Hellgi

Wasn't it also in Raiders? Maybe I'm wrong... I thought so.

Agreed. I would actually be interested in figuring out if computers *really* do save you that much time. If you think about how much time it takes to master them, how much time it takes to troubleshoot them, and how much time you waste waiting for cues to load, waiting for cues to render, waiting to layback your pre-records, and waiting for DP or Logic to restart when they crash (not including the remote possibility of losing your work if you didn't save in the last 5 minutes), I wonder if you really save that much time with computers. I would also say this is an elitist goal, but that doesn't mean it's less noble... Personally, I would rather write bad music doing it the right way, than write bad music doing it the wrong way Plus, ultimately I believe I'll learn more by doing so. Ah ah! Some people really don't know what they're talking about Of course that doesn't mean a good composer who knows his sequencer very well can't write good music with it. But to me, as you said, there will always bit some kind of limit if you just work instinctively and don't "think" about what you are doing. The thing with JW though is that there's a difference for him between what's enjoyable only in the picture, and what is "away" from the picture. That's why some cues don't make it to the final CD (not saying it's right, just saying that's why he does it). Doesn't make the music less good, it's just like pure choreographic music in Stravinsky's ballets that didn't make it in the final orchestral suite. The crazy 2-week deadline to write a 90-minute score existed way before sequencers were invented... I'm trying to slowly give up on sequencers to write music. It's very hard because I'm so used to use them as an help for my own shortcomings. It's tough realizing you don't know garbage and that you need a visual as well as audio reference to know if you're on the right direction or not! Hellgi

Ach! I wish he was bringing the nazis back. I just loved the music JW wrote for them. Tom, tommm, tommmmmmm, tom-tom, tom-tom-tom- TOM TOM TOM... tom TOM TOM TOM!" Anybody knows what I'm talking about? H.

interesting.Care to elaborate on that? JW controls everything from start to finish. He has trusted collaborators but always ensures that they do what *he* wants. For example, as we all know, he has orchestrators but send them pre-orchestrated sketches. When time allows, he even checks the orchestrations. If you hear one note in a JW's score, you know he's 100% responsible for it. When Bill Ross was working with him on Harry Potter 2, he had to send him his sketches / cues every monday morning so that JW could "check" them. (They all turned out to be fine). Bill told me once this story: One day during the recording, Bill went in the booth to listen to some of the stuff they had recorded. For some reason, Bill didn't like the sound of it. Didn't sound like JW's recordings. He asked if it was normal to the mixers / engineers and they all said, "yes, of course, it's what John wants!". Bill was not convinced and asked them again, and they all (basically said), "don't worry about it, it's fine, we've been working with John, we know what he'll like". So they left it at that. A few days later, Bill gets a call from John who was "annoyed" (ie, pissed) at the sound quality and surprised that it didn't sound like his other scores. Bill explained that he agreed but that he got told that it was supposed to be that way. Well, JW had the mixers re-mixing all the cues. No JW soundtrack will come out without JW's final approval. Besides the actual tracks, he also chooses the track order (yes, he's the fully responsible for putting twice the same piece of music in the same soundtrack). I would be surprised that he doesn't have the final say on the the booklet itself. There's also the example of his "Signature" scores. He specifically goes back to his old scores, arrange them as suites, and completely clean up the orchestration, to make sure they're exactly what he wants *us* to have. So you know there's not one single note in there that's not him. JW's aura can be felt through anything you do that's (even remotely) associated with him. He's the boss and when he *nicely* (always nicely!) tells you something, that's it, that's the way to do it. There's no discussion. Believe me, whoever still works for him understands that. First of all, saying that DP is "the most musical sequencer to work with" is completely subjective. But I'll leave it at that since that's not really the topic. I wasn't trying to imply that using DP meant being a bad composer. As you say, plenty of great composers out there use sequencers and in itself it's not an issue. Heck, my boss uses Logic and I think he's an amazing composer. However! after working in this industry for 3 years, studying the craft for 5 more and assisting / watching many composers at work, I strongly believe that most current technological tools to "help" score a picture actually get in the way of the actual composition process. In general, I believe computers make you think you can do things that you in fact cannot do (or at least cannot do well). It makes most "composers" think they are more than they really are (orchestrators, for one). And then they start making decisions based on that belief, and many many times they end up making, let's say... "bad" decisions. Plus, by making everything seem easy, the computers create the tendency to over-score and to over-orchestrate. How many scores today are filled with those gigantic cues where it's so hard to mix you can't even decipher the main musical lines or ideas? I believe the "real" process of writing to a picture, the process learned and applied by the craft's masters (including JW) is a much more intellectual process. You watch the scene a few times, and then you get into the intellectual process, where you actually have to *think* about what you just saw and how to improve it. You start to write a structure of your cue, where you don't necessarily use a steady click all the way just because it works, no, where you first think of the musical aspect of your piece of music before thinking of hitting all the cuts. You think about the dramatic effect, the emotional impact of the scene, the flow of the editing, etc. Interestingly enough, it's not that far from the actual process of writing a "regular" composition. You only have a piece of paper, pencils, a piano (sometimes) and books on orchestration, instrumentation, styles, etc. In that process there's no such thing as "let's pull an oboe track" or "let's get an RMX loop" or "let's bring some ready-made string effects" to help you out from your own ignorance. You see, to me, today's film composers rely way too much on pure instincts, and then the rest follows. They are "instinctive" composers. Guys like John Williams are "intellectual" composers. That's why, to me, Desplat is much closer to JW, because he's an "intellectual" composer. He sketches on pencil and paper, and only use the computer at the end of process, if and when he needs to make a demo / mockup. He doesn't use it to somehow "facilitate" the writing process. I believe it ultimately transpires in his scores and the quality of his writing. (By the way, Desplat uses DP.) Finally, saying that it's "the current industry" that forces you do use a computer, is in my mind a false argument: nobody forces you to work in *that* industry, or - at least - to work on *that* kind of movies. By the way, a little disclaimer here - I'm guilty as charged since, on all the movies I've worked on in the past, I've used DP or Logic extensively Which doesn't mean I enjoy it or that I think that's the way to go, as you can see But enough already, I'm ranting... Hellgi

