Are all JW fans in agreement that Hans Zimmer DOES write a good melody?

[Wojo 2,453]

[Ollie 1,059]

Of course Wojo that is just a generalization.

For me personally a good melody is something I enjoy. I could care less what the general public's opinion of something is. What matters to me is whether or not I enjoy it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Bloody hell wojo that was quick!

[Wojo 2,453]

Of course it is. "Good" is a purely relative and deeply personal adjective that varies from individual. And it must, for the survival of the species.

Bloody hell wojo that was quick!

I had a more appropriate comic up there before, but it had one of those copyright clauses watermarked into the comic, so I thought I better change it.

EDIT: Does the Message board automatically detect when we make back-to-back posts, and combine them for us? If so, that's pretty cool, because it just happened.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

EDIT: Does the Message board automatically detect when we make back-to-back posts, and combine them for us?

Yes, as long as they are made within two hours of each other.

If a post is merged into an old one, it will automatically reset the old post to not read for members who only saw the original.

Pretty nifty, huh?

[Williamsfan301 11]

Of course Wojo that is just a generalization.

For me personally a good melody is something I enjoy. I could care less what the general public's opinion of something is. What matters to me is whether or not I enjoy it.

Ok, so then let me pose this question. Is it a good melody because everybody loves it, OR, does everyone love the melody because it's good?

[Wojo 2,453]

Marc, that is nifty. The posts I made were within a minute of each other, because I posted the second as a very quick afterthought to the first.

Is it a good melody because everybody loves it, OR, does everyone love the melody because it's good?

That's a trick question.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well that's a tricky answer. You can apply both sides of that argument to any melody.

[Wojo 2,453]

There is never any one melody that everybody loves, even if you limit your poll group to the people who aren't going to disagree just for the sake of being difficult. Even the greatest theme by the greatest maestro is going to be snubbed or loathed by one or two people who don't think it's that good. Thus, is it not good because not everybody loves it? Irrelevant.

A theme cannot be categorized as good or bad independently of how people like something. Somebody may be respectful of a theme, or acknowledge that there are other people who like that theme, thus not really saying the theme is bad, but if they don't honestly like it, they can't honestly say it's good. Unless we give in to the pressures of conformity, one person's good/bad rating cannot be used to judge what another person likes.

[Ollie 1,059]

If I were to give Williamsfan301 an answer I would say people like the melody because it's good to them but that does not make or mean the melody is good.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The problem lies with the legitimate suspect that maybe all the melodies that you all are listing aren't actually composed by Hans Zimmer at all.

Pirates of the Caribbean is a good example of this unashamed artistic ambiguity: the credits says "Music by Klaus Badelt", right? Ok, then there are actually 6 or 7 other additional composers, whom nobody knows which and how much music they actually wrote. The score bears the deliberately ambiguous credit "Score overproduced by Hans Zimmer". Then, when the second film comes around, Zimmer takes all the credit to himself, including the themes from the first movie. Also, he always surrounds himself with four or five so-called "additional composers".

Ok, good music doesn't need the Birth Certificate to be enjoyed, but you'll let me some kind of perplexed look at this attitude. You can say film music is a much more collaborative art than any other kind of music (and that is true), but here we're really crossing the line between artistic collaboration and absolute lack of artistic integrity.

Zimmer is a good, smart, clever music producer, not a composer.

Additional composers don't write music.

[Jeshopk 8]

I'm too ambitious to agree with the team score principal. I don't like sharing the creation of a score with anyone. I composed one cue for "Jack Rio", credited for that cue, and although it was fun, I had no idea why one composer did not do the whole score. I can do it all myself, and I expect others to as well, unless they don't enjoy the solitude or something. Detailed sketch with orchestrators is fine, but team score holds no interest for me.

As a listener, I like to appreciate the uniqueness of individual artists, not teams. I don't like bands either. I think of composing like fine art. A Rembrandt is worth considerably more than one of his students' and there is a reason for that. Because when someone is a master, they can not be perfectly immitated. Even if it could, it is worth much less.

[Datameister 2,044]

Ok, so then let me pose this question. Is it a good melody because everybody loves it, OR, does everyone love the melody because it's good?

Neither. It's not a good melody in the first place. It's one that everybody loves. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" melody.

[TownerFan 4,984]

Additional composers don't write music.

