karelm

I love Zimmer, but fuck noooooo! Death by ambient mics.

Yeah, Lalaland's Empire of the Sun is great too. I like Hook (complete) and 1941 (complete), Close Encounters (expanded), ET (20th anniversary) all of which I think sound amazing considering their age. So what do you consider to be a score with "great sound quality"?

Déjà vu (starting at around 9:30 to the end)

I am very much enjoying listening to this monstrosity, Scriabin's Mysterium. I was at the premiere of this by Ashkenazy with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra and Chorus and was deeply moved by the luxurious sonorities of this music. Basically, something like a three hour long version of Ravel's Daphnis et Chloe and Schoenberg's Peallis und Melisande with some Szymanowski Song of the Night (Symphony No.3) mixed in. Yes it is excessive but excessively beautiful and powerful too! I prefer the interpretation of part 1 by Kondrashin but the audio quality isn't as good.

You don't think Max von Sydow resembles Alec Guinness these days?

Fitzpatrick just reaffirmed on Facebook that the Dracula original recording will come out soon:


https://www.facebook.com/tadlowmusic/posts/725612380867988

Sounds very nice KK. I like the Star Treky opening. Really like when the melody kicks in around 1:40. Very filmesque.
Here is something from me about a drunk man remembering his lost lover while viewing pictures :
https://soundcloud.com/karelm-1/karimelm-ths-ost-memories
...and here the lovers reuinite at the end of the film.
https://soundcloud.com/karelm-1/karimelm-reunion
and an action adventure :
https://soundcloud.com/karelm-1/karimelm-adventurept2v2

I like this version very much too but he does read Elgar as if its Mahler. It works because Lennie still keeps it very musical and I like the gravitas he puts in to Elgar. It's a VERY fine piece to play as well though surprisingly difficult.

Excuse my ignorance but what is a media consultant? Is that a graphic designer? To your point: "i just find it curious to harbor the thought that i - working as media consultant and designer for scientific companies - am entitled to a share of future successes just because i did a short gig for a company 5 years ago. I was paid, did my job, finished it, end of story"...I would respond that you really are proving my point that as part of your compensation to deliver a service as media consultant, there was a buy out so no further money is due to you. What if in addition to you having a skill that took many years of training to be able to perform there was also the fact that for you to do your work well, it is generally bad for your health. So there is a limited "window" in which you can make a living for something that is extremely dependent on years of training/practice, then you have the right to demand a share in the success, no? If you were willing to be paid 1/2 your rate on the chance that you get payment later, then we are talking about the exact same model.
Since you are German, you probably know that the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra - one of the great orchestras of the world - follows a very old fashioned model on one extreme. They are managed collectively by all the members. So a tuba player has as much right to decide if a violinist should be hired as anyone else. The members are involved in every detail. If anyone is considered to join the orchestra, all the orchestra votes on it. Obviously things take a long time in that model because it is mired in red tape/bureaucracy. One can argue maintaining the reputation and legacy of that orchestra validates this approach but it also shows it can become extremely slow to adapt. On the other extreme, you have the Minnesota Orchestra where there was a major disconnect between the orchestra players and the leadership about what kind of orchestra it is in the first place. In that example, the orchestra was kept clueless about their identity, financial standings, their vision, etc., resulting in a major failure (a multi-year shut down/walk out/split). I think both models are extremes and likely to be problematic.
Sadly, I agree with you that the model of royalties is outdated and a compromise is needed. Both extremes are problematic. I just believe the solution is offering a buy out option. It would be a middle approach.
I have a somewhat complicated question for you. If a studio hired an actor to perform a character, paid him for the work, then reuse the exact scenes in subsequent footage (on lets say a sequel) - should they have to pay that actor again? Remember the actor was paid the first time - but the studio is reusing that work a second time without further payment. My question is really just in general, does that actor have the right to get paid again?