I think Giacchino and Williams relate when it comes down to their love of live musicians. Williams said once that most music do not need synth or loops and that most of those could very well be replaced somehow by orchestra players (percussionist or others). Williams' love for the orchestra is well known, as well as Michael's (LA players *love* him for that). In that sense I think they're very close. However, Giacchino, as far as I know, he's simply much less of a control freak than JW is. So I do not really agree with the idea that MG would somehow be the next JW. I know many members of this board will not agree, but Desplat is to me much closer to Williams than Giacchino. In the way they work, they approach a scene, or even the emotional / dramatic choice they ultimately make. But I guess this might belong to another thread. That said, I love most if not all of MG's works. One doesn't have to be "the next JW" to be good.

Yes, I think it's just in case they need more recording time for whatever reason. What I love about this, is that when JW puts a hold on players, then you're basically screwed because he gets the best 100-or-so players in LA. So don't even think of recording at the same time, ah ah! H.

I talked to Conrad Pope last week and he said the music is written in the exact same style as the previous Indys. Very cartoonish (*not* mickey-mousing though!): lots of things happening in the score, quick licks in the woodwinds, etc... It really sounds like this Indy is going to be... a pure Indy film (at least in a musical sense ). As a side note, we were looking at doing a recording session the first week of March in LA but it looks like there's a major hold for John Williams. Looks like all of LA's best players are on hold. Not sure if the recording is at the end of February and could go on for a little longer, or if it starts the second week of March and they wanted to have a few extra days before that just in case. Anyway... I'm getting really excited.

Yes, I agree the intro set a great tone for the movie, and I as well thought that the music was going to be great (or at least interesting). In the end I found it to be distracting at best, badly written at worst. It's really too bad because I thought PT Anderson's choices regarding the actual use of the score (ie spotting) were interesting and "fresh", but I just think it didn't follow musically. To me it's the perfect example of how "film music" is an art in itself; being a composer doesn't necessarily make you a film composer. You have to understand the underlying emotions (or lack of emotion) of a scene, as well as the concept of film editing, structure, and development. It's not only about putting notes on music paper. What's weird is that I really loved PT Anderson's approach for Punch-Drunk Love: I thought the music worked so well in the picture... so I was a little disappointed with TWBB's soundtrack. Hellgi

Saw the movie - completely loved it. But I thought the score poorly written, and also badly used in the movie (and I blame the director for that). It really prevented me at times from enjoying the movie, which I think is the contrary of what a good score should do. H.

