Some composers do, and some composers don't.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,539]

Does anyone know why such composers such as Danny Elfman and James Newton Howard do not conduct their own scores, while others do?

[Quintus 5,399]

Not sure what the answer is but I do know that John Barry frowned down deeply upon it. It was a big no no in his book.

[Hlao-roo 389]

They have crippling arthritis in their shoulders.

[Ollie 1,059]

Well aside from not having the skills, some prefer to sit in the booth so they can hear the music better and make adjustments. I will say that while Elfman may not be comfortable conducting, he knows what he wants and how to get it across to the orchestra.

Akira Ifukube would conduct the orchestra through rehearsals and then step aside and let an assistant conduct the actual recording.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

some prefer to sit in the booth so they can hear the music better.

I remember reading somewhere the ponytail did that sometimes while recording TMP.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Conducting is plebeian task, anyway.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,539]

some prefer to sit in the booth so they can hear the music better.

I remember reading somewhere the ponytail did that sometimes while recording TMP.

If he sat in the booth, then who conducted the orchestra?

[Charlie Brigden 7]

some prefer to sit in the booth so they can hear the music better.

I remember reading somewhere the ponytail did that sometimes while recording TMP.

If he sat in the booth, then who conducted the orchestra?

Lionel Newman.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,539]

After "The Omen", "Damien:Omen II", and "Alien", that makes sense.

[John Crichton 4]

Giacchino never conducts in studio either, even though he's very capable of doing it. He just prefers to make adjustments from the booth.

[Muad'Dib 1,802]

Powell can conduct but he usually prefers to be on the mixing booth, because his scores mix a lot of synths with the orchestra in a very classy way. However, I remember he conducted a couple of his scores, like "Stop Loss". And he also conducted the HTTYD suite.

[Jonesy 55]

Hans Zimmer never conducts his own scores. I think he doesn't know how to conduct an orchestra.

[Datameister 2,044]

Well aside from not having the skills, some prefer to sit in the booth so they can hear the music better and make adjustments.

This. Most reputable film composers could probably conduct an orchestra well enough to get the job done, but sitting in the booth allows them more control, ironically. And there are professionals who are especially skilled at conducting film score recordings, so sometimes it's better to just defer to them.

Personally, if I were a film composer, I'd be strongly tempted to conduct the orchestra myself. I enjoy it too much, and I think I'd have more valuable input to offer on the stage than in the booth.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

Some cues are too much fun to just sit in the booth twiddling your thumbs (or knocking your head back & forth as JNH does in one of the King Kong webisodes)

But yes, the reasons above are the ones I hear most often - some composers want to have more control and discuss with the director.

[indy4 155]

I don't know for all composers, but Williams once said that he "conducts out of defense." That is, he doesn't want his music to be interpreted against his intentions, so he only feels comfortable conducting his own work.

[Hlao-roo 389]

That is, he doesn't want his music to be interpreted against his intentions, so he only feels comfortable conducting his own work.

I only feel comfortable conducting my own work, too.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Hans Zimmer never conducts his own scores. I think he doesn't know how to conduct an orchestra.

He's like Giacchino and countless others, he likes to make adjustments from the booth. He still has control over everything though. I forget where I saw it but I remember watching a featurette on the scoring sessions for Hannibal, and he was telling the orchestra to make certain changes. I actually think he knows how to, but it's impossible to erase the mindset people have that Zimmer knows absolutely nothing about music.

[gkgyver 1,645]

On a general note, I find it hard to understand why waving a stick in someone's face is such a big deal. Especially when you have click tracks.

But maybe I'm too ignorant ... I conduct too, in my living room

[Datameister 2,044]

Well, click tracks are really good for rhythmic stuff with constant tempi and lots of cues that have to sync up perfectly. But some passages call for a lot more expressiveness, and although tempo changes can certainly be built into a click track, that's still kind of mechanical. There's also the simple fact that...conductors are tradition. Musicians get used to using 'em.

[indy4 155]

And I'd imagine it could be hard to follow a click track tempo change, especially if it is getting slower. With a conductor you can predict where the downbeat is by watching his/her hands before they hit the downbeat. But with a click track you'd have to wait until you hear the click.

[Morlock 11]

Hans Zimmer never conducts his own scores. I think he doesn't know how to conduct an orchestra.

