Smeagol

Ah... so beautiful.. It is always a joy to watch Barenboim conduct.

Kinda cool

This sounds great. But I'm wondering though... is there really a point in having these massive libraries with every articulation possible? I'm talking from a film composer perspective I suppose. Do people who aren't as well trained at listening to music really notice if you use 35 different articulations on a mock-up or just 15?

I don't know if this is already here http://watertower-music.com/sherlockholmes/musicians/ This is just great.

To me it deserves awards for what it achieved in terms of the technology that was developed to create the movie. Besides exclusively that, I can't see anything else that's ground breaking in the movie. The story isn't, the dialog isn't, the characters aren't, the action isn't. There's nothing ground breaking or magical about the movie besides the technology/special effects. In my opinion at least.

I listened to the score last night for the first time and it did nothing for me. I'm sure that it'll be much better with the movie, but right now it didn't impress me I'll listen to it again today to see if it grows on me.

http://harry-potter-7-movie-trailer.blogspot.com/ Leaked behind the scenes/teaser for HP7. Do we have any updates on the Williams situation here?

Congratulations Marcus! I'll get this from itunes today! Wow! This is really awesome news!

I voted yes and I completely agree with airmanjerm. The quote below basically sums up what I think about this whole thing. "Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, lights and shadows. Select things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to" -Jim Jarmusch- JW is authentic. He doesn't have to be original, he's got to where he is now by organizing and using the tools at his disposal with such mastery and insight, that whenever you hear something written by him, you KNOW it is Williams. You don't think it's Goldsmith, you don't think it's Horner, or Giacchino, or Zimmer or anyone else. You know it's Williams. And that's being authentic. People complaining about him not being "original" are wasting their time. JW is who he is not because of his originality, but because of his authenticity, something that IMHO is severely lacking these days in film music (and film also, at least when it comes to Hollywood.

Was this around?

Was the version from "Accidentally In Love" from the Counting Crows that sounds at the beginning of Shrek 2 officially released? I just remembered How I liked that version but could find nothing about it. All there is is the album version. Any ideas?

My feelings exactly. This is cool news. I wonder who's decision it was to replace Djawadi.

Discuss Me likey

Awesome. It depends. Williams is probably in the high 'hundred-thousands'. I'll do it for free. I guess it depends. What you want, how long you want it to be. Who's writing it...

Nice to see that I'm not the only one feeling that. I mean, you could just say that I should just get a life, and if I don't like something I should just listen to whatever I do like. It is true like Koray said that there's great music written today, but at least to me those cases are less and less today. I guess as a film music fan first, and a composer second, I just miss the excitement that comes with expecting a new score more often, know what I mean? I guess the main thing is that. I miss being excited about new scores more often.

I know that I'm listening to music made by amateurs and I mentioned that, but I also mentioned that that's exactly the way lots of film music today make me feel like. Anyways, like I said, this is probably more senseless blabbing that intelligent thinking of my part. That might have been me actually. The portfolios are here

