Best 12 composers of 21st century (no John Williams??)

[Thor 7,478]

4 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

 

It's like the AVGN's top 10 baddest bad guys video. Instead of a predictable run-of-the-mill list that includes Darth Vader, Hannibal Lecter, Norman Bates, etc. His list had guys like Clubber Lang, Terry Silver, Caesar Romero's Joker, Nuclear Man and Biff Tannen.

 

Brilliant!

[filmmusic 1,823]

43 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

There is absolutely no criteria for "good art." It's entirely subjective. Sorry @filmmusic, but you're in the wrong here. No list requires John Williams or Mozart on it. 

I'm sorry but history disagrees with you. Vastly!

 

If you don't like Mozart and prefer his maid's compositions, that's fine by me.

But that doesn't mean that those are better than Mozart's.

 

Again, and I may sound elitist, whoever studies art can understand what I mean when I'm saying there are criteria for evaluation of music, and other art.

I know: read Schoenberg's Criteria for the evaluation of music!

 

Although I don't remember what he says and if he's relevant to our discussion.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

6 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

It's just the same tired old relativist bullshit. No one says liking something on your own accord is no criteria but it shouldn't be the only criteria (when evaluating a work of a specific cultural canon). 

 

I agree!  My only point was that leaving Williams off of a list like this doesn't automatically disqualify it, but I do think it requires an argument for his exclusion because he is such an obvious giant of the field and insanely popular.  Then I just got caught up in thinking about how conventional wisdom opinions gain traction and get diseminated.  Something I'm not especially qualified to talk about since I'm not a professor of communication theory.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

This thread is a vomitous mass, which is all it could have been.  See how many posts I liked?  There's an obvious right and wrong here.  

 

We can all agree that this

 

Quote

In an age where special effects reign supreme, there’s one aspect of the filmmaking process that hasn’t gone through a radical transformation — music. 

 

is bullshit though. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yes the article is heavily flawed, and I personally don't agree with the inclusion of some composers based solely off of one score, but as it's been uttered repeatedly - it's all subjective!

[publicist 4,643]

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I agree!  My only point was that leaving Williams off of a list like this doesn't automatically disqualify it, but I do think it requires an argument for his exclusion because he is such an obvious giant of the field and insanely popular.  Then I just got caught up in thinking about how conventional wisdom opinions gain traction and get diseminated.  Something I'm not especially qualified to talk about since I'm not a professor of communication theory.

 

That's not what it takes. Just the vague notion that art and cultural advancement happens also beyond one's own (often by necessity narrowed down) scope. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

The inclusion of Lesley Barber based solely on the effective but slight score for Manchester by the Sea was especially laughable.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

6 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

I'm sorry but history disagrees with you. Vastly!

How so? You hate Hans Zimmer but he's arguably surpassed Williams in terms of success, therefore he's a great composer. You can't have it both ways, mate. 

[filmmusic 1,823]

1 minute ago, Koray Savas said:

How so? You hate Hans Zimmer but he's arguably surpassed Williams in terms of success, therefore he's a great composer. You can't have it both ways, mate. 

I mean past history.

Great works of art didn't remain in history because they were more popular.

 

As for the discussion Zimmer vs. Williams, let's have it in 30 years.

[publicist 4,643]

I thought the list and ensuing discussion revolved around the point that commercial success is NOT the main criteria...?

[filmmusic 1,823]

1 minute ago, publicist said:

I thought the list and ensuing discussion revolved around the point that commercial success is NOT the main criteria...?

yes, of course.

I don't know why Koray thought that I said that whoever is more popular is greater.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

The inclusion of Lesley Barber based solely on the effective but slight score for Manchester by the Sea was especially laughable.

 

Yes.  Whatever other vagaries of taste are involved, would anyone agree that a composer could be so highly regarded based on one thing?  

[Thor 7,478]

2 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

I mean past history.

Great works of art didn't remain in history because they were more popular.

 

As for the discussion Zimmer vs. Williams, let's have it in 30 years.

 

I think the list you're after would be a very different one, filmmusic. Yours would probably be "a lot of great critics and connaiseurs come together to properly establish the critical and commercial success of composers in the 21st century, and then publish their findings". It would be a very mechanical list. It would not be the subjective, unusual and intriguing list on display here.

