What do you think about group scoring?

[bollemanneke 3,337]

A few days ago, I was reading Filmtracks' Inferno review. In it, Clemensen talks about 'the failed methodology of group scoring', but he doesn't elaborate. So I want to know, why is this methodology a failure?

 

I've always thought that ghostwriters must be extremely talented because they can basically pretend to imitate someone else's writing style without us realising they're replacing the main composer (Zimmer gives them credit, but that's another story). I would also think that group scoring allows composers to explore more in a limited amount of time and by doing so, they might gain experience faster.

 

So what are the counter-arguments?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I prefer scoring where I can hear the individual musical voice of the composer. His fingerprints as it were. You don't really get that with scores that have been done by a committee.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

It has its perks, but you're leaving yourself open to STDs.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

13 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I've always thought that ghostwriters must be extremely talented because they can basically pretend to imitate someone else's writing style without us realising they're replacing the main composer

 

Imitating someone doesn't really require talent. On the contrary.

 

Finding your own voice... Now, THAT requires talent!

[Thor 7,462]

It doesn't really matter to me. What matters is the end result. Some of my favourite scores have been 'group efforts' (like THE ROCK).

[Jay 37,281]

5 minutes ago, Thor said:

It doesn't really matter to me. What matters is the end result.

 

This.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

13 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Finding your own voice... Now, THAT requires talent!

 

This.

 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

This.

 

I agree in concept.  But I count 0 scores done in this group method among my favorites of all time.  Zero.

[Quintus 5,399]

I mean, to be frank (thought I'd give it a try), I find the "one voice = better music" argument to be a load of old codswallop. The roots of which surely lie in defensive famyboyism and the fawning over beloved artists. 

[Bespin 8,475]

I always prefered the artist more than his works. In other words, when I fall in love with an artist, I then generally accept all his work. Never the inverse. I don't fall in love with an artist just because of one track.

 

It's also why, generally, I tend to discover artists when they already are in their maturity period and over.

 

I guess that this "group scoring" idea is perhaps a good thing for new artists... Well, the important thing is that one day, these artists go on their own.

 

[Thor 7,462]

20 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I agree in concept.  But I count 0 scores done in this group method among my favorites of all time.  Zero.

 

Double-checking my Top 50 soundtracks, I count these 'group efforts': THE NEVERENDING STORY, THE ROCK, LADYHAWKE and TRON: LEGACY. That's not counting brilliant scores where original score co-exists with other material (like HEAT), since that's not really a 'group effort' in this sense.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

While I'm not sure I name them among my favourite scores, I have a lot of time for Inception, Tron: Legacy and Antz.

[Thor 7,462]

Let's not forget LAST OF THE MOHICANS, although it falls into the NEVERENDING STORY category (the two composers didn't actually collaborate, but their styles mesh very well both on album and in film). Or the Herrmann/Newman THE EGYPTIAN. I also really like KICK-ASS, which has a host of different composers.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

12 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I mean, to be frank (thought I'd give it a try), I find the "one voice = better music" argument to be a load of old codswallop. The roots of which surely lie in defensive famyboyism and the fawning over beloved artists. 

 

I'd assign it to human nature, personally.  At least in Western culture, we have a natural desire to recognize individual achievement in the arts especially

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

7 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I'd assign it to human nature, personally.  At least in Western culture, we have a natural desire to recognize individual achievement in the arts especially

 

It's one of the legacies of romanticism. The celebration of the tormented artist who'll stop at nothing to achieve his singular vision. Before that the artist was merely a servant of the church, court and aristocratic patrons. He was now a free agent.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

That's not what I'm talking about.

 

I don't mean some Byronic nonsense.  I personally think humans have an innate instinct to value individual achievement over group achievement, nothing to do with tortured or not.  I guess it's like an aspirational thing.  I think it was true thousands of years before the Romantic period.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

I do think that some people (mostly the reddit type) tend to overestimate the benefits of grouping two well-established composers.  For example, in no world would a John Williams/Hans Zimmer penned score work, nor would a Howard Shore/Michael Giacchino Star Wars score (an actual suggestion somebody made).  

[mstrox 6,643]

I prefer a singular vision - like Elfman's earlier work, which was singularly the vision of Shirley Walker.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

7 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

That's not what I'm talking about.

 

I just described a common trope, but it's very much related to the prizing of individualism we later see with auteurism, which is what we're discussing.