So, what they do, according to you?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Additional composers don't write music.

So, what they do, according to you?

Well according to Henry Jackman, Zimmer writes the music and gives it to the additional composers to tweak and work with so it fits with the rest of the score. They may occassionally rework it to their liking, but Zimmer is always there making sure they don't change it from what he originally wanted.

[Datameister 2,044]

I don't think this sort of debate is ever going to be truly settled until a documentary team goes in and tapes hours of footage of the folks at RCP going through their unorthodox creative process. I think we all get the sense that additional composers aren't usually responsible for the bulk of the feel and thematic material in a score, but anything more specific than that is difficult to say.

[Wojo 2,453]

There is no such thing as an objectively "good" melody.

True, but there seems to be trends as to which "good" melodies are better than other "good" melodies. Especially here, the general consensus is that certain opinions are more valuable than others.

[Datameister 2,044]

Especially here, the general consensus is that certain opinions are more valuable than others.

Which is why I took a yearlong break from this site.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I don't think this sort of debate is ever going to be truly settled until a documentary team goes in and tapes hours of footage of the folks at RCP going through their unorthodox creative process. I think we all get the sense that additional composers aren't usually responsible for the bulk of the feel and thematic material in a score, but anything more specific than that is difficult to say.

Unorthodox?! There are no rules to composing music. Debates are settled when you have people stating facts in interviews. There have been soooo many, but people just believe what they want to believe.

[Datameister 2,044]

Unorthodox?! There are no rules to composing music.

Agreed. I wasn't trying to criticize their process - any complaints I may occasionally have about their collaborative workflow are hardly objective concerns. But it's a fairly straightforward fact that most film composers have not worked the way the folks at RCP do. Usually, it's more about one composer doing the vast majority of the work, and then a few orchestrators taking care of the nitty-gritty business of making sure it's ready to be performed on schedule. All I meant by "unorthodox" was that Zimmer doesn't usually do that. (Remember, I'm one of the folks on this site who actually listens to and enjoys Zimmer's music at times. I'm the last one you need to get defensive with. =D)

Debates are settled when you have people stating facts in interviews. There have been soooo many, but people just believe what they want to believe.

Unfortunately, the truth isn't quite that simple. When you're involved in a collaborative creative process, it's amazingly easy to forget details of who did what, of where certain ideas came from, of what came first and what came last. Case in point: I'm fascinated by theme park design, and there are a fair number of interviews and so forth with the various Imagineers who've developed stuff for the Disney parks over the last 50+ years. It's amazing how even though the big picture usually lines up, there are significant differences in people's recollections. That's human nature.

Sometimes Zimmer claims to have done most of the work. Sometimes he praises the merits of the intensely collaborative process, in which he loves everyone's compositional styles. What I'm saying is that without very hard facts - the kind you can't get from people reminiscing about the process - the debate can never be 100% settled.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Davy Jones was taken from Silvestri's The Polar Express. But Up is Down I agree with. And many others, as I previously listed.

"Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, as is a good portion of the Pirates scores.

Perhaps, but it sounds just like "Seeing is Believing."

Not perhaps, that's what it is. The use of the music box and organs is just like their use in For A Few Dollars More. I also just listened to "Seeing Is Believing" and they sound nothing alike.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Ok, so then let me pose this question. Is it a good melody because everybody loves it, OR, does everyone love the melody because it's good?

Neither. It's not a good melody in the first place. It's one that everybody loves. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" melody.

Ah, but there is. If you think that question out to its LOGICAL conclusion, you will realize that there is only one answer to that statement and therefore, such a thing as a good melody.

Anyone who has studied Socrates will know where I'm going with this.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Hey, I studied Socrates. And guess what happened to him, Williamsfan301? Will history repeat itself in your case?

[Williamsfan301 11]

Hey, I studied Socrates. And guess what happened to him, Williamsfan301? Will history repeat itself in your case?

That's constructive

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Oh, you know it. So, have you prepared your defense, or you are going to make that silly "I am tired" excuse?

[Williamsfan301 11]

Oh, you know it. So, have you prepared your defense, or you are going to make that silly "I am tired" excuse?

I don't need a defense. You do. So answer the question: Is a melody good because everyone loves it, or does everyone love it because the melody is good?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Uh, uh... To use the Socratic Method: Why?( I hope this works.)