 

In short, you're evaluating this list on the wrong terms.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

That's not what it takes. Just the vague notion that art and cultural advancement happens also beyond one's own (often by necessity narrowed down) scope. 

 

I just wouldn't include a composer on a list if I hadn't arrived at that opinion myself.  Of course, my lack of thorough knowledge is why I would disqualify myself from writing such a list for publication instead of just on a dumb internet forum.  Basically this person should've realized they weren't qualified and not written the list in the first place.  Sometimes you need to listen to knowledgeable people, not talk.  Then agree or disagree as you please, who cares.

[publicist 4,643]

Also, we have to cut the editors some slack. So much space to fill!

[filmmusic 1,823]

Just now, Thor said:

 

I think the list you're after would be a very different one, filmmusic. Yours would probably be "a lot of great critics and connaiseurs come together to properly establish the critical and commercial success of composers in the 21st century, and then publish their findings". It would be a very mechanical list. It would not be the subjective, unusual and intriguing list on display here.

and again, i point to you the title of that article.

 

If we had an article with the title: the most alternative, intriguing and unusual film composers, I would have no problem at all with its content.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Yes.  Whatever other vagaries of taste are involved, would anyone agree that a composer could be so highly regarded based on one thing?  

 

Recency bias!

 

1 minute ago, publicist said:

Also, we have to cut the editors some slack. So much space to fill!

 

The internet content machine must be fed!

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

2 hours ago, filmmusic said:

I mean past history.

Great works of art didn't remain in history because they were more popular.

 

As for the discussion Zimmer vs. Williams, let's have it in 30 years.

 

Your timescale is off, here.  Neither Williams nor Zimmer, nor any other film composer, maybe, can be "properly" evaluated from an historical perspective yet.  Many decades are needed for biases to soften and honest appraisals to be made.  I expect both JW and HZ will be highly regarded, but it is way too soon to suggest, as you do, that Williams already enjoys some ensconced position.  Talk to some stringently classical people.  You'll see, there's a way to go.  

[Thor 7,478]

1 minute ago, filmmusic said:

and again, i point to you the title of that article.

 

If we had an article with the title: the most alternative, intriguing and unusual film composers, I would have no problem at all with its content.

 

In the context of this particular medium, 'best' is obviously referring to a subjective evaluation, not an objective, scientific fact. It's an online magazine that mostly deals with independent cinema, it's not The Economist.

[Holko 9,499]

"

The Top 12 Composers of the 21st Century, From Hans Zimmer to Nick Cave

A compilation of the most talented composers in film today."

 

I'm pretty sure this doesn't say Best, but neither does it say "OUR Top 10 Composers".

[publicist 4,643]

8 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

 

I just wouldn't include a composer on a list if I hadn't arrived at that opinion myself.  Of course, my lack of thorough knowledge is why I would disqualify myself from writing such a list for publication instead of just on a dumb internet forum.  Basically this person should've realized they weren't qualified and not written the list in the first place.  Sometimes you need to listen to knowledgeable people, not talk.

 

Or just listen to the stuff they recommend before you vote (or read about it and so on). I still remember the painful rec.music.movies fights where people were fully convinced that because they loved Star Wars that all connected to it was the pinnacle of western culture. Much hilarity ensued. Or that John Debney was the better Miklos Rózsa. This particular ignorance that many guys in such debates wore like a badge of honour were exactly the reason why i started to act against it. It's the effort to actively widen your horizon that makes a fully rounded person.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Just now, publicist said:

rec.music.movies 

 

Usenet represent!

 

I can almost hear the dialup sounds.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, Koray Savas said:

There is absolutely no criteria for "good art." It's entirely subjective. Sorry @filmmusic, but you're in the wrong here. No list requires John Williams or Mozart on it. 

The term "good" is a summary of many criteria like "credibly written" and "stylistically coherent photographed". Those criteria can be analyzed in a detailed way and be justified by the means of certain examples. The term "good" is just so relative that it requires more concreteness. Things like incredible drawn characters are generally a thing that has established as negative, unless it is cleverly used to [reason]. Many people just claim everything is highly subjective, because they don't know how to judge a film professionally. The problem is, having studied movies at an university can restrict one's artistical tolerance.