Publicist, your understanding is not correct about how royalties work.
A few things:
1. Musicians and composers do NOT get a penny of royalties from domestic theatrical releases. Zero. The grip does (the guy who holds the wires of the camera). Actors do. Director, lighting, vocalists too (they are not musicians but are considered actors and covered under SAG - the Screen Actors Guild - which is the actor union). Basically if you hire a vocalist, it won't be through the musicians union but through the actors union. Musicians DO get mechanical royalties such as sale of a CD. Remember CD sales have been in free fall for a decade as downloads have increased so that isn't a reliable revenue source and the internet deals are still being hashed out. They do get TV royalties depending on the size of the market (example prime time network pays more than cable 2am).
2. Of the royalties musicians get, it is only if certain profit thresholds are met. For instance, if a soundtrack recording sells less than 10,000 cd's, the musicians do not get ANY royalties. Almost no soundtracks sell this level even by well established composers. There are a few MAJOR exceptions - Star Wars sold several million, I'm sure Frozen is in the millions but by and large only a handful of scores will get to the point of paying out royalties as part of the surpassing this threshold. Note that London Symphony Orchestra does not pay royalties to its performers. Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End sold 118,000 albums total in the past 8 years and that is a HUGE success. So that one averages out to be about 15,000 per year just to give you an idea of how hard it is to sell 10,000 plus.
3. Just like an Apple software engineer is paid in salary + stock because the work they do directly translates to the product success so they share in the profit if the product succeeds, the same should be for musicians. Professional level musicians go through extreme physical harm to get to the performance level needed to excel at this level. Most will be injured sometime in their career to the point where they are prevented from working in order to recover. This is actually common amongst any professional level musician. For instance, a trombonist has blown his lips (hernia on their lip) requiring surgery and long recovery to resume work. Such issues like hearing loss (imagine the King Kong versus T Rex battle music volume reached 115 dB sustained volume in the scoring stage and they likely had to replay that multiple times to get it to the composer and directors desires). This is what they do all the time and its plain cruel. String and percussionists typically get repetitive injuries, etc. Many brass players get blown lips/hernias in their lip as part of playing plus they had to probably put in 10,000 hours of training and many years of performance to be able to play this good. You could say that these injuries are part of the career hazard such as coal miners or police/fireman know there is a chance to be injured just by the nature of the work they do. But again, there are unions to protect them from abuse of the person who is not exposed to the harm but benefits from their efforts. Hence, the benefit should be somewhat fair and spread out.
4. The music score is a major element of a film's success. What would Titanic, Star Wars, Jaws, ET, Psycho, Gone with the Wind, Oz be without their music? It is a major contribution to the success of those films.
Almost all films lose money. A few profitable ones make enough money to keep the studio afloat for the money losers. Unless thresholds are met, royalties are not paid out. So if a movie does extremely well, the thresholds are surpassed, I would argue even the tuba player you mention absolutely deserves a cut just like the grip does. The musician fee arrangement includes knowledge that most won't get royalties unless it is a John Williams, Horner, Zimmer, Giacchino, Shore, a handful of others - but the odds are they won't get a penny beyond their very modest fees. The fees attempt to be fair (example, if you have a horn play four overdubs rather than hiring four horns, you are really still hiring four horns and should pay that single player the equivalent). Many of these musicians can only afford to do what they do because of the royalties and have a hard time agreeing to lose out on royalties. I will tell you the answers to this problem is not that difficult conceptually but rather a result of intrenched opinions and the devil being in the negotiated details. Many studios would prefer to own the music outright and are willing to pay extra for that ownership. Basically think of it as you can either pay a player $50 plus royalties or $100 and not pay royalty. This is called a buy out and is allowed in video game markets but not in Los Angeles. So many are going elsewhere to get a subpar product that achieves the basic intent but they own it fully. I am a member of the musicians union and get royalties for orchestration and score prep. I am also a composer who does not get royalties (composers are not represented by the musicians union). As a composer, I sometimes hire union musicians. I am also a business man who has to survive a cutthroat environment to retain some profit. As a result, I sometimes hire non union/cheap orchestras in Europe if its a package deal. Do they sound as good as LA orchestras? Absolutely not. 99% of people don't even notice or care about that. When I can afford to, I argue to include LA musicians and the associated AFM headaches. Generally, quantity and price is more important than quality. As a result, the AFM has a difficult time retaining scoring contracts.