It's been a while since I posted around here (I'm always lurking though) and I'm just feeling like sharing some random thoughts to my fellow film music fans/composers/anybody else who's in JWFAN. An initial warning: This might not make much sense. I usually go to Youtube every couple of weeks and type words like "film composer" "garritan" "EWQL" (the brands of two popular sample libraries for those who don't know) and things like that just to see what I ran into. The search usually brings up videos made by aspiring film composers with their original compositions or just videos by all sorts of amateurs giving a try to film composing. I do this because it's a quick way of finding out what young people are coming up with in their home recording studios. A way of listening "new music" by other young composers like me, I guess. Most of the times I'm quite disappointed by what I hear. Nothing really original nor innovative.. most of what I find just sounds... generic, that'd be the word. Obviously Youtube is not really a place where you'd expect to find lots of quality original film music, but like I said, I just like to hear what other people are coming up with. The weird thing though is that the way I feel about music that I find through Youtube is also the way I feel about a lot (if not most) of the new film music I hear today by professional composers. Not a lot that sounds fresh, new or exciting, and I find myself looking for music in older generations of film composers more than I look forward to hearing music from lots of the current guys working in Hollywood right now. And then I think: Well... I guess that's a big part of the problem with film music today, that it sounds just like "film music". Do you guys know what I mean? As soon as you hear a piece of music today you immediately know if it is from a film score, because it sounds like film music. At least it happens to me. I go: Oh, that's a love theme; Oh, listen to that, that's an action cue; that's music for some sort of chase; that's scary music. It's seems that today there are a dozen or so "templates" for film cues that composers just follow according to what they have to score in a movie. (Like I said above) "Ah, we have the main titles here, this is how it's supposed to sound like" "Now we have a love scene, this is how it sounds like", "Now the death scene", etc, etc, but that's not the way I feel when I listen to older scores from the Williams, and the Horners, and the Goldsmiths, and the Elfmans. When I listen to their music away from the film, I don't usually feel like I'm listening to film music. Does anybody else feel the same way? Am I making any sense? Feel free to elaborate on what I wrote and/or make fun of me. I'm bored at work this afternoon, maybe this will initiate some interesting discussion.

Exactly. And that's because each of them has a very distinctive and individual voice. Zimmer and his buddies can write a score together because none of them has a distinctive and individual style, or at least, that's not what they were hired for. And I said this before on another thread: Look at Williams', Goldsmith's and all the other big guys' output, the immense amount of music they wrote on each project, on their own. I'm pretty sure that you could take all of Zimmer's scores, ALL of them, and he probably still wouldn't have written half as much music as Williams or Goldsmith or anybody else with enough talent to write a coupole hours of music on his/her own. I haven't read the whole thread yet. I'm reliving my childhood with Ocarina of Time this weekend. But I'll be back later to write a more detailed response.

Not the one for the Super Nintendo, right? Because I fail to see how a game that difficult would "cool your brains down".... No, no, N64. Fun stuff.

That was a direct response to something Indy4 said above, about there not being a way of measuring how complex, well constructed, or weak a piece of music is from a technical point of view. Reread what I wrote about me designing a skyscraper against an architect. That's my point: Yes, it is possible to state as a fact that Zimmer does not have the same level of training than Williams (or Goldsmith, or Horner, or Desplat, or any of the old guys, blah, blah blah); Yes, it is possible to state as a fact that from a technical point of view, Zimmer's music will never be half as developed as Williams' (or Goldsmith, or Horner, or... you get where I'm going) this is a fact. You can call me an arrogant snob all you want, but Zimmer is not in the same league as Williams in terms of the craft of music composition. The fact that he needs a minimum of half a dozen colleagues to produce what that Williams produces himself is irrefutable proof. Actually, don't call me an arrogant snob. I don't think I've said anything that would let you to believe that I am. If using the technical information that I know about music to present my opinions is being as snob, then one of us is a bit confused. I never once said that whoever likes Zimmer, is a lesser human being, or is less worthy, or whatever else you need to say to be considered an elitist snob in your book. Did you read what I wrote? I own a couple of Zimmer albums, I said I love The Holiday, I'm slowly starting to get more familiar with his work because I've liked what I've listened so far. I'm the last guy that you can call a snob. When it comes to music, if it's catchy, I'm there. I wish I could show you my itunes collection, there's everything from M2M to Avantasia and anything in between from any genre there, and I love all of it. Like I just said, if it's catchy, I'm there. But that doesn't mean that I'm blind to the facts of how different types of music are written, constructed and how they are measured against centuries of developments in Western music (which is what I believe we're talking about here). And I don't think that recognizing that makes me a snob. I love some Evanescence songs, but they're no friggin Queen. I love Dan Brown books, but he's no Allan Poe. If recognizing that one example of an art form took more talent and/or craftmanship than something else makes me a snob, then again, one of us is confused. Now if you excuse me, I just finished my last exam, so I need some Mario Kart to cool my brains down.

