133 replies to this topic

[Romão]

On top of my head, some of the main composers from each decade (I'm sure I made some unforgivable omissions)

80's - Williams, Goldsmith, Horner, Morricone, Barry
70's - Williams, Goldsmith, Rosenman, Barry, Schifrin, Delerue, Morricone,
60's - Rozsa, Herrmann, Tiomkin, North, Jarre, Barry, Bernstein
50's - Rozsa, Herrmann, Waxman, Newman, Bernstein
40's - Steiner, Korngold, Rozsa, Waxman, Victor Young

Today, we would have Desplat, Powell, Zimmer, Giacchinno, Newton-Howard

[ChuckM]

Nothing happenned in the 90's then?

[Kevin]

Nothing happenned in the 90's then?

Didn't exist.

We just elected to go from 1989 to 2000.

[Romão]

My bad, the 90's would look something like this:

90's - Williams, Goldsmith, Horner, Goldenthal, Elfman, Zimmer

[Blumenkohl]

The general quality of music written for film (and I am judging it as music, not how it works within the film), hasn't changed much, but the cream of the crop of the last few years is much worse now. The main hollywood composers of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's were much more talented than the main composers of today. I don't think that's even debatable.

I disagree. It's very debatable. Shooting at a stationary target is something completely different than shooting at a moving one. Composers of yore generally had the wonderful benefit of writing music to locked pictures. Films were a rather linear thing up until the late 90s. Composers today have to write music to fit into a constantly changing edit in LESS time than their counterparts.

Writing film music today requires a lot more from the composer than just musical ability. It takes serious skills in design and planning beyond just the creative choices in the music itself.

Case in point: John Williams, a great artist, but he doesn't have the chops to create music in a non-linear world. See the Star Wars prequels. The music is a disaster in the films, but clearly really good on album.

[Maurizio]

Case in point: John Williams, a great artist, but he doesn't have the chops to create music in a non-linear world. See the Star Wars prequels. The music is a disaster in the films, but clearly really good on album.

So what? He still pisses over the head of the majority (if not all) contemporary film composers in terms of pure musical creativity and talent. Not to mention the understanding of film language in terms of dramatic needs.

It's fine to like today's film music and finding reasons to believe it's as good as ever (I'm on the opposite side). But I find rather pathetic to put these reasons as a kind of overarching apology, like you're doing here.

I sometimes feel this board (or FSM, for that matter) is awfully reactionary. A breath of fresh air!

If preferring to listen to well-crafted, thought-out and thoroughly composed (written!) music means that I'm a reactionary, well, call me this way. Better than being a musical "progressist" only on the surface while being truly an insufferable snob deep inside.

[Marian Schedenig]

Writing film music today requires a lot more from the composer than just musical ability. It takes serious skills in design and planning beyond just the creative choices in the music itself.

But doesn't that exactly prove the point? Even if film composers these days are just as good as their earlier counterparts (which is debatable), the music they create for films is worse.

[Blumenkohl]

It's not worse. You just don't like it.

It's akin to comparing the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore to the Bank of China. Apple's and oranges.

[Prometheus]

It's not worse. You just don't like it.

It's akin to comparing the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore to the Bank of China. Apple's and oranges.

Relativist BS.

[Thor]

If preferring to listen to well-crafted, thought-out and thoroughly composed (written!) music means that I'm a reactionary, well, call me this way. Better than being a musical "progressist" only on the surface while being truly an insufferable snob deep inside.

If it's a snob to have an open mind for all kinds of musical expressions, to avoid sweeping generalizations and to have an optimistic and positive outlook on things, well then I'll bear that description with pride!

[Blumenkohl]

It's not worse. You just don't like it.

It's akin to comparing the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore to the Bank of China. Apple's and oranges.

Relativist BS.

[Hlao-roo]

See the Star Wars prequels. The music is a disaster in the films, but clearly really good on album.

It's not a disaster; you just don't like it.

[Mark Olivarez]

Well those who are happy with today's film music can continue to keep convincing themselves that the Zimmer's, Tyler's, Jablonsky's, Badelt's, Santollola, Djawadi 's, etc etc are keeping film music in great shape.



In the meantime I'll be the old crotchety fart enjoying the crappy "old" film music from Williams, Rozsa, North, Goldsmith, Herrmann, Shire, Delerue, Elfman, Broughton, Rosenthal, Silvestri, Horner, Eidelman, Rosenman, Barry, Jones, etc etc.