Publicist, your understanding is not correct about how royalties work.
A few things:
1. Musicians and composers do NOT get a penny of royalties from domestic theatrical releases. Zero. The grip does (the guy who holds the wires of the camera). Actors do. Director, lighting, vocalists too (they are not musicians but are considered actors and covered under SAG - the Screen Actors Guild - which is the actor union). Basically if you hire a vocalist, it won't be through the musicians union but through the actors union. Musicians DO get mechanical royalties such as sale of a CD. Remember CD sales have been in free fall for a decade as downloads have increased so that isn't a reliable revenue source and the internet deals are still being hashed out. They do get TV royalties depending on the size of the market (example prime time network pays more than cable 2am).
2. Of the royalties musicians get, it is only if certain profit thresholds are met. For instance, if a soundtrack recording sells less than 10,000 cd's, the musicians do not get ANY royalties. Almost no soundtracks sell this level even by well established composers. There are a few MAJOR exceptions - Star Wars sold several million, I'm sure Frozen is in the millions but by and large only a handful of scores will get to the point of paying out royalties as part of the surpassing this threshold. Note that London Symphony Orchestra does not pay royalties to its performers. Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End sold 118,000 albums total in the past 8 years and that is a HUGE success. So that one averages out to be about 15,000 per year just to give you an idea of how hard it is to sell 10,000 plus.
3. Just like an Apple software engineer is paid in salary + stock because the work they do directly translates to the product success so they share in the profit if the product succeeds, the same should be for musicians. Professional level musicians go through extreme physical harm to get to the performance level needed to excel at this level. Most will be injured sometime in their career to the point where they are prevented from working in order to recover. This is actually common amongst any professional level musician. For instance, a trombonist has blown his lips (hernia on their lip) requiring surgery and long recovery to resume work. Such issues like hearing loss (imagine the King Kong versus T Rex battle music volume reached 115 dB sustained volume in the scoring stage and they likely had to replay that multiple times to get it to the composer and directors desires). This is what they do all the time and its plain cruel. String and percussionists typically get repetitive injuries, etc. Many brass players get blown lips/hernias in their lip as part of playing plus they had to probably put in 10,000 hours of training and many years of performance to be able to play this good. You could say that these injuries are part of the career hazard such as coal miners or police/fireman know there is a chance to be injured just by the nature of the work they do. But again, there are unions to protect them from abuse of the person who is not exposed to the harm but benefits from their efforts. Hence, the benefit should be somewhat fair and spread out.
4. The music score is a major element of a film's success. What would Titanic, Star Wars, Jaws, ET, Psycho, Gone with the Wind, Oz be without their music? It is a major contribution to the success of those films.
Almost all films lose money. A few profitable ones make enough money to keep the studio afloat for the money losers. Unless thresholds are met, royalties are not paid out. So if a movie does extremely well, the thresholds are surpassed, I would argue even the tuba player you mention absolutely deserves a cut just like the grip does. The musician fee arrangement includes knowledge that most won't get royalties unless it is a John Williams, Horner, Zimmer, Giacchino, Shore, a handful of others - but the odds are they won't get a penny beyond their very modest fees. The fees attempt to be fair (example, if you have a horn play four overdubs rather than hiring four horns, you are really still hiring four horns and should pay that single player the equivalent). Many of these musicians can only afford to do what they do because of the royalties and have a hard time agreeing to lose out on royalties. I will tell you the answers to this problem is not that difficult conceptually but rather a result of intrenched opinions and the devil being in the negotiated details. Many studios would prefer to own the music outright and are willing to pay extra for that ownership. Basically think of it as you can either pay a player $50 plus royalties or $100 and not pay royalty. This is called a buy out and is allowed in video game markets but not in Los Angeles. So many are going elsewhere to get a subpar product that achieves the basic intent but they own it fully. I am a member of the musicians union and get royalties for orchestration and score prep. I am also a composer who does not get royalties (composers are not represented by the musicians union). As a composer, I sometimes hire union musicians. I am also a business man who has to survive a cutthroat environment to retain some profit. As a result, I sometimes hire non union/cheap orchestras in Europe if its a package deal. Do they sound as good as LA orchestras? Absolutely not. 99% of people don't even notice or care about that. When I can afford to, I argue to include LA musicians and the associated AFM headaches. Generally, quantity and price is more important than quality. As a result, the AFM has a difficult time retaining scoring contracts.

I have always loved Michael Stearns's Planetary Unfolding:
http://youtu.be/4tueVu2GTQ8
And Encounters:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLS1iRpAelof3B1ACUmlFB2K0E0aszgCRj
Excellent spacey and dark music.

Thank you for the call-out for seriousness, a rare commodity around here.
To your point, I think Abrams knows very well what he's doing. He's very good at channeling out elements leading up to the film's premiere, revealing bit after bit. I'm sure the familiar 1977 faces will crop up closer to the date. Same with story elements. This was just a teaser with 'images'.

Looking and sounding good! And whew, no extraneous lens flares (so far)…I thought for sure those would be on light sabers.

You mean this:

Yeah, I got that too. Woohoo NEW retro Star Wars music!