Wow! I leave for a few hours and look what I come to find! I'll give the page a read and come up with responses in a bit.

Yes you can. And that was my point in the post I wrote above. Look, if today I decided to compete in the design of a skyscraper with an architect, I might do a pretty damn good job, and maybe my mommy and my friends and neighbors will think that my design is better and prettier than the one designed by the architect, but that does not make me a better trained architect, it doesn't make me a better architect. If you went and actually try to get my design built, any seriously trained architect will see that my design is clumsy, weak and simple. I'll agree with you that it can't really be "bad" music. Hell, I effing love The Holiday, so I'm one of the ones whose Zimmer's music has brought joy to. And as much as I love Elfman, I don't live my days wondering what would have happened IF someone else scored the new Batman movies. I got what I got, and I enjoy it for what it is, and I enjoy it a lot. And music (just like anything else) was never meant to be enjoyed only by those who understand it, BUT, just like with anything else, if you are a bit informed about it, you might enjoy it even more. I hate American Football, I have no idea what it is about and have never enjoyed watching it, but at the same time, I've never tried to understand it or learn more about it, and that's my fault, not the sport's. If I tried, I'm sure I'd probably appreciate it more, I might even get to enjoy it. And I think that's the main point a lot of people are trying to make here, some in more articulate posts than others. You don't have to know about the technical aspects of music to enjoy it, but nobody can't deny that with a little effort to try to understand the basics, you'll also get to appreciate how music is constructed better. Can you imagine what Zimmer's music would be like if he knew how to modulate to distant keys? If he knew how to use a bit more elaborate surface harmonies? If he could execute his ideas with the knowledge that any of the better trained composer has? That's the point. But don't go around saying that you can't measure weak and simplistic musical constructions. That's like saying that you can't really say that Mahler is better than the Backstreet boys, because you can't compare the quality of one or the other. Or like saying that Avril Lavigne is better than Stravinsky because she has brought more joy to teenage boys/girls than Igor has.

I'll have to disagree here. Yes, it is possible to measure. There are centuries of information and development of western music to measure Zimmer's technical abilities against. You can love Zimmer over Williams, Goldsmith or whoever all you want, but there's just no solid argument for anyone to say that Zimmer is well-versed in the technicalities of Harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, blah, blah, blah. He just doesn't have the training, and that's a fact you just can't deny. It is true that that is not all that it takes to get the job done. Look at Horner, the guy has more musical training than Zimmer ever will, but he's still been (arguably) dry as a composer for years. But I repeat, in terms of effectiveness, yes, Zimmer definitely has good ideas flowing through his brain, and that IMO is undeniable as well. Damn... it is late and I feel like i'm not making any sense anymore..

I'll have to agree with Koray on the "effectiveness" part of his argument in favor of Zimmer. Is something that Zimmer writes on the same level as, say, any couple of seconds in Prisoner of Azkaban? Never, not in my opinion and quite simply not as a fact. Zimmer has great ideas every now and then, but he just doesn't know everything that Williams knows and doesn't have all the training that Williams has, and you can tell that by the execution of his (Zimmer's) scores. You can also tell that by the fact that he always needs at least half a dozen guys to score each of his movies. You can love Zimmer over Williams all you want, but that is simply the truth. NOW, in terms of effectiveness, you just can't argue that the guy has done a great job at writing stuff that is so recognizable that you can't separate the music from the movie it belongs to. We can cry and imagine all we want what, for example, Silvestri's music would have been for COTBP, but I'll be dammed if what Badelt/Zimmer et al isn't so memorable that it's hard to think of the pirates movies without thinking of the tunes they came up for them. And on that part of his argument, Koray has a good point. Zimmer's stuff is very effective and serves the movies it belongs to quite well on many cases, and whether the music is or not crap by our personal standards there's no denying that he has written very effective stuff. And at the end that's all he had to do, that's all he was asked to do.