Nah, in the music industry we don't like ass kissing people.

no... You don't have to get a nomination to be able to vote... You're being invited to join.. Every year a list of new members is being considered and then I believe an executive comitee picks them. William Ross is a member even though he never got nominated once you get known in your business at one point someone already in the board or in the comitee will suggest your name and eventually it will get accepted or not. And then one day you receive a letter saying you're being asked to join the Academy. I'm sure there are ways to make that happen quickly if you know the right people of course, nut that's basically how it works...

It is technically possible for JW to vote for Brokeback Mountain Although I doubt it Yes, you do not have to vote if you don't want to...

Yes, you can. But obviously you just vote for yourself It's the same thing as a regular election... when you're running for President you can still vote

Where does that come from? AFAIK, you nominate only films which are in your own category (ie. Best Score + Best Song if you're in the Music branch). Then any member vote for the actual winner of *all* categories, once all the nominations are known. If you're John Williams, you select a score to nominate (last year was about 40 or 60 scores if I remember correctly) as well as a song. Then, in the second round, you select one winner over all the selected nominees for each category, scores and songs included. Also, while you can't vote if you're not a member, you don't have to be a member to be nominated and win an oscar. H.

The "music branch" is not the only responsible here - they only nominated Santa, and (as I've said in another topic) it is very much possible that only a small number of people did so. The Academy as a whole gave Santa his second Oscar.

What's the difference? If you're just a member, basically you just vote. If you're part of the board of governors, or if your in an executive committee, then you have more duties, like adapting the eligibility rules.

I agree with you... but I guess there was a good reason to allow it in there. There's some leeway... the "rules" are not set in stone.

There scores fall in the eligibility guidelines. They may be bad writing, but that's not for the board of Governors to decide. I think a better question would be, who in their right mind in the music branch voted for Babel to make it into the nominees' list? Also, you have to remember that if, say, only 5% of music branch voters nominated Santaolalla, he can still win as soon as he gets the lead in the academy-wide votes. It's the same thing as for any two-round election. The last one of the first round isn't necessarily the last one of the second round, especially when the electorate changes between rounds. ... still, shame on music-branch-people who voted for Santa H.

There'd be no point of him submitting anything, since he always work with countless additional composers...

Of course, he is... but I'm not sure if you're question is about the music branch *board* or just about academy members who belong to the music branch (and as such are responsible for nominating best score and best songs contenders). One of the duties of the board of governors is to work on the eligibility rules - for example, it's the board who decided a few years ago that scores composed by a team of people (as mentioned on a cue sheet) were not eligible for Best Score (infuriating Hans Zimmer). H.

Seems to me that the movies Menken's working on are simply not as good and original as the Disney films he was working on in the 90's... I mean, I liked Enchanted - I really had a lot of fun - but it doesn't compare to the Beauty and the Beast or The Little Mermaid in terms of potential for a great score.

Morricone might probably be as arrogant as he is original

I don't mind spelling mistakes (I make a lot of them myself). MSM, no harm done... I'm glad we were able to clarify the misunderstanding.

Actually John Neufeld is JW's main orchestrator, I believe. You're debating with yourself... I never said Conrad Pope was JW's main orchestrator. Hellgi As you can see yourself the person you're quoting is suggesting that Conrad Pope has been Williams' main orchestrator. So I am nuancing your source's comment, if I may. Is it me or some persons here just don't know how to read proper English?

What matters is who the producer of the soundtrack is, not which studio owns the rights to the soundtrack! In the case of JW soundtracks, the studios have pretty much no say in the matter. Remember we're talking about the composer whom most producers would die to have on their movie and who gets begged to do a score. Most of the time movie studios don't give a rats ass about movie soundtrack. Except of course if they want to release a CD filled with songs or when cross-marketing is involved (artists that belong to a sister company, like WB Records for a WB movie). Regarding JW, as far as I know he is completely responsible for the content of his soundtracks, especially regarding track selection and order. Even when there are plenty of songs in the CD (like "Born on a 4th July"), JW is still responsible for all the actual score content. Do you think someone as controlling as John Williams, someone who values the "listening experience" as much as he does, who believes in "CD versions", would let anyone else than himself decide what ends up on his CDs? I don't think so. I don't say I necessarily agree with his vision of the "perfect CD", but the fact remains that he's definitely giving a greenlight to every freaking "John Williams CD" released these days - even when he doesn't give a damn (like the TPM extended version). Hellgi