Henry Buck

Cool! I really like that unreleased cue where everybody gets into the jeep to tour Jurassic Park. (And yes, Jason, you can yell at me for not knowing the proper cue title.)

Today there are some diploma programs that allow students to earn an exclusively musical education with an emphasis on performance in lieu of a bachelor's degree. Maybe Williams went through something like that. More likely he simply dropped out of school for professional opportunities. I think the degree was less important then. Even today, I've met a couple college professors with only bachelor's degrees, or not even a bachelor's. Performance (or composition) is the most important credential, even though the master's and/or doctorate helps a lot.

I'm extremely skeptical of these studies that claim biological precedent for men wanting to sleep around and women wanting to settle down and have kids. Such studies can't account for the infinitely varied behavior of humans and the social constructs they live by. If there were a way to measure pure, unfiltered sexual desire, maybe we could prove how men and women differ. But to me, going around and saying "I would like to have sex with you" is a terrible premise for a study. We live in a male-centric society - still - where rape is rampant and women are stared at and objectified. In most parts of the world, it isn't safe for women to walk around at night alone, even in prosperous, developed nations. It's rather staggering how much sexual crime happens, and it certainly has an effect on women's psyches. Male offers of casual sex must send off considerably more warning sirens. I don't mean that a woman who refuses casual sex actually believes she is under assault. It's just that the social cues make her lean toward that conclusion. What a man thinks of as "fun" comes off more as "creepy." And on the flip side, men who want casual sex are encouraged by social entitlements to pursue it for the wrong reasons; power and domination may more readily be indulged.

I wish that we could get away from this idea of Same and Other when it comes to relationships. Forget about gender. It's a social construct. All people, whether male, female, intersexual or transexual, are capable of acting anywhere on the infinite spectrum of human behavior. If you want a relationship, you should find the person who makes you happy, not the person who seems to conform best to your idea of what a woman should be. I've started to think that I should stop calling myself heterosexual. Not because I particularly want to have sex with men, but because sexual orientations involve a moral judgment. By claiming with absolute conviction that you would only date one gender or another, you make assumptions about personality. There are sexual instincts, yes, but these involve a considerably grayer area than most would willingly admit to. And much of our criteria for attraction seems to toe the line. Is a charming smile or a sense of humor really something innately male or female? I'm dating a woman right now, and I'm very happy with her, but I love her for who she is, not for how she fits a certain rubric. Oh, it's all easier said than done. Despite my efforts to be conscious, I've stereotyped and objectified all the same. It is a very tough habit to kick when your whole lifetime is spent learning it.

By the way, studies can really "prove" anything. Women are said to be loud during sex because they wish to invite more men to join their orgy. So really, which is it?

News on the recut.

For everyone who is touting the idea that "trained" composers come out of music colleges and conservatories, I'm sorry to say that that is a load of complete and utter B.S.! Anyone who has been to music school and actually paid attention to what is happening to him/her while they are there will tell you that the number one goal of such things is conformity. Experience is not only always the better teacher, but it is what also creates true opportunity. Understanding what makes a good melody, or good orchestration, is something that comes from experience, and no music school teaches to that, no matter how prestigious. The bulk of music school curriculum is geared toward harmonic analysis. And therefore, what do you think you end up with as a result? That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for. However, someone who was actually gifted from the time that they were 4 years old, and actually has learned to be individualistic through experience, has no place in music school. Colleges have nothing to offer them, and they are often dismissed because they can't conform.

I completely disagree with everything you've said, and I seriously wonder if you've actually been through a college music program, or have any knowledge of one. The goal of most college music programs is to create well-rounded musicians. Harmonic analysis is the focus of two or three semesters of theory, yes, but that comprises only a small part of a music degree. There's history, ear training, writing, conducting, pedagogy and above all performance. Most music degrees are chiefly about equipping students to find work in professional ensembles or in teaching positions. Some tracks like history and composition prepare students for further studies in grad school. Experience is certainly built into the curriculum. Music education students are required to do a semester of student teaching to earn their degrees. I had to put on an entire recital of my own compositions for my degree. I was able to have a piece performed by the university orchestra. For performance students, a half-recital junior year and a full recital senior year is required. History students have to write a thesis. You get the idea. But no matter your concentration, you will undoubtedly come out of college with a deeper understanding of what music is, where it comes from and how to perform it. Of course a school can't completely let imaginations soar because there would be no structure to such a program. Students are taught all the major forms and historical trends because knowledge enriches. You seem to think that genius develops best in a vacuum. That runs completely against everything we know. Nearly every prodigious composer was also a respected performer and teacher. Some were also conductors, critics, historians, and so on. They were all educated in the musical traditions of their time, and would have been afforded far less freedom than music students today. If you simply turn a person loose in the work world to gain experience, with no training and guidance, the result is usually disastrous.

And colleges dismiss musical prodigies for being too individualistic? I'm convinced you just made that up on the spot. Most students I knew, especially piano and string students, began their studies at a very early age. Actually, I was unusual because I didn't start taking piano lessons until age 10. Most gifted and well developed students come into college eager to expand their experience and understanding, not to shut themselves away and ignore the history of music.

You say harmonic analysis leads to works like Inception. Do you even know what harmonic analysis is? Most undergrad programs cover music of the late Baroque and Classical periods, counterpoint in the style of J.S. Bach. Do you know who Bach is? Yeah... he doesn't really sound like Hans Zimmer. By the way, Zimmer got his start in pop music and never went through a conservatory program. He didn't care much for the formal training that you seem so eager to trash.

There's only one possible cause I can find for all these claims, which is that many of today's blander composers have formal training. For example, Brian Tyler went to UCLA and Harvard. But drawing a straight line between the overproduced, creatively bankrupt music most of us dislike and college music programs is completely wrong. You're ignoring everything the studio system does to composers. Look, college music professors hate this stuff most of all. My composition professor didn't like the idea of me trying to make it as a Hollywood composer because he felt that it stifled creativity and even human decency.

You hate today's conformity, but everything you say makes it obvious that you just want yesterday's conformity back.

These days, the faster growing stepping stone to film is video game music. Video game music is an entirely different animal than TV and even film. You have to write something that loops well... which, unfortunately has worked its way into modern film scoring, with very little to say when the action is continuous, rather than looped.

You're about twenty years out of date here. Some game music continues to be looped, but many games call for all the same standalone forms that film does. Many feel that game music is actually outpacing film music at the moment in terms of creativity and expression. I bet you don't really know any game composers. Maybe you've heard of Mario and Pac-man and assume that game music is a bunch of robotic beeps. If you're interesting in actually getting up to speed on this stuff, check out:

Nobuo Uematasu
Jeremy Soule
Mark Griskey
Inon Zur
Peter Land
Jared Emerson-Johnson
James Hannigan
Christopher Lennertz
Stephen Rippy
Garry Schyman
Jack Wall

Just for starters.

I don't think the Destroyer recording is totally horrible. The orchestra is smaller than it should be, but it's still performed professionally. I don't recall any severe performance mistakes (though I only know the 30 minute OST). I also think the OST has a very dry, artificial sounding mix. That's something Intrada will probably correct.

However, Tadlow's recording is excellent, and is worth it for the Sword and Sorcery Suite if nothing else.