On the notion of craft in composition, I agree 100%. To my mind, the best compositions have a structure that is made intelligible to the listener. Regardless of the kind of music one is talking about, structure is of prime importance to the communication of some sort of meaning. In a Baroque dance movement, structure usually assumes a binary form with repeated halves. In a Beethoven symphony, the enlarged ABA structure that is sonata form lends an attractive sense of narrative to the piece. In a Wagner opera, the leitmotifs form a constantly evolving musical tapestry that clarifies meaning at every turn. In a Beatles song, there is often an AABA form governing the structure.
I'm a firm believer in learning how to structure music in ways such as these and taking from them what one likes to form one's own style. It all depends on what music one admires most, and for me I've always been drawn most of all to the music of the classical period. So when I was first writing full-length pieces, I found a very useful exercise was to write several sixteen-bar minuets for piano in classical style, using Beethoven's early dances as a model. It's a great way to learn because there is a focus on the essentials of composition in a miniature format. In other words, it allows one to practice writing standard harmonic progressions, working out motivic material, and writing in a rounded binary form, all without the stuffiness of workbook exercises. Once one has a sense of how to write a fairly regular sixteen-bar structure, one can then turn to the art of phrase expansions and writing more adventurously by studying minuets in more substantial classical works like symphonies, sonatas, and string quartets. Now some may think minuets to be the epitome of boring music, but remember this: rounded binary forms like these are precursors of sonata form, which is the pinnacle of musical structure in the history of Western music and is found in many of the most important concert works (especially symphonic ones) from Mozart through to Shostakovich. Although sonata form is but one type of structure one can learn how to compose with, studying examples of it teaches one how to write dramatically, as though some important narrative is being told by the music alone, without the aid of a sung text, external program, or what have you. And telling stories in a purely musical way is a skill that can be applied to just about any style of composition. For that reason, it's a damn good structure to have under your belt.

People are posting so much great stuff so quickly, I'm almost missing things. . . .
Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about--an open door to the next level. As is usually the case with these kinds of things, there'll always be some overlap; you run through concepts you've learned before as you learn new things. But that never hurts, and can often help more than one might think.
I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with this. This has a direct parallel to the "art" of writing. Too many people out there think telling a good story is all about imagination--that if you can dream it, you'll have a bestseller on your hands. But that's only part of it . . . and to be frank, it's really not the most important part. If you can't tell a good story well, no one will ever recognize the quality of your story or of your imagination. Writing is a craft first and foremost; you first have to master it, or at least grow a fair level of competence with it, as such. Only then can you begin to use it as an aspiration to art. Like any other form of communication, you can bend the rules--even break them sometimes--but you have to understand the rule first, and know why you're breaking it. People can tell the difference between an author who intentionally bends a rule he understands and a writer who breaks a rule because he doesn't comprehend what he's doing.
It may not be exactly the same with music, but it's not that far off. It's because I believe that so strongly that I want to get better at the craft before I try tripping my way through the dark with this stuff.

And is ST really the benchmark comparison for all franchises? I mean, does every franchise aim to surpass ST? I don't quite see it...

Hmm, a superficial comparison if there ever was one.
Look to Uni's post why that doesn't make much sense.

Really? Gotta admit, it's hard to take it seriously when there's stuff like this

That or the "tribbles" I've heard about.

It is interesting how you put this. I take a slightly different approach in that I put it out there hoping it will connect with someone. I find that most are passively engaged (and will forget about it immediately) but a few are actively engaged and might by a recording or want more. Every now and then someone is deeply engaged and really gets what you intended and for me these are the ones I seek to connect with most but it is out of my control. So it just comes back to write what you what to listen to and some will really connect to it along the way. Meanwhile, constantly strive towards improvement in the methods, inspiration, technique, conciseness, etc. Along the way are some missteps but generally the trajectory is meaningful.

As for me, I always wanted to be a composer once I realized it was possible (in my youth I thought composers had died out long ago and no one was still doing it). In 7th grade I started trumpet in my school band but switched to trombone as I really wanted to play that. In fact, the bass trombone is my instrument. I started composing while in high school and my first work was an ambitious 45 minute long symphony. It was certainly flawed and was repurposed while in college as a set of piano etudes. In college I studied Aerospace Engineering and loved all the maths and science courses especially orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, physics and chemistry and of course astronomy. BUT I pulled out and went into music instead focusing on composition and a few years of piano. I wanted to pursue classical composition so took about 7 more years of piano and composition privately with professors at the local conservatory but eventually went for a graduate program in music. I play in symphony orchestras and make my living as a working composer in film, concert stage, and video games and have worked as composer, orchestrator, and arranger. Like most here, I count a mentor as a very important part of my development both personally and professionally. Someone with established credentials and who "believed" in me and saw something and nurtured it.