Case in point: John Williams, a great artist, but he doesn't have the chops to create music in a non-linear world. See the Star Wars prequels. The music is a disaster in the films, but clearly really good on album.

So what? He still pisses over the head of the majority (if not all) contemporary film composers in terms of pure musical creativity and talent. Not to mention the understanding of film language in terms of dramatic needs.

It's fine to like today's film music and finding reasons to believe it's as good as ever (I'm on the opposite side). But I find rather pathetic to put these reasons as a kind of overarching apology, like you're doing here.

I sometimes feel this board (or FSM, for that matter) is awfully reactionary. A breath of fresh air!

If preferring to listen to well-crafted, thought-out and thoroughly composed (written!) music means that I'm a reactionary, well, call me this way. Better than being a musical "progressist" only on the surface while being truly an insufferable snob deep inside.

[David Coscina]

I don't know if film music is better or worse than 20 or 30 years ago but I do know music in film was a shitload better when Goldsmith, North, korngold, Shire, Raksin, Herrmann, Schifrin, Fielding, Barry, Bernstein, Williams, Steiner, Rosza, Kamen, Goldenthal, etc were alive or actively composing. There are a few exceptions these days but even guys I used to like such as Silvestri and James Newton Howard have really begun to bore me trying to emulate what's fashionable. I don't care for it and I've pretty much stopped listening to new scores and either find older Golden or Silver Age scores I've never heard before or else stick with classical music (well, modern orchestral like Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, etc). I just don't find a lot to like these days. Most recent music purchased should tell the story:

Jonny Greenwood's Norwegian Wood (sort of a cross between mid 20th century chamber music and art house film score)
Herrmann's The Fantasticks (utterly beautiful concert work)
Ikuma Dan 7 Symphonies
John Williams' Horn Concerto (probably some of the most beautiful writing he's done in years, and it kills Indy 4)
Testament- James Horner. Beautiful score.

I also bought Monsters vs Aliens but haven't even gotten through the entire thing. Parts are nice but only the sections that recall the masters I listed above. So basically pastiche.

It's also interesting how so many people go ga-ga over The Tree of Life trailer. Why? Because it was tracked with Smetana's The Moldau. Beautiful piece BTW. So if classical music or music constructed in an archaic idiom is so dated, why does a 150 year old piece resonate with all age demographics? Because that music is timeless and will never fail to engage and inspire those who listen to it. I'm sure Santaolalla or whomever will never obtain that kind of stature or legacy. Williams will though.

[publicist]

Would it be snobby to say that most film music written for blockbusters sucks?

CLASH OF THE TITANS, POSEIDON, now THOR, FANTASTIC FOUR, a shitload of other comic adaptions i cannot remember, scores like MEGAMIND or MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, just from the top of my head - they may not all be the nadir, but they sure ain't remarkable, either. And that's a pretty big wound not healed by the occasional balm of a BENJAMIN BUTTON, A SINGLE MAN, WOLFMAN or some 5-minute Goldenthal score coming along.

The problem seems to be that the films in dire need of a good musical boost still are the big Hollywood ones, while the odd arthouse movies seldom rely on more than a nice concoction of Yann Tiersen-like pastiches.

[Salacius]

Good point BUT, the scores that shone through were , really....REALLY good. There are some good scores today but you have to dig deep to find any. The mainstream is embarrassing.

[Maurizio]

If preferring to listen to well-crafted, thought-out and thoroughly composed (written!) music means that I'm a reactionary, well, call me this way. Better than being a musical "progressist" only on the surface while being truly an insufferable snob deep inside.

If it's a snob to have an open mind for all kinds of musical expressions, to avoid sweeping generalizations and to have an optimistic and positive outlook on things, well then I'll bear that description with pride!

Sorry mate, you're taking shots at the wrong person. I'm very open-minded when it comes to music. Yes, I have a preference for classical music and orchestral film music (otherwise I wouldn't be here), but I listen to many other things: classic rock, jazz, blues, prog-rock, alternative, even some electronic from time to time. It doesn't matter the genre or the style to me, what matters is the quality and what it communicates to me, both intellectually and emotionally.

But we're talking about film music here and how it sounds today and the general quality of it. Here's what I think: film music can be (it MUST be!) any kind of genre or style. It doesn't have to be always orchestral or symphonic. It always depends on the movie and what it needs. The film is the king, period. And it dictates what it needs from the music. Ok, this is an obvious thing, right?