[Williamsfan301 11]

Uh, uh... To use the Socratic Method: Why?

Because it germane to this entire thread. Before you can say "Does Hans Zimmer write a good melody" you must first define a "good melody" and before you can define a "good melody" you must define what makes a melody good.

( I hope this works )

Nice try.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Oh, you know it. So, have you prepared your defense, or you are going to make that silly "I am tired" excuse?

I don't need a defense. You do. So answer the question: Is a melody good because everyone loves it, or does everyone love it because the melody is good?

Your question features a number of assumptions that you have not adequately substantiated.

1. You assume the existence of melodies. You and I fundamentally disagree on this point. I, for one, believe that nothing exists.

2. You assume the existence of melodies that "everyone loves."

3. You assume that melodies can be "good." On what basis do you establish this possibility of "goodness"?

[Datameister 2,044]

Ah, but there is. If you think that question out to its LOGICAL conclusion, you will realize that there is only one answer to that statement and therefore, such a thing as a good melody.

Um...nope. =) No such thing. If we say that there is such a good thing as an objectively "good" melody, than it would be wrong (or foolish, at the very least) for a given person to not like it.

The number of people who like a given melody are the measure of how enjoyable it is. And if many people like a melody, it obviously has one or more traits that make it desirable to a significant chunk of the population. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Anyone who has studied Socrates will know where I'm going with this.

Enlighten me.

[indy4 155]

Davy Jones was taken from Silvestri's The Polar Express. But Up is Down I agree with. And many others, as I previously listed.

"Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, as is a good portion of the Pirates scores.

Perhaps, but it sounds just like "Seeing is Believing."

Not perhaps, that's what it is. The use of the music box and organs is just like their use in For A Few Dollars More. I also just listened to "Seeing Is Believing" and they sound nothing alike.

Is this based on anything or just your observations?

[King Mark 3,631]

Can't remember a single melody Zimmer wrote... I only recognize "Power Anthem"

[Wojo 2,453]

I don't need a defense. You do. So answer the question: Is a melody good because everyone loves it, or does everyone love it because the melody is good?

Is goodness of a melody the only factor that determines why people love the melody? Do people always love the good melodies and hate the bad ones? And can you measure the goodness of a melody independently of measuring how many people like the melody? I don't believe you can, therefore your argument is flawed. I believe you can love bad melodies and hate good melodies, therefore, again, your argument holds no water.

What is this one logical conclusion? That every melody is good and everybody loves every melody? Next you're going to say there are no melodies and we're not really here.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

We are figments of our own imaginations.... Also, Bill Clinton was solely responsible for the disaster that befell the Titanic.

[Datameister 2,044]

I believe you can love bad melodies and hate good melodies...

How can a be melody "bad" if at least one person is enjoying it?

The thing that's startling easy to forget is that music has no intrinsic emotional content. It has no intrinsic level of quality. It has no intrinsic level of goodness. It's all just complex vibrations in the air. An alien race might hear the Force theme as an obnoxious sequence of screeches and moans, yet have deep appreciation for "music" that had no apparent melodic content to our ears. Most JWfan members would agree that the Force theme has a good melody. Does that mean these aliens would have bad taste?

There is no such thing as a good or bad melody, people. Think about it.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Davy Jones was taken from Silvestri's The Polar Express. But Up is Down I agree with. And many others, as I previously listed.

"Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, as is a good portion of the Pirates scores.

Perhaps, but it sounds just like "Seeing is Believing."

Not perhaps, that's what it is. The use of the music box and organs is just like their use in For A Few Dollars More. I also just listened to "Seeing Is Believing" and they sound nothing alike.

Is this based on anything or just your observations?

Morricone is one of Zimmer's favorite composers. The whole "Parlay" sequence in At World's End is an homage to Leone and Morricone. I can't identify any proof that "Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, it is possible Zimmer has stated it somewhere. Me saying that it doesn't sound like "Seeing Is Believing" is my own opinion. I obviously can't tell you what to hear.

[indy4 155]

Davy Jones was taken from Silvestri's The Polar Express. But Up is Down I agree with. And many others, as I previously listed.

"Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, as is a good portion of the Pirates scores.

Perhaps, but it sounds just like "Seeing is Believing."

Not perhaps, that's what it is. The use of the music box and organs is just like their use in For A Few Dollars More. I also just listened to "Seeing Is Believing" and they sound nothing alike.