The career is a slow slog. At times it is very discouraging but you look back at the year in retrospect with pride of lots of accomplishments that you forget about in the day to day slog. I am very lucky to do what I do and love it very much but it can be so frustrating as a career. You have to distance yourself somewhat from your personal opinions of the work since it is a business but then find outlets somewhere else. For me, that comes in the form of performing orchestral music and also writing concert music that might not pay much if anything.

Video games are great fun because they are almost always written in the style of movies from the past and tend to have decent recording budgets. All these projects are very intense schedule wise and the pressure is extreme. I believe one must have a lifestyle of learning in this field and I'll tell you, JW even in his 80's studies music to this day and constantly seeks to learn something about how to improve his craft. He perfectly embodies the attitude of eternal student and strives for greater control, brevity of ideas, skill, etc. I believe that is essential attitude. Goldsmith was also like this. Basically the point of the study is not to mimic/imitate someone else but that is part of the process of learningto unravel what others have done and ultimately take elements and make it your own. School is excellent because in my experience it encouraged experimentation in a relatively safe environment (this was my experience and I know others found school constricting). We were routinely told that if you know what it will sound like then try something else. Failure is good. I study scores and continue to try new music even if I don't like it. For example, I recently completed a project with a rock score which I never listen to that style. I am more the grand orchestral style but I enjoyed working with a rock band and pushing myself to try something different.
I believe you have to be self motivated to learn this stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't need school but even in school, you have to want to master the material and a lot of this comes from your own pursuits. Some classmates were very vocal that they learned nothing in school and I found this to be more a reflection of their attitudes than the education process. Similarly, there is only so far self study can take you. Having someone with wisdom, experience, patience, and knowledge walk you through the material will certainly expose more than just walking through it on your own. Also important, we learn from peers so classes are full of others who made a mistake so you don't repeat it or otherwise did something you never would have thought of so you explore it further. School also is important for your first opportunities because there is a network that you are part of. It was probably the most important stepping stone for me.

As for me, I always wanted to be a composer once I realized it was possible (in my youth I thought composers had died out long ago and no one was still doing it). In 7th grade I started trumpet in my school band but switched to trombone as I really wanted to play that. In fact, the bass trombone is my instrument. I started composing while in high school and my first work was an ambitious 45 minute long symphony. It was certainly flawed and was repurposed while in college as a set of piano etudes. In college I studied Aerospace Engineering and loved all the maths and science courses especially orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, physics and chemistry and of course astronomy. BUT I pulled out and went into music instead focusing on composition and a few years of piano. I wanted to pursue classical composition so took about 7 more years of piano and composition privately with professors at the local conservatory but eventually went for a graduate program in music. I play in symphony orchestras and make my living as a working composer in film, concert stage, and video games and have worked as composer, orchestrator, and arranger. Like most here, I count a mentor as a very important part of my development both personally and professionally. Someone with established credentials and who "believed" in me and saw something and nurtured it.

The career is a slow slog. At times it is very discouraging but you look back at the year in retrospect with pride of lots of accomplishments that you forget about in the day to day slog. I am very lucky to do what I do and love it very much but it can be so frustrating as a career. You have to distance yourself somewhat from your personal opinions of the work since it is a business but then find outlets somewhere else. For me, that comes in the form of performing orchestral music and also writing concert music that might not pay much if anything.

Video games are great fun because they are almost always written in the style of movies from the past and tend to have decent recording budgets. All these projects are very intense schedule wise and the pressure is extreme. I believe one must have a lifestyle of learning in this field and I'll tell you, JW even in his 80's studies music to this day and constantly seeks to learn something about how to improve his craft. He perfectly embodies the attitude of eternal student and strives for greater control, brevity of ideas, skill, etc. I believe that is essential attitude. Goldsmith was also like this. Basically the point of the study is not to mimic/imitate someone else but that is part of the process of learningto unravel what others have done and ultimately take elements and make it your own. School is excellent because in my experience it encouraged experimentation in a relatively safe environment (this was my experience and I know others found school constricting). We were routinely told that if you know what it will sound like then try something else. Failure is good. I study scores and continue to try new music even if I don't like it. For example, I recently completed a project with a rock score which I never listen to that style. I am more the grand orchestral style but I enjoyed working with a rock band and pushing myself to try something different.
I believe you have to be self motivated to learn this stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't need school but even in school, you have to want to master the material and a lot of this comes from your own pursuits. Some classmates were very vocal that they learned nothing in school and I found this to be more a reflection of their attitudes than the education process. Similarly, there is only so far self study can take you. Having someone with wisdom, experience, patience, and knowledge walk you through the material will certainly expose more than just walking through it on your own. Also important, we learn from peers so classes are full of others who made a mistake so you don't repeat it or otherwise did something you never would have thought of so you explore it further. School also is important for your first opportunities because there is a network that you are part of. It was probably the most important stepping stone for me.