I do not make generalizations about anything, I just react to what I see and what I hear. My own feelings toward today's film music (mainly for blockbusters and big-budget productions) are very detached. There's a sameness that's quite discomforting to my ears. There are many reasons for this situation and I fully understand the pressure and the machinery at work for contemporary film composers (time constraints, tighter budget, hectic schedule, the impossibility to work on a locked picture, etc.), but every era had its own set of problems in this sense. Film scores were tracked/butchered/looped even during Max Steiner's days.

So, back to the original question: Is film music dead? Of course not. There's good, even excellent music written for films today. But, in my very, very humble opinion, it's just becoming more rare and more sparse than it used to be. There are less talented composers at the same time writing for films today. For one Howard Shore or one Desplat, we get at least ten Djawadis. Hence, I direct my attention and my listening habits to the film music of the past I like and also to other styles that suit more my own feelings. I do not blame anyone who enjoy what it's done today, nor I despise them. But I do not want to be painted in a corner as a "reactionary" or as a cranky old fogey by them because I feel the quality of contemporary film music is lesser than it used to be. I know very well that every age had its own "nostalgia crowd" taking shots at whoever younger/newer was composing for films and whatever they were composing at that time. But I refuse to label things this way, I find it an insult to my intelligence.

Today's film music mainly reflects the quality of 1) contemporary Hollywood movies and 2) the general quality of contemporary artistic/creative endeavors. Without being too bold, it's clear we're living troubled and difficult times from many point of views and Hollywood seems to react in a very child-ish manner. Of course there are exceptions in this regards, but this is the feeling I gather from it.

[publicist]

Today's film music mainly reflects the quality of 1) contemporary Hollywood movies and 2) the general quality of contemporary artistic/creative endeavors. Without being too bold, it's clear we're living troubled and difficult times from many point of views and Hollywood seems to react in a very child-ish manner. Of course there are exceptions in this regards, but this is the feeling I gather from it.

Why bother? Thor is known for his pig-headed debating tactics. Once he has established a mantra like 'film music is now better than it ever was' you have to put him in a torture chamber to admit that maybe broad statements like this do more harm than good.

Striving for the best result possible just cannot be 20 Remote Control interns hacking away at their Macs to produce 120 minutes of sound design in 12 days - unfortunately, that's what happens more than frequently in visible (risible?) Hollywood product.

[Alexcremers]

Jonny Greenwood's Norwegian Wood (sort of a cross between mid 20th century chamber music and art house film score)

Holy sh!t! Thanks for the tip, David.

[gkgyver]

And someone who grew up watching Tom and Jerry is going to have very different expectations for their music than someone who grew up watching Scooby Doo.

And ... if you grew up watching, and loving, both?

On top of my head, some of the main composers from each decade (I'm sure I made some unforgivable omissions)

80's - Williams, Goldsmith, Horner, Morricone, Barry
70's - Williams, Goldsmith, Rosenman, Barry, Schifrin, Delerue, Morricone,
60's - Rozsa, Herrmann, Tiomkin, North, Jarre, Barry, Bernstein
50's - Rozsa, Herrmann, Waxman, Newman, Bernstein
40's - Steiner, Korngold, Rozsa, Waxman, Victor Young

Today, we would have Desplat, Powell, Zimmer, Giacchinno, Newton-Howard

I don't quite get it ... do you want to make the point that film music today sucks? I wouldn't want to compare the best of today's bunch with the least of the 70s group, whoever that may be.

See the Star Wars prequels. The music is a disaster in the films, but clearly really good on album.

It's not a disaster; you just don't like it.

And he doesn't like it because ...? It's such a wonderful addition to the film? I don't know how someone can enjoy such edited and hacked up music in a film. If this doesn't cross the line of some objective standard, then what does?

[Kevin]

For one Howard Shore or one Desplat, we get at least ten Djawadis.

Wasn't that always the case though at any time of film music, one major composer would write a score, but there would be dozens of other composers who's score would not make an impact on anyone at all?