Is this based on anything or just your observations?

Morricone is one of Zimmer's favorite composers. The whole "Parlay" sequence in At World's End is an homage to Leone and Morricone. I can't identify any proof that "Davy Jones" is a Morricone homage, it is possible Zimmer has stated it somewhere. Me saying that it doesn't sound like "Seeing Is Believing" is my own opinion. I obviously can't tell you what to hear.

But do you seriously deny the resemblence between "Seeing is Believing" and "Davy Jones?" It may well be a Morricone reference, I wouldn't know, but the fact is it sounds VERY similiar to the Silvestri's cue. Heck, I could plunk out the notes on a piano right now and (after adjusting the key) they would be almost exactly the same.

[Wojo 2,453]

How can a be melody "bad" if at least one person is enjoying it?

The thing that's startling easy to forget is that music has no intrinsic emotional content. It has no intrinsic level of quality. It has no intrinsic level of goodness. It's all just complex vibrations in the air. An alien race might hear the Force theme as an obnoxious sequence of screeches and moans, yet have deep appreciation for "music" that had no apparent melodic content to our ears. Most JWfan members would agree that the Force theme has a good melody. Does that mean these aliens would have bad taste?

There is no such thing as a good or bad melody, people. Think about it.

It sounds like someone is trying to take a step back from the logical lunacy of this argument. Good luck.

When a composer writes a melody, he obviously likes it enough to present to the director. The director likes it enough to include it in the first theatrical cut of the film. So in that sense, both thought the melody was "good." Even if it was only good enough at the time, it was good. Even if he looks back in 20 years and hates it, it was good at the time.

How the public feels about it, well, it's up to them/us. We don't make the music, we just listen to it. The people who made it want us to buy it. Whether we listen to it again and again (good) or use the discs to hold up our coffee table (bad) is immaterial, because they have our money.

[Datameister 2,044]

When a composer writes a melody, he obviously likes it enough to present to the director.

At that point, the composer likes it. It hasn't yet done anything to achieve the objective designation of "good."

The director likes it enough to include it in the first theatrical cut of the film.

And at that point, the director likes it. Still nothing about it that's objectively "good."

Even if it was only good enough at the time, it was good.

It was liked enough at the time.

This change in terminology I'm suggesting may seem like splitting hairs, but it's not. Saying that one piece is intrinsically better than another is problematic because it suggests one person's musical preferences are, in turn, better than another's. And that, my friends, is objectively bad.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Let's define our parameters here:

1) We're working with tonal music here

2) There is such a thing as melody - or put more accurately, motif.

3) All melody/motif is a function of harmony

You're all starting to get to the answer, because there is an answer to the question. Which I might as well give you.

What I'm posing here is what's known as the "Euthyphro dilemma". In other words, we're asking does Hans Zimmer write good melodies? What I'm asking is "Is there such a thing as a good melody?" Think of it this way (and yes, I'm paraphrasing Socrates here), we agree that we call a carried thing "carried" simply because it is carried, not because it possesses some inherent characteristic or property that we could call "carried." When we do this, we carry something that is already there. This thing exists without our carrying it; our carrying does not bring it into existence. So as far as a "good melody" is concerned, we approve or disapprove of something which is already, in some sense, there; our approving, by itself, does not make it a good melody. The approval follows from our recognition that the melody is good, not the other way around. Or, to put it more simply, the goodness of the melody comes before the approval.

We're trying to base the "good melodies" of Hans Zimmer based on our approval of them. Go back and read your past posts and you'll see what I mean.

Now, I know Socrates was talking about piety, but that statement applies to many things that have "intangibles" if you will.

You may continue.

[Wojo 2,453]

What is goodness? That something is pleasing? Liked? Tolerated? Perfect? Free of technical error? Of emotional error?

Based on your argument, you imply that if a melody could be "good" outside the bounds of human interpretation to like or dislike it, then there could ultimately be some Pass/Fail test administered by a deaf person or a computer that could unequivocally categorize melodies based on "good" and "bad"? Because that quality was preordained before we started to like or dislike it?