As for me, I always wanted to be a composer once I realized it was possible (in my youth I thought composers had died out long ago and no one was still doing it). In 7th grade I started trumpet in my school band but switched to trombone as I really wanted to play that. In fact, the bass trombone is my instrument. I started composing while in high school and my first work was an ambitious 45 minute long symphony. It was certainly flawed and was repurposed while in college as a set of piano etudes. In college I studied Aerospace Engineering and loved all the maths and science courses especially orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, physics and chemistry and of course astronomy. BUT I pulled out and went into music instead focusing on composition and a few years of piano. I wanted to pursue classical composition so took about 7 more years of piano and composition privately with professors at the local conservatory but eventually went for a graduate program in music. I play in symphony orchestras and make my living as a working composer in film, concert stage, and video games and have worked as composer, orchestrator, and arranger. Like most here, I count a mentor as a very important part of my development both personally and professionally. Someone with established credentials and who "believed" in me and saw something and nurtured it.

The career is a slow slog. At times it is very discouraging but you look back at the year in retrospect with pride of lots of accomplishments that you forget about in the day to day slog. I am very lucky to do what I do and love it very much but it can be so frustrating as a career. You have to distance yourself somewhat from your personal opinions of the work since it is a business but then find outlets somewhere else. For me, that comes in the form of performing orchestral music and also writing concert music that might not pay much if anything.

Video games are great fun because they are almost always written in the style of movies from the past and tend to have decent recording budgets. All these projects are very intense schedule wise and the pressure is extreme. I believe one must have a lifestyle of learning in this field and I'll tell you, JW even in his 80's studies music to this day and constantly seeks to learn something about how to improve his craft. He perfectly embodies the attitude of eternal student and strives for greater control, brevity of ideas, skill, etc. I believe that is essential attitude. Goldsmith was also like this. Basically the point of the study is not to mimic/imitate someone else but that is part of the process of learningto unravel what others have done and ultimately take elements and make it your own. School is excellent because in my experience it encouraged experimentation in a relatively safe environment (this was my experience and I know others found school constricting). We were routinely told that if you know what it will sound like then try something else. Failure is good. I study scores and continue to try new music even if I don't like it. For example, I recently completed a project with a rock score which I never listen to that style. I am more the grand orchestral style but I enjoyed working with a rock band and pushing myself to try something different.
I believe you have to be self motivated to learn this stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't need school but even in school, you have to want to master the material and a lot of this comes from your own pursuits. Some classmates were very vocal that they learned nothing in school and I found this to be more a reflection of their attitudes than the education process. Similarly, there is only so far self study can take you. Having someone with wisdom, experience, patience, and knowledge walk you through the material will certainly expose more than just walking through it on your own. Also important, we learn from peers so classes are full of others who made a mistake so you don't repeat it or otherwise did something you never would have thought of so you explore it further. School also is important for your first opportunities because there is a network that you are part of. It was probably the most important stepping stone for me.

I guess we can conclude that there are all kinds of tastes and opinions in this world. Personally, I'm just happy and grateful that he's working and still doing film scores. He could be retired now and we'd have nothing. You got to give him some slack, though... he's been in the film business for over 50 years. He's going to start burning out at some point... but, I don't think he's started to, yet.

Stefan, do you know what I would do to you if we ever met in person?
Hug you!

The movie was at its best during it's quieter moments - the silence in space, the moral debates, etc. The quiet was very strong and Kubrikesk. So it takes talent, effort, trust (in the audience) and skill to pull that off. The more I think about the movie the less I like it. Visually great. Writing mediocre. Character development weak. Dramatic acting strong. Scientific understanding poor but far better than most movies. Score exceed my expectations. Sound mix mediocre. Most people will simply conclude the movie is "loud" but not understand the reason why.