[Salacius]

I don't know if film music is better or worse than 20 or 30 years ago but I do know music in film was a shitload better when Goldsmith, North, korngold, Shire, Raksin, Herrmann, Schifrin, Fielding, Barry, Bernstein, Williams, Steiner, Rosza, Kamen, Goldenthal, etc were alive or actively composing. There are a few exceptions these days but even guys I used to like such as Silvestri and James Newton Howard have really begun to bore me trying to emulate what's fashionable. I don't care for it and I've pretty much stopped listening to new scores and either find older Golden or Silver Age scores I've never heard before or else stick with classical music (well, modern orchestral like Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, etc). I just don't find a lot to like these days. Most recent music purchased should tell the story:

Jonny Greenwood's Norwegian Wood (sort of a cross between mid 20th century chamber music and art house film score)
Herrmann's The Fantasticks (utterly beautiful concert work)
Ikuma Dan 7 Symphonies
John Williams' Horn Concerto (probably some of the most beautiful writing he's done in years, and it kills Indy 4)
Testament- James Horner. Beautiful score.

I also bought Monsters vs Aliens but haven't even gotten through the entire thing. Parts are nice but only the sections that recall the masters I listed above. So basically pastiche.

It's also interesting how so many people go ga-ga over The Tree of Life trailer. Why? Because it was tracked with Smetana's The Moldau. Beautiful piece BTW. So if classical music or music constructed in an archaic idiom is so dated, why does a 150 year old piece resonate with all age demographics? Because that music is timeless and will never fail to engage and inspire those who listen to it. I'm sure Santaolalla or whomever will never obtain that kind of stature or legacy. Williams will though.

That's most sense I read in a loooong time, agreed 1000%. THANK YOU for mentioning the timeless qualities of good, well written orchestral music.

[Maurizio]

For one Howard Shore or one Desplat, we get at least ten Djawadis.

Wasn't that always the case though at any time of film music, one major composer would write a score, but there would be dozens of other composers who's score would not make an impact on anyone at all?

Yes and no, imho. Sub-par or mediocre composers always existed, in the past as in the present, it's true. But the overall musical knowledge and artistry was much more common and prominent yesterday than today. Yes, there were "hummers" and "whistlers" also during the days of Herrmann and Korngold, but it's quite clear that the true talents were much more prominent and crowded.

[Wojo]

It's not even 9 AM on a Monday, and already I need a beer to make it through this thread.

[Drax]

Striving for the best result possible just cannot be 20 Remote Control interns hacking away at their Macs to produce 120 minutes of sound design in 12 days - unfortunately, that's what happens more than frequently in visible (risible?) Hollywood product.

That's the Gen-Y style of music writing. No real technical knowledge or skill, just let the computer do the work.

[Thor]

Why bother? Thor is known for his pig-headed debating tactics. Once he has established a mantra like 'film music is now better than it ever was' you have to put him in a torture chamber to admit that maybe broad statements like this do more harm than good.

Actually, it is the "broad statements" I want to confront and kill. If you're going to throw out a statement a la "film music sucks nowadays" - which seems to be the norm in this forum, you damn well better specify what you mean! Even if you specified it to Hollywood only (which is only one particular paradigm of filmmaking), there's still a wide range of styles and expressions within that. It doesn't make any sense to lash out the same criticism against a paradigm that includes everything from Zimmer to Santaolalla to Greenwood to Daft Punk to Elfman to Korzeniowski to Trent Reznor.

If it had been a specific criticism at, say, the 'Zimmer/power anthem-style within mainstream action films', then that would at least be SOMETHING. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it (since I dig that style myself), but at least it makes a common point-of-departure from which constructive debate can be had. Anything else is just random, Beavis & Butthead-type generalizations shot from the hip.

My educated guess is that the people who lash out these things really only have ONE particular style or approach in mind, but then applies that to ALL of film music. That's just absurd, IMO.

[Blumenkohl]

For one Howard Shore or one Desplat, we get at least ten Djawadis.

Wasn't that always the case though at any time of film music, one major composer would write a score, but there would be dozens of other composers who's score would not make an impact on anyone at all?

Yes and no, imho. Sub-par or mediocre composers always existed, in the past as in the present, it's true. But the overall musical knowledge and artistry was much more common and prominent yesterday than today. Yes, there were "hummers" and "whistlers" also during the days of Herrmann and Korngold, but it's quite clear that the true talents were much more prominent and crowded.

Do you have a single fact to back that up? Musical knowledge and artistry was a much more limited commodity back in the day. You had to be able to afford it. Musical education is a lot more affordable today and more common than it was before.

That's the Gen-Y style of music writing. No real technical knowledge or skill, just let the computer do the work.

