?  In its psychological/emotional/overall cinematic aims and impact?  Both can win depending on what you're judging.

 

32 minutes ago, Richard said:

Neither has it got imagination. Some think it has, but...it's just an illusion.

 

More or less an illusion than the easy, comforting aggrandizing of the good old days against the boring present?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Blumenkohl said:

While you print pictures on t-shirts with passion and love, others printed dresses with modern technology and love!

 

sgbqKj0.jpg

 

You can put this comparisons so many ways.

 

I have one, having a gig in Helsinki, had much spare time. I checked the museums, the modern one (kiasma) offered some installation in a room(zimmer) with pee and poo (literally) set there and there was also some Rembrandt to see in Ateneum(legendary) museum. I went to see the old master, obviously. Even if the first one used material more VERSATILE, the other one only oil paint.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, hornist said:

 

You can put this comparisons so many ways.

 

I have one, having a gig in Helsinki, had much spare time. I checked the museums, the modern one (kiasma) offered some installation in a room(zimmer) with pee and poo (literally) set there and there was also some Rembrandt to see in Ateneum(legendary) museum. I went to see the old master, obviously. Even if the first one used material more VERSATILE, the other one only oil paint.

 

 

 

 

You imbecile, you've missed the analogy. Poo is not technology. I am referring to the increasing computational power at the disposal of current, and more importantly future musicians.

 

They will be able to shape the world of sound in ways a pencil, paper, and piano writer can't even conceive of. 

 

Steef and your foolish argument against technological aid would rob Rembrandt of the unique qualities of oil-based paint that helped him create the very paintings you saw. It's tantamount to a fan of ink-painting claiming Rembrandt is a lesser, weaker, or less passionate and hardworking artist because oil paints are slow drying and much easier to blend, rework, and texture on canvas compared to most other painting mediums. 

 

You rarely see developed and mature artists put so much emphasis on what tool or technique is superior. You use the tools and techniques for what you want to achieve. The one uber alles mentality stinks of modern academic classroom-generated wannabe artists rather than the doers, makers, movers and shakers, and apprenticed artists who are true creators.

 

For what John Williams wants to achieve, his medium works for him. For what Zimmer wants to achieve his medium works for him. For what Rembrandt wanted to achieve, a slow drying oil paint worked for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.