I don't believe there is any computer that can listen to a melody and tell me that it's good or bad. It can count the notes, visualize the rhythms and chord patterns, detect any pitch, tempo, and tonal innuendo, and cross-examine different performances of the same melody, but little more. The computer might be as apt to grade the main melody to The Lion King "more good" than the main melody to "Jaws" based on the merit of technical complexity, if it so determined. Or it could grade the love theme from "The Terminator" "more good" than the main love theme to "Gladiator" based on precision of notes.

The status of an object being "carried" or "not carried" is a temporary property that is applied to the object after it is created. If you pick up the ball, it is carried. If you let it go, it will not stay carried, because it will fall. Unless you somehow factor gravity out of your equation ("black box" physics, if you will), in which case, you've got an imaginary world where it stays carried. You are defining a system where balls can be created with "carried" as one of their inherent characteristics, like "round" or "bouncy." In the real world, pick up a bottle, and it becomes carried. Drop the bottle, and it is not carried, but it also is no longer a vase, as it has become "broken glass." Let's remember this.

But now what quality are you applying to your melody? Goodness. Make a melody. Can you make the melody good or bad at its inception? You can make two or three balls exactly the same way and nobody cares, they call that quality control. If you make two or three melodies exactly the same way, they call that plagarism. Let's visit your imaginary world where dropped balls stay carried, can you establish a way to make melodies good all the time from their inception? If so, why are there ever any bad melodies? If you can't define goodness at inception, do it later. Make the melody good. Can you? The melody is already there, what can you to improve upon it that will not undo the melody. You can speed it up, slow it down, change its volume, add or take away instrumentation or harmonies, but the melody remains unchanged. Now make the melody bad. You'll probably get the same results as if you tried to make the melody good: broken glass.

Granted, if you define that a melody requires harmony or tonal quality, you're already pre-weighing the exam so there's no sense in further debate. You're already disqualifying atonal and non-harmonic melodies from consideration.

Because obviously there is something about Hans Zimmer that people find so romantically captivating, that they spend oodles of money for complete scores to movies like The Dark Knight, when other people cringe their ears at the thought of hearing that. Some find it good, others find it bad. Thus, you have no quantifiable excuse for melodies being good or bad other than to just dismiss some people as idiots, and close the book on the whole issue.

[Williamsfan301 11]

What is goodness? That something is pleasing? Liked? Tolerated? Perfect? Free of technical error? Of emotional error?

Exactly

Based on your argument, you imply that if a melody could be "good" outside the bounds of human interpretation to like or dislike it, then there could ultimately be some Pass/Fail test administered by a deaf person or a computer that could unequivocally categorize melodies based on "good" and "bad"? Because that quality was preordained before we started to like or dislike it?

No, because the the ability to recognize like or dislike is a scentiant (sp?) quality. All scentiant organisms recognize like or dislike to some degree. But, yes, according to the Socratic line of thought, melody is preordained "good" or "bad."

The status of an object being "carried" or "not carried" is a temporary property that is applied to the object after it is created. If you pick up the ball, it is carried. If you let it go, it will not stay carried, because it will fall. Unless you somehow factor gravity out of your equation ("black box" physics, if you will), in which case, you've got an imaginary world where it stays carried. You are defining a system where balls can be created with "carried" as one of their inherent characteristics, like "round" or "bouncy." In the real world, pick up a bottle, and it becomes carried. Drop the bottle, and it is not carried, but it also is no longer a vase, as it has become "broken glass." Let's remember this.

But you missed the arguement. The "bottle" or "vase" is made of glass and that glass exists regardless of what we do to it. Let's also remember, though, that all music that was once considered "good" can eventually be considered "bad." If that was not the case, you would never have changes in music periods (Baroque to Classical to Romantic and so on). In his time, J.S. Bach was not considered a great composer. Now, we consider him to be the premier composer of his day.

But now what quality are you applying to your melody? Goodness. Make a melody. Can you make the melody good or bad at its inception? You can make two or three balls exactly the same way and nobody cares, they call that quality control. If you make two or three melodies exactly the same way, they call that plagarism. Let's visit your imaginary world where dropped balls stay carried, can you establish a way to make melodies good all the time from their inception? If so, why are there ever any bad melodies? If you can't define goodness at inception, do it later. Make the melody good. Can you? The melody is already there, what can you to improve upon it that will not undo the melody. You can speed it up, slow it down, change its volume, add or take away instrumentation or harmonies, but the melody remains unchanged. Now make the melody bad. You'll probably get the same results as if you tried to make the melody good: broken glass.