It takes a great deal of technical knowledge and skill to write ANY score for a motion picture today. I know it's difficult to grasp sitting on your ass behind a computer screen, but trust me, there is nothing in movie-making that's "easy" or doesn't require technical knowledge and skill.

[David Coscina]

Striving for the best result possible just cannot be 20 Remote Control interns hacking away at their Macs to produce 120 minutes of sound design in 12 days - unfortunately, that's what happens more than frequently in visible (risible?) Hollywood product.

That's the Gen-Y style of music writing. No real technical knowledge or skill, just let the computer do the work.

What's worse is that technology is contributing to the atrophy of musicality in even good composers! Someone like James Newton Howard used to really impress me with his writing (Wyatt Earp, Signs) and while he's always used technology, I know for a fact that he still wrote out parts, as in the case of Snow Falling on Cedars. His writing now encompasses a lot of stacked chords and big tuttis. Very little linear motion, less harmonic ideas, just basic vertical writing, the result of plunking away on a keyboard in front of a monitor with the film running by. When anyone is confronted with this, it is difficult to relinquish the visual aspect as our vision is our primary sense. Aural stimulation is secondary. It's not surprising to take note that most really "musical" scores we love were written AWAY from the film. The composer took their timings, watched the moviola, but then stepped away and entered the realm of pure music. So they would concentrate on themes, counter melodies, rhythmic variations, harmonic variations, motives, orchestration, rather than be enslaved to the video rushing by in realtime.

Technology has been more of a benefit to the filmmakers than composer. It's resulted in shorter time to compose the music, more music tossed in the 11th hour in favor of worse music as replacement, and the opportunity for technically inept people to exist alongside guys who have monstrous musicality. There will never be a day when I prefer something written by Santaolalla over John Williams. I don't own a score by Djawdi and never will. Jonny Greenwood interests me because he's classical trained and applies techniques that resonate with me and perk up my ears when I listen to his music.

Anyhow, I'm listening to JW's Horn Concerto again and as a musician myself, it inspires me. That's my basis for liking something. Does it excite me? Does it move me? It's actually not the technical ability at the end of the day- it's the inspiration. With these really great composers, the technique was always transparent. But you sure as hell notice it when it's not there in the current composers'. And I'm getting so so so so so so tired of the non sequitur of how those who don't like current scores are stuck in trench of orchestral music. I like all types of music, as long as it's well thought-out and well written. I love Shire's Pelham 1, 2, 3. I love Goldenthal's Golden Gate. Or Heat for that matter. I love all of the Eastwood Dirty Harry scores by Schifrin and Fielding and they didn't stick with traditional orchestras. It's about musicianship. Yes, music is an adjunct to the film process, but it doesn't mean it has to be insufferable noise in order to work with the film. We've got like 60 years of solid film scores (if not more) to prove it!

[Maurizio]

Anyhow, I'm listening to JW's Horn Concerto again and as a musician myself, it inspires me. That's my basis for liking something. Does it excite me? Does it move me? It's actually not the technical ability at the end of the day- it's the inspiration. With these really great composers, the technique was always transparent. But you sure as hell notice it when it's not there in the current composers'. And I'm getting so so so so so so tired of the non sequitur of how those who don't like current scores are stuck in trench of orchestral music. I like all types of music, as long as it's well thought-out and well written. I love Shire's Pelham 1, 2, 3. I love Goldenthal's Golden Gate. Or Heat for that matter. I love all of the Eastwood Dirty Harry scores by Schifrin and Fielding and they didn't stick with traditional orchestras. It's about musicianship. Yes, music is an adjunct to the film process, but it doesn't mean it has to be insufferable noise in order to work with the film. We've got like 60 years of solid film scores (if not more) to prove it!

Amen!

For one Howard Shore or one Desplat, we get at least ten Djawadis.

Wasn't that always the case though at any time of film music, one major composer would write a score, but there would be dozens of other composers who's score would not make an impact on anyone at all?

Yes and no, imho. Sub-par or mediocre composers always existed, in the past as in the present, it's true. But the overall musical knowledge and artistry was much more common and prominent yesterday than today. Yes, there were "hummers" and "whistlers" also during the days of Herrmann and Korngold, but it's quite clear that the true talents were much more prominent and crowded.

Do you have a single fact to back that up? Musical knowledge and artistry was a much more limited commodity back in the day. You had to be able to afford it. Musical education is a lot more affordable today and more common than it was before.