 

[Thor 7,462]

2 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I prefer a singular vision - like Elfman's earlier work, which was singularly the vision of Shirley Walker.

 

I'll let you have that, because you're an Elfman nut like me.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yeah, the Romantic tradition is definitely an example of that.  I think it's deep-rooted, good or bad.  Nothing to do with "fanboyism" as it was condescendingly ascribed above.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Ghostwriting is a despicable, lazy practice that should be avoided by any self respecting composer and I don't buy any of the arguments for why one might have "no choice" but to engage in it. 

 

Genuine collaborative scoring is fine and I dig plenty of scores done that way. 

 

Why would anyone read Filmtracks?

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

 

Imitating someone doesn't really require talent. On the contrary.

 

Finding your own voice... Now, THAT requires talent!

 

I'd change "talent" in this case to creativity.

 

For example, many musicians in cover bands are extremely talented at their respective instruments (sometimes even better than the musicians their imitating), even if they're not so creative. It also takes quite a bit of raw talent to be forge a painting convincingly.

 

Again, creative inspiration, and the ability to make something original from nothing, is another matter.

 

That said, I do agree that composing by committee will seldom yield any more than pedestrian results.  True genius is a solitary thing.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

You said earlier that finding your own voice is more difficult, but I can't even begin to describe how difficult it seems to me to, say, imitate Doyle or Williams. I can imagine how Doyle would handle a particular film moment, but re-creating what he would do is a different thing entirely.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Yeah, it's like when an orchestra (like the Prague one) creates a Williams arrangement by ear instead of using his actual score.  It always sounds "off" in a nauseating way.  His style of arrangement seems hard to recreate.

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

Yeah, the Romantic tradition is definitely an example of that.  I think it's deep-rooted, good or bad.  Nothing to do with "fanboyism" as it was condescendingly ascribed above.

 

I definitely consider "fanboyism" as being attributable to certain subsections of the single artist argument though. People can be fiercely defensive of their precious personal tastes and sensibilities, and one will often parade something like their favourite musical artist [male] over those group musical works contemplated or preferred by others in a sort of pointless attempt to place themselves higher up than their perceived critical opponents in a silly sophisticates hierarchy which they have invented. It's all ego stroking nonsense, but you only have to browse this forum to see it manifest rather casually and often. 

 

But yes, what is so different about the celebrated music produced by The Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, anyway? Do "byronists" not understand what collaboration means? What really makes film music so different from other musical forms in regards to the collaborative process of just making very fine music? Nothing. It's total and utter snobby BS, that's all. My belief is the "one composer is just better" stance is naught more than yet another construct erected around precious movie music in order to elevate and jealousy protect it at all costs, even when there's nothing really to defend it from in the first place. One theory is the long-standing classical elitism towards film music is partly to blame for any overreaction towards the group composer ethic and the modernisation of the scoring medium. Basically, vehement supporters of the solo artist principle adopt the same practices as the classical elitists they so despise, so this means they sneer and point the finger disapprovingly at the crass idea of sacred orchestral composition as a collaborative process. What an affront! They jealousy yearn to ascend the imaginary hierarchy of discerning cultural intellectualism and look down upon those lowly supporters of different methods and lesser tastes. Meanwhile, others just shrug and think it's all a big waste of time.

[bollemanneke 3,337]

Off-topic question: Why does Prague re-create JW music? Why not just go for the sheet music?

[Thor 7,462]

28 minutes ago, Quintus said:

But yes, what is so different about the celebrated music produced by The Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, anyway?

 

Exactly!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

26 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Off-topic question: Why does Prague re-create JW music? Why not just go for the sheet music?

 

Because it's not always made officially available to them, I guess?  And using leaked sheet music would obviously be illegal.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 hours ago, Quintus said:

I mean, to be frank (thought I'd give it a try), I find the "one voice = better music" argument to be a load of old codswallop. The roots of which surely lie in defensive famyboyism and the fawning over beloved artists. 

 

Or someone's personal preference, which you happen to disagree with.

[Quintus 5,399]

But personal preference is perfectly legitimate. However, 

 

3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I prefer scoring where I can hear the individual musical voice of the composer. His fingerprints as it were. You don't really get that with scores that have been done by a committee.

 

I think this was the birth of young new myth - assigned exclusively to music for film. Again, the precious scoring medium is different, right? It must be maintained as such! 

[publicist 4,643]

There are so many perfectly personality-free solo efforts - does it matter then?

[Quintus 5,399]

Indeed. Succinctly rooted out as ever, by pub. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

16 minutes ago, Quintus said:

 

I think this was the birth of young new myth - assigned exclusively to music for film. Again, the precious scoring medium is different, right? It must be maintained as such! 

 

I dont follow? 

 

"Old" style film music has its roots in classical music. A single composer responsible for the overall score.

 

"New" style film music has its basic more in pop. So it's more collaborative in nature.

[Quintus 5,399]

See, that's a distinction more important to you than me. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Sure, but how does that make it a myth that must be maintained? Or whatever the hell you are on about.

 

Film music has changed dramatically over the last 15-20 years. To the point that we have both lost interest in it to a certain extent. Don't make it like you're any different!

[Thor 7,462]

There are several examples of collaborative works in classical music too, although it was by no means the norm (a good example is works completed by others after the original composer's death).

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

3 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Film music has changed dramatically over the last 15-20 years. To the point that we have both lost interest in it to a certain extent. Don't make it like you're any different!

 

How would you describe the most significant changes?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Of course, i was talking in general terms. And film composers collaborated long before Zimmer etc (Herrmann and Newman even)

 

But things are certainly more geared towards a team effort nowadays.

[mstrox 6,643]

"For Better or For Worse, The Zimmerization of Film Music"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just now, Nick1066 said:

 

How would you describe the most significant changes?

 

The influence of Media Ventures/RCP has been enormous. Both in the general sound of film music and how it is perceived, but also in the way it's produced. 

The advent of sophisticated sampling programs etc has also played a large role. And the way film are finished now in post production.

1 hour ago, bollemanneke said:

Off-topic question: Why does Prague re-create JW music? Why not just go for the sheet music?

 

Because often it's not available to them?

[Thor 7,462]

Unquestionably. In my opinion, though, the 'group' thing has been more or less irrelevant as far as a qualitative judgement is concerned. I evaluate the quality of the house, not the tools that were used in building it.

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Film music may have started out as a world populated by refugees from the ailing classical concert music culture, but it never had to be defined by that alone (some made this mistake though) and it never was going to remain that stylistically exclusive.  Many if not most non-classical musical practices make extensive use of the idea of collaboration in one form or another.  If you don't mind it there, you shouldn't mind it here.  Quintus is right that most folks who have an issue with this are fundamentally falling prey to their fanboyish desire to keep their corner of the playground to themselves.  

 

- TheGreyPilgrim, who just heard a kid listening to Indy 2 at the airport

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Map/Out of Fuel?

[Richard Penna 3,669]

I argue with my workmate about this all the damn time.

 

If I'm listening to a score, I generally want to hear what one composer can do with the material - development of themes, etc. For me it's got sod all to do with fanboyism or fawning over a composer - I just don't really 'sit' with the idea that a random piece of music from the score was written by someone else who has a different approach. Ghostwriting is surely an indicator that the composer hasn't been given enough time to do it.

[Will 2,215]

As others have realized this question is more or less a proxy for the timeless "What makes music good?" debate.

 

Rationally, if you enjoy listening to a piece of music, it is good (I believe that's more or less TGP's standard). You don't necessarily have to enjoy a piece of music for it to be good for you, but in that case it must truly capture your intellectual attention in its forms/development/complexity or whatever else. I think most all of us would agree that these are reasonable standards. 

 

But, as others have said, fandom often blinds us, and I know I am particularly guilty of this. To some extent my autopilot prioritization of any Williams work is simply due to a fascination with Williams as a person and his amazing career in general, as well as the sheer volume of good works he's produced. This is not problematic.

 

However, some of it is likely due to my own elitism regarding Williams vs. everyone else, which admittedly reeks of the classical elitism I so despise. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

7 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

That said, I do agree that composing by committee will seldom yield any more than pedestrian results.  True genius is a solitary thing.

Complete and utter bullshit. Quint already mentioned it, but I'll take it further. One just needs to look at the solo careers of several fantastic band members to understand this. Robert Plant the artist is nothing compared to Plant, Page, Jones, and Bonham the band.

 

Genius is genius, regardless of how many are involved. No one makes a film alone, just like no one writes and records a score on their own. The entire process is collaborative. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Film scoring by committee is better than everything!

[Quintus 5,399]

Haha!