But that's precisely the arguement. There is no quantifiable definition. It's either good or bad and there's nothing you can do to fix that. To go back to Bach, Socrates would say that J.S. Bach was always good, the people of his day just never recognized it.

I don't believe there is any computer that can listen to a melody and tell me that it's good or bad. It can count the notes, visualize the rhythms and chord patterns, detect any pitch, tempo, and tonal innuendo, and cross-examine different performances of the same melody, but little more. The computer might be as apt to grade the main melody to The Lion King "more good" than the main melody to "Jaws" based on the merit of technical complexity, if it so determined. Or it could grade the love theme from "The Terminator" "more good" than the main love theme to "Gladiator" based on precision of notes.

Correct

Granted, if you define that a melody requires harmony or tonal quality, you're already pre-weighing the exam so there's no sense in further debate. You're already disqualifying atonal and non-harmonic melodies from consideration.

I am in so far as I want to limit this to tonal music. Because dodecaphonic music is a whole other ball of wax. But, in point of fact I would say dodecphonic music is a perfect example of the "good" melody vs. "bad" melody concept.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Sentient

[Datameister 2,044]

If Socrates ever said anything about music being inherently good or bad, he was wrong.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Sentient

thank you!

[Wojo 2,453]

But that's precisely the arguement. There is no quantifiable definition. It's either good or bad and there's nothing you can do to fix that. To go back to Bach, Socrates would say that J.S. Bach was always good, the people of his day just never recognized it.

You are arguing that an object can have a concrete, undeniably permanent property that is not quantifiable in the first place. If you're going to be all Heisenberg-like about it, then why try to measure goodness or badness in the first place?

Your Socratic statement is flawed because it assumes that the current viewpoint is more relevant than those that came before or will come after. If Bach was despised in his day, it was certainly not by all people everywhere, because he kept getting commissions to write more music. If the most vocal of his critics hated him, then we can attempt to argue they were short-sighted, but we can't say they were wrong just because we take a revisionist view to his music and hold it in higher esteem. We think Bach is good or great because we have the flexibility to view how his music fit into the rest of the music of his day, and see how it influenced artists that followed. Your Socratic method implies that good melodies were in a state of obfuscated badness because people didn't appreciate them.

So what if we're all wrong about Zimmer? What if we all think his melodies are bad now, but in 300 years, Hans Zimmer is regarded as the most prolific soundtrack composer of all time, and John Williams is cast down and forgotten? Does your Socratic method stipulate that Zimmer's melodies were thus always good? Does this method draw breath from the farthest point in the future to define the characteristics of something made long ago?

Goodness and badness would be a function of the listening audience...their location, age, experience, education, culture, likes/dislikes, etc. Go try to explain the goodness of Williams melodies and the badness of Zimmer melodies to the Stone Age tribes of Rondonia. Or pilgrims on a hajj to Mecca. Or punk rock fans headbanging to the latest loud concert. I dare you.

And as for the progression of music during the ages, that is a good point...if you could demonstrate that the Classical period put a definite end to the Baroque period. That means all Baroque music is no longer studied, listened to, or appreciated for what it was. To use the progression of music to illustrate goodness and badness is to argue that there can be no good Baroque music because Classical is all better, that there is no good Classical because Romantic is all better, and so on and so forth. And that's just talking instrumental music. We also had folk songs during that age, and in this day we have dozens and dozens of different genres of music. So all classic rock is bad because we now have alternative rock? I would attempt to argue the polar opposite, but I would fare no better.

I suppose in the end it doesn't matter, because the Zimmer lovers think he's good and the Zimmer haters think he's bad. There is no perfect wholly external experience that can define a single right answer for all mankind to share and enjoy regarding the definition of opinions.

As long as Stacy Keibler keeps whirling that jacket above her head, you can write whatever you want.

[Williamsfan301 11]

But that's precisely the arguement. There is no quantifiable definition. It's either good or bad and there's nothing you can do to fix that. To go back to Bach, Socrates would say that J.S. Bach was always good, the people of his day just never recognized it.

You are arguing that an object can have a concrete, undeniably permanent property that is not quantifiable in the first place. If you're going to be all Heisenberg-like about it, then why try to measure goodness or badness in the first place?