Do I really need to point out that Laurence Rosenthal, David Shire, Jerry Fielding, Hugo Friedhofer, Johnny Mandel, Dave Grusin, Lalo Schifrin, Herbert Stothart, John Scott, Bronislaw Kaper are by and large superior film composers than Brian Tyler, John Debney, Harry Gregson-Williams, Ramin Dajawdi, Tyler Bates, Nick Glennie-Smith, Steve Jablosnky, Marc Streitenfeld, Mel Wesson? Do I really need to write it?

[publicist]

Actually, it is the "broad statements" I want to confront and kill. If you're going to throw out a statement a la "film music sucks nowadays" - which seems to be the norm in this forum, you damn well better specify what you mean! Even if you specified it to Hollywood only (which is only one particular paradigm of filmmaking), there's still a wide range of styles and expressions within that. It doesn't make any sense to lash out the same criticism against a paradigm that includes everything from Zimmer to Santaolalla to Greenwood to Daft Punk to Elfman to Korzeniowski to Trent Reznor.

That is all good and well, but you remain suspiciously silent if someone points out that producing easy-to-digest blockbuster scoring in very limited timespans by 20 individuals with wildly differing musical gifts inevitably leads to rather unengaging results - and yes, i'm talking about showy Hollywood products and not some odd bird from Canada or Johnny Greenwood.

The problem are not convincing smaller scores, but a large quantity of ACME product, department sound for movies without much of an ambition or concept.

[Thor]

That is all good and well, but you remain suspiciously silent if someone points out that producing easy-to-digest blockbuster scoring in very limited timespans by 20 individuals with wildly differing musical gifts inevitably leads to rather unengaging results

I prefer to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Also, I'm not quite sure of what "sound" you're trying to describe above. It seems like your beef is more with the manner in which something is composed than the actual music. Sometimes, having too many chefs in the kitchen can indeed result in a schizophrenic end result. Other times, things seem to come together very well. There's certainly interesting music coming from collaborations too. If music history has shown us something, it's that.

[Koray Savas]

It's also interesting how so many people go ga-ga over The Tree of Life trailer. Why? Because it was tracked with Smetana's The Moldau. Beautiful piece BTW. So if classical music or music constructed in an archaic idiom is so dated, why does a 150 year old piece resonate with all age demographics? Because that music is timeless and will never fail to engage and inspire those who listen to it. I'm sure Santaolalla or whomever will never obtain that kind of stature or legacy. Williams will though.

People (like me) are going ga-ga over The Tree Of Life trailer because Malick is a fucking brilliant director.

Striving for the best result possible just cannot be 20 Remote Control interns hacking away at their Macs to produce 120 minutes of sound design in 12 days - unfortunately, that's what happens more than frequently in visible (risible?) Hollywood product.

Ignorance at its finest.

That's the Gen-Y style of music writing. No real technical knowledge or skill, just let the computer do the work.

It takes a great deal of technical knowledge and skill to write ANY score for a motion picture today. I know it's difficult to grasp sitting on your ass behind a computer screen, but trust me, there is nothing in movie-making that's "easy" or doesn't require technical knowledge and skill.

Like Wojo said, this thread is a bitch to get through. In short, you're all a bunch of idiots.

[Mark Olivarez]

So are you.























So nyah nyah nyah...

[Wojo]

[Mark Olivarez]

[Hlao-roo]

The Muppets Are Dead.

[Quint]

Some live still, as this thread demonstrates.

[Hlao-roo]

Heroes get remembered, but legends never die.

[skyy38]

On a side note, the film music is not dead.

Film music is semi-retired.

I'm sure there are some "thinking" film composers out there..somewhere...

http://soundcloud.com/skyy38/the-solar-flare-from-x-men-100

[Blumenkohl]

It's also interesting how so many people go ga-ga over The Tree of Life trailer. Why? Because it was tracked with Smetana's The Moldau. Beautiful piece BTW. So if classical music or music constructed in an archaic idiom is so dated, why does a 150 year old piece resonate with all age demographics? Because that music is timeless and will never fail to engage and inspire those who listen to it. I'm sure Santaolalla or whomever will never obtain that kind of stature or legacy. Williams will though.

It's not timeless because of talent. It resonates because it happens to land in the right region of the graph to be likeable..

In a word, it resonates because it's pop.