[Jay 37,323]

2 hours ago, Bespin said:

John Williams took the film music "here" and brought it --> "there".

 

At his death, this will mark the end of an era. Like Bach's death year mark the end of the baroque period.

 

It doesn't mean they are the greatest composers that ever lived on earth (it's suggestive), it only means that during their lifetime, they took the best of the music that was done previously, and developped it to his maximum. In other words, they brought their "genre" or "style" to the top. 

 

John Williams is the last of its genre.

 

After that, movie music will be something else.  And already, movie music has changed and it's okay, we call that evolution.

 

Now make the Top 10 you want, it's just funny (but as I wrote previously, just be carefull how you name it!).

 

John Williams is of one the greatest movie music composer of his era, and his music will continue to influence movie music for the rest of the 21st century.

 

Nice post!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I like John Williams too!

[Bespin 8,480]

Thanks @Jay

[James 119]

3 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

Your timescale is off, here.  Neither Williams nor Zimmer, nor any other film composer, maybe, can be "properly" evaluated from an historical perspective yet.  Many decades are needed for biases to soften and honest appraisals to be made.  I expect both JW and HZ will be highly regarded, but it is way too soon to suggest, as you do, that Williams already enjoys some ensconced position.  Talk to some stringently classical people.  You'll see, there's a way to go.  

 

In 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 years people will remember Williams. They will also remember Zimmer, Horner, Morricone, Goldsmith, Silvestri, Elfman, Mancini, Goldenthal, Hermann, Rozna .... But among all these the only one, or one of the few that will keep more than a single theme in the memory of most people, will be Williams. This is unquestionable.

[Wojo 2,453]

They will also remember The Rhinestone Cowboy. Godspeed, Glen Campbell. 

[Koray Savas 2,251]

2 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The term "good" is a summary of many criteria like "credibly written" and "stylistically coherent photographed". Those criteria can be analyzed in a detailed way and be justified by the means of certain examples. The term "good" is just so relative that it requires more concreteness. Things like incredible drawn characters are generally a thing that has established as negative, unless it is cleverly used to [reason]. Many people just claim everything is highly subjective, because they don't know how to judge a film professionally. The problem is, having studied movies at an university can restrict one's artistical tolerance.

I know how to qualify my own personal criteria for what types of movies I like. But that's the thing, what I consider to be good filmmaking could be completely different from yours. There's no "professional checklist" here. 

 

13 minutes ago, James said:

 

In 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 years people will remember Williams. They will also remember Zimmer, Horner, Morricone, Goldsmith, Silvestri, Elfman, Mancini, Goldenthal, Hermann, Rozna .... But among all these the only one, or one of the few that will keep more than a single theme in the memory of most people, will be Williams. This is unquestionable.

Oh it certainly is questionable. This is such a bullshit "Williams is KING!" post. You doubt the mainstream consciousness of The Good The Bad And The Ugly, Titanic, Back To The Future, The Pink Panther, Psycho, etc? Film music doesn't revolve around Williams. 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I think Morricone will be historically viewed as the most important film music figure if the usual standards are applied, for as long as someone else hasn't come along and outdone him.  The degree of influence that he's had across the musical board is difficult to overestimate, it's really pretty astonishing.  So the most academically vanilla criteria point to him, I think.  

 

But if you're talking about widespread familiarity and pop culture pervasiveness, sure, Williams will be a frontrunner.  Care more about changing the practices and aesthetics of film music?  Vote for Zimmer.  Most intellectually rigorous film composer, how about that Jerry?  Money?  Horner.

 

Point is that even this idea of historical importance is up for debate based on what you're making the judgement on.  But as I said, I think the most mainstream option as the music history/literature crowd goes is probably Morricone.

 

What any of this has to do with this lame list and the resultant dumbfuck childish whinging, I haven't the foggiest.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

My favorite thing about this thread is that all of us (except Thor naturally) agree that the writer of the article is a moron and we still managed to fill 3 pages of debate.

[Fancyarcher 350]

Yup this is a dumb list & a dumb argument. I mean, what notable projects has Badelt done in the last several years, aside from a few Herzog films.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

4 hours ago, Woj said:

They will also remember The Rhinestone Cowboy. Godspeed, Glen Campbell. 

 

RIP!

[Fancyarcher 350]

5 hours ago, Woj said:

They will also remember The Rhinestone Cowboy. Godspeed, Glen Campbell. 

 

Respect, RIP!

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

6 hours ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

I think Morricone will be historically viewed as the most important film music figure if the usual standards are applied, for as long as someone else hasn't come along and outdone him.  The degree of influence that he's had across the musical board is difficult to overestimate, it's really pretty astonishing.  So the most academically vanilla criteria point to him, I think.  

 

But if you're talking about widespread familiarity and pop culture pervasiveness, sure, Williams will be a frontrunner.  Care more about changing the practices and aesthetics of film music?  Vote for Zimmer.  Most intellectually rigorous film composer, how about that Jerry?  Money?  Horner.

 

Point is that even this idea of historical importance is up for debate based on what you're making the judgement on.  But as I said, I think the most mainstream option as the music history/literature crowd goes is probably Morricone.

 

What any of this has to do with this lame list and the resultant dumbfuck childish whinging, I haven't the foggiest.

 

If I might say so, Morricone is very overrated. He's extremely good, great even, but his outsize reputation does not really bear out. What he does have in his favor is his out of this world prolificacy. He has what 500 scores? I also think his works are all written quickly, have to be if you have to get to 500. Academically, an assessment of Morricone would be challenging based on number alone. I also think his scores were a little bit of the smaller variety - meaning even his best scores have at maximum about 4 themes and motifs etc and they weren't really massive epic undertakings with some exceptions of course. Or atleast that's what they should like to me, I am not formally educated in music. 

 

I think the more obvious candidate for the academic favorite to he hailed as the greatest/most influential ever is Herrmann. I think he was the first composer in mainstream film to basically try the subconscious in film. He basically created this new layer of storytelling essentially as there is the action happening on screen, the emotion that the audience felt and he overlaid that with a new layer of subconscious insight into the characters states of mind. 

 

I would say some other great candidates are Steiner (a great personal favorite of mine), Korngold, Alfred Newmam, Waxman, Tiomkin, Rozsa all of whom literally created the art of film scoring. 

 

And then we have the more recent greats like Goldsmith and Williams. 

 

If I were to pick 5 most important from music composers I would pick Herrmann, Williams, Steiner, Rozsa and Newman.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

7 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

If I might say so, Morricone is very overrated. He's extremely good, great even, but his outsize reputation does not really bear out. What he does have in his favor is his out of this world prolificacy. He has what 500 scores? I also think his works are all written quickly, have to be if you have to get to 500. Academically, an assessment of Morricone would be challenging based on number alone. I also think his scores were a little bit of the smaller variety - meaning even his best scores have at maximum about 4 themes and motifs etc and they weren't really massive epic undertakings with some exceptions of course. Or atleast that's what they should like to me, I am not formally educated in music. 

 

Being prolific has nothing to do with it.  I suggest you look into what his legacy actually entails.  It doesn't involve the number of scores he's composed... and it certainly doesn't involve a count of the themes and motifs therein, thankfully, as that's completely irrelevant to anything but a Doug Adams style thematic index.  

 

As for the worth of the concept of "overrated," well....

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

I would say some other great candidates are Steiner (a great personal favorite of mine), Korngold, Alfred Newmam, Waxman, Tiomkin, Rozsa all of whom literally created the art of film scoring. 

 

These are great composers who I believe only composed film music on occasion.  More often they accompanied filmed drama as opera or ballet, at times to really dreadful effect, frankly.  The real creation of film music is more recent.  It is for this reason exactly that I am entirely unsympathetic to the very high regard in which they are held.  Great composers.  But not great film composers, with the exception of Rózsa, who I feel did break out of the mold a bit.  Herrmann is a fair example to point to for this as well, in conjunction with Alex North.

[publicist 4,643]

56 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

If I might say so, Morricone is very overrated. He's extremely good, great even, but his outsize reputation does not really bear out. What he does have in his favor is his out of this world prolificacy. He has what 500 scores? I also think his works are all written quickly, have to be if you have to get to 500. Academically, an assessment of Morricone would be challenging based on number alone. I also think his scores were a little bit of the smaller variety - meaning even his best scores have at maximum about 4 themes and motifs etc and they weren't really massive epic undertakings with some exceptions of course. Or atleast that's what they should like to me, I am not formally educated in music. 

 

TGP said most of what has to be said but to dead the beaten horse even more: europeans, with Morricone spearheading, had a radically different idea of how to approach music (and sound) in film. This brought forth a cross-pollination with the more arch american model and basically force-modernized it. It's one thing to gaze towards the Strauss/Wagner school that imprinted composers from Korngold to Williams as 'ideal' but this betrays a very limited view of the art form. 

 

Morricone, to be more precise, united Bach, pop, belcanto and academically challenging atonal/aleatoric techniques and much more with ease in his film music. If you would have watched just a fraction of his '65 - '75 output you would be stunned to what (sometimes) delirious results. So the prolificacy you cited as a throwaway argument really is the key here: the guy did sex comedies, thrillers, big epics, supernatural horror, crime dramas, straight dramas etc. and while not all of that is substantial (numerous repeats) the pure innovation you find there, the abandon of traditional role models alone should secure him a high place on any film music list.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I think it's also fair to say that he almost singlehandedly invented the idea of a pop song "arrangement."  His work in radio is often overlooked.  Not until Eno was there a force so big behind the scenes, except maybe Parsons and Martin. 

[filmmusic 1,823]

Just to cite a Schoeberg quote from that chapter I mentioned earlier "Criteria for the evaluation of music" which I think is relevant here:

 

"changes of style in the arts do not always mean development"

 

 

[publicist 4,643]

I'm hard-pressed t think of an example where they don't.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

The music of Arnold Schoenberg. 

[publicist 4,643]

Sort of. But even that opened a window to composers like Goldsmith (cf. 'Planet of the Apes') that might not have been there w/o Schönberg. Though that might be not a very persuasive argument to most.

[filmmusic 1,823]

7 minutes ago, publicist said:

I'm hard-pressed t think of an example where they don't.

 

Well, the film music of the last 15 years has changed style, hasn't it?

I strongly believe that it was not to the better! It didn't challenge me personally as a musician.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Nah, of course he was epochal and I appreciate much of his music, it was just too good a jab to pass up. 

 

But ultimately the path he laid down led to, what I would call, some of the most banal, contrived, naval gazing, masturbatory music ever composed.  Some of music's most odious personalities and ideologies are the results of what he set in motion.  And I reckon many now see it all as the artistic dead end it is.  So to some degree, a change of style that decades later proved to not be itself, on its own, a development.  

 

2 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

 

Well, the film music of the last 15 years has changed style, hasn't it?

I strongly believe that it was not to the better! It didn't challenge me personally as a musician.

 

Many others disagree. So where does that leave us?  When can we expect the usual "entitled to own opinions" coda?

[publicist 4,643]

1 minute ago, filmmusic said:

Well, the film music of the last 15 years has changed style, hasn't it?

I strongly believe that it was not to the better! It didn't challenge me personally as a musician.

 

But you can't isolate a time period and declare it crap without looking at the big picture - that will probably be visible only in 50 years from now on (Trump and North Korea be damned). The highly abstract 'drone' mode brought forth in recent years might bloom into something more substantial or at least used with more musical considerations in mind. And even if you see me shrugging at 'Dunkirk's leaden idea of a sound concept, it sure is something a lot of people noticed. It's not good music by any means but who knows what it will spawn?

[filmmusic 1,823]

6 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

 

 

Many others disagree. So where does that leave us?  When can we expect the usual "entitled to own opinions" coda?

I would reply to you, but i'm afraid I will sound again like an elitist and conceited person, and this is the last thing I want.

 

[publicist 4,643]

8 minutes ago, TheGreyPilgrim said:

But ultimately the path he laid down led to, what I would call, some of the most banal, contrived, naval gazing, masturbatory music ever composed.  

 

The same goes probably for Burt Bacharach but what can you do about your successors?

[A24 4,327]

Hey, Burt was a great songwriter!

 

 

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

1 minute ago, publicist said:

 

The same goes probably for Burt Bacharach but what can you do about your successors?

 

Naught, which is why we must forgive Hans his imitators!