Your Socratic statement is flawed because it assumes that the current viewpoint is more relevant than those that came before or will come after. If Bach was despised in his day, it was certainly not by all people everywhere, because he kept getting commissions to write more music. If the most vocal of his critics hated him, then we can attempt to argue they were short-sighted, but we can't say they were wrong just because we take a revisionist view to his music and hold it in higher esteem. We think Bach is good or great because we have the flexibility to view how his music fit into the rest of the music of his day, and see how it influenced artists that followed. Your Socratic method implies that good melodies were in a state of obfuscated badness because people didn't appreciate them.

No, it's not flawed and, in fact, by the time you get to your last sentence, you prove my point. Socrates would have argued that his melodies were always good - people just did not appreciate them.

So what if we're all wrong about Zimmer? What if we all think his melodies are bad now, but in 300 years, Hans Zimmer is regarded as the most prolific soundtrack composer of all time, and John Williams is cast down and forgotten? Does your Socratic method stipulate that Zimmer's melodies were thus always good? Does this method draw breath from the farthest point in the future to define the characteristics of something made long ago?

Yes, and in point of fact, that is exactly what happened to Bach. Telemann was the John Williams of his day IN his day. It would be 100 years after Bach died that not only would people finally recognize his contribution BUT even play anything he wrote. Now, do we consider in the here and now Telemann to be any less, no, we have simply recognized Bach for what he really was.

Goodness and badness would be a function of the listening audience...their location, age, experience, education, culture, likes/dislikes, etc. Go try to explain the goodness of Williams melodies and the badness of Zimmer melodies to the Stone Age tribes of Rondonia. Or pilgrims on a hajj to Mecca. Or punk rock fans headbanging to the latest loud concert. I dare you.

Sure I can. All I have to do is play them. The second part of that question "It's good, so everyone likes it"

And as for the progression of music during the ages, that is a good point...if you could demonstrate that the Classical period put a definite end to the Baroque period. That means all Baroque music is no longer studied, listened to, or appreciated for what it was. To use the progression of music to illustrate goodness and badness is to argue that there can be no good Baroque music because Classical is all better, that there is no good Classical because Romantic is all better, and so on and so forth. And that's just talking instrumental music. We also had folk songs during that age, and in this day we have dozens and dozens of different genres of music. So all classic rock is bad because we now have alternative rock? I would attempt to argue the polar opposite, but I would fare no better.

No, and that proves the point of the inherent goodness of melody. If it was not inherently good, we would have stopped listening to it, but we haven't. It's all still listened to and some even go back and continue to write in those styles. The second part of the question "Its good, so everyone likes it"

I suppose in the end it doesn't matter, because the Zimmer lovers think he's good and the Zimmer haters think he's bad. There is no perfect wholly external experience that can define a single right answer for all mankind to share and enjoy regarding the definition of opinions.

And that goes back to your very first statement and what Socrates would have said is basically those experiencing the music in their time are not the best judges between "good" melody and "bad" melody because they are too influenced by "likes" and "dislikes" - the first part of the question "Is it good because everyone likes it." We're too influenced by the "jumping on the bandwagon" mentality.

If anything here is flawed, its the very concept of this thread (sorry, Quint), because it's based on the first part of the statement "Everyone likes Hans Zimmers melodies, therefore they're good." We are not all in agreement. We saw that on page 1. It doesn't mean Zimmer does not write good melodies. But, that's something for historians to decide.

As long as Stacy Keibler keeps whirling that jacket above her head, you can write whatever you want.

You got it!

[Datameister 2,044]

It doesn't me Zimmer does not write good melodies. But, that's something for historians to decide.

Sooo...historians determine who writes good melodies? Right then...have fun with this discussion...

[Maxxie 1]

Could someone upload this "Seeing Is Believing" so I can what all the comparisons are on about please?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

But do you seriously deny the resemblence between "Seeing is Believing" and "Davy Jones?" It may well be a Morricone reference, I wouldn't know, but the fact is it sounds VERY similiar to the Silvestri's cue. Heck, I could plunk out the notes on a piano right now and (after adjusting the key) they would be almost exactly the same.

Yes, considering "Davy Jones" uses the music box and organs as heard in the film, and that "Seeing Is Believing" has none of that. Well, I wouldn't know. Does The Polar Express have a scene with a music box and organs?