He's like Giacchino and countless others, he likes to make adjustments from the booth. He still has control over everything though. I forget where I saw it but I remember watching a featurette on the scoring sessions for Hannibal, and he was telling the orchestra to make certain changes. I actually think he knows how to, but it's impossible to erase the mindset people have that Zimmer knows absolutely nothing about music.

He's said himself that he hates it, and I think he also said that he's not very good at it (in talking about 'The Wings of Film', which he did conduct).

I find it interesting when someone like Harry Gregson Williams sometimes does conduct, sometimes does not (though I think he has been doing more and more of it- I recall it being a new devlopment around the time of Sinbad).

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The G-W bros. conduct often. I think Rupert and Gavin Greenaway are Zimmer's main conductors. Nick Glennie-Smith almost exclusively conducts nowadays too.

[ETMusic 1]

There are WAY too many film/TV composers who insist on conducting their own scores, but due to their shoddy (at best) conducting abilities they actually hamper the recording of their music (or make it take WAY longer than it needs to); however, most of the professional musicians who record film scores are actually playing despite the conductor. That being said, there are plenty of good conductors (like Williams) out there. Personally, I think there are many composers who need to put their ego aside and let a professional conduct their music (JNH, Giacchino, et al).

[Ollie 1,059]

Tim Simonec is a regular conductor for Michael Giacchino and James Newton Howard rarely conducts. Pete Anthony usually conducts for him.

[Jacck 23]

Well it requires quite a bit of confidence and charisma to keep 90 odd human beings under control. Some composers I'm sure are put off by that alone for a start. Also, it's not as easy as it looks.

I remember Elfman mentioning that he prefers to be in the booth so he can really observe how the music is working with the pictures and make amendments as quickly as possible. It's not so easy to focus entirely on that when you're being distracted by the task of having to actually conduct the music.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Does anyone know why such composers such as Danny Elfman and James Newton Howard do not conduct their own scores, while others do?

My immediate answer is: because they're lazy, overpaid, arrogant hacks. A more considered one, would be that they prefer the booth, so they can play around with the switches.

[Wojo 2,453]

Wonderful first post. Welcome to the board.

[Matt C 454]

I find it interesting when someone like Harry Gregson Williams sometimes does conduct, sometimes does not (though I think he has been doing more and more of it- I recall it being a new devlopment around the time of Sinbad).

Harry Gregson-Williams conducts most of his scores nowadays. Save for The Number 23, he's conducted all of his scores from Sinbad up to Unstoppable.

I do like composers who do conduct their own work. It just makes the music truly their own -- that's what I like about the 'newer' composers like Brian Tyler, Alexandre Desplat, Christopher Lennertz and Fernando Velazquez.

[karelm 2,914]

There are many reasons NOT to conduct one's own score. The most important reason is if you aren't as fast at getting it done right as someone else with more experience might be, then you will probably get better results not conducting. Some people are naturally better conductors and can quickly crunch through expensive scoring sessions with great results leaving the composer to manage the director and also hear a more accurate representation of what is being performed than the conductor will. The conductor is listening to the orchestra with a click (in most cases) and a stereo headphone whereas the booth rarely will hear the click and will hear full surround with high fidelity speakers, subwoofer, etc. It sounds far better in the booth than it will for the conductor. The most important reason I really believe is the economics of it. Think of it this way - if it takes you as a good composer 30 minutes to get a great cue and move on to the next one, but it takes someone else 15 minutes to get the same result, you would be better off with someone else conducting even if you are fully cable of doing it.

A skilled composer just might not be that good with the podium skill as well - it isn't just the idea of waving the stick to the beat, it is catching and resolving mistakes quickly, hearing issues of balance, phrasing, intonation, dynamics, interpretation, rhythm, etc., and quickly hearing who needs the fix in a way that gains the performers trust and respect and being very quick about it. This is, in my opinoin, a big job. If time (cost) weren't such a factor, I'm sure most composers would want to conduct their own music then go into the booth to hear it, then perhaps try out other ideas, but the reality is, it is very expensive to record orchestras so best to get the person who is most capable of quickly getting the best take to conduct and leave you to focus on interpretation and director management.

I wouldn't jump to say those who don't conduct can't conduct. There are many who do conduct who have no idea what they are doing and many who are fully capable of conducting but would rather prefer to focus on the music and director.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I wouldn't jump to say those who don't conduct can't conduct. There are many who do conduct who have no idea what they are doing and many who are fully capable of conducting but would rather prefer to focus on the music and director.

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

All in all, I'd rather here a composer who's not a natural conductor interpret his own work, rather than hear it performed by someone more qualified, but with little affinity for it - since it's not his own. Diluting the creative process.

[Henry B 50]

I wouldn't jump to say those who don't conduct can't conduct. There are many who do conduct who have no idea what they are doing and many who are fully capable of conducting but would rather prefer to focus on the music and director.

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

All in all, I'd rather here a composer who's not a natural conductor interpret his own work, rather than hear it performed by someone more qualified, but with little affinity for it - since it's not his own. Diluting the creative process.

This reminds me of arguments that editing and splicing different takes of music destroys its cohesiveness. Glenn Gould (eccentric pianist and conductor) did an experiment to see if people could tell when music was edited. They overwhelmingly could not.

I'd challenge you to really hear the composer's mark in a professional recording. Goldsmith in Star Trek TMP, for example.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I wouldn't jump to say those who don't conduct can't conduct. There are many who do conduct who have no idea what they are doing and many who are fully capable of conducting but would rather prefer to focus on the music and director.

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

All in all, I'd rather here a composer who's not a natural conductor interpret his own work, rather than hear it performed by someone more qualified, but with little affinity for it - since it's not his own. Diluting the creative process.

This reminds me of arguments that editing and splicing different takes of music destroys its cohesiveness. Glenn Gould (eccentric pianist and conductor) did an experiment to see if people could tell when music was edited. They overwhelmingly could not.

I'd challenge you to really hear the composer's mark in a professional recording. Goldsmith in Star Trek TMP, for example.

Well, I think it also depends on the conductor chosen to record the score (in the case of it not being the composer). Some have been quite distinctive (i.e. Lionel Newman) and compelling in their interpretations, 'getting the score' in other words. Other less so, particularly today. Gavin Greenaway and Nicholas Dodd for instance, whose performances/recordings/orchestrations I find anonymous and wholly lacking in personality.

[Henry B 50]

Okay... so is it about the composer interpreting his/her own work then, or isn't it? Lionel Newman was a great musician but he couldn't have written the same score Goldsmith wrote.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Okay... so is it about the composer interpreting his/her own work then, or isn't it? Lionel Newman was a great musician but he couldn't have written the same score Goldsmith wrote.

What I meant is that if a composer isn't going to conduct his score, at least get somebody of high quality to do it.

[karelm 2,914]

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

Those are some valid points but the time to get better at a craft like this can ruin a career because the results ultimately aren't as good as they would be if a specialist does the conducting. What do you think of composers who don't orchestrate their own music? I personally feel more interpretative skill goes into the orchestration yet almost all composers hire out orchestration due to the extremely tight schedules. Yes, I know in the old days you had Bernard Herrmann who orchestrated his own music but even Franz Waxman, Max Steiner, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams use orchestrators. Not because they have to but because they need to focus on getting the job of writing a score of very high quality out by a tight deadline. I see the conducting issue as similar - in many cases it is not because of necessity but rather because it is in their best interest to have a specialist conduct so they can focus on the final result - a product that pleases the director and comes in on budget (or nearly on budget) because quickly getting good performances is a unique skill. If there was enought time and someone had their own orchestra where the mistakes wouldn't be career ending, sure, it would be great to learn to improve as a conductor - but that isn't the reality of the situation in Hollywood. There is never enought time and never enough money to do things exactly the way you want and that goes for everyone - John Williams too. There are many great composers who were not good conductors. Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, were week at conducting their own music. This might be sacriligious but I wouldn't even consider their interpretations to be definitive. Stravinsky conducted the Rite of Spring multiple times changing his mind on the interpretation with some more successful than others. Robert Schumann was a poor conductor. According to The Great Conductors, "The great composer Schumann was impossible on the platform...There is something heartrending about poor Schumann's epochal inefficiency as a conductor." In a highly competitive industry, it would be in the best interst of one's career to hire a capable conductor to handle the logistics of putting down the performance quickly. A great composer can still be a bad conductor. Many composers conduct even though they shouldn't because its another revenue stream or it serves there ego. Just because they composed it doesn't necessarilly mean they are the best at getting it recorded quickly.

All in all, I'd rather here a composer who's not a natural conductor interpret his own work, rather than hear it performed by someone more qualified, but with little affinity for it - since it's not his own. Diluting the creative process.

But, you aren't the one hiring the composer. The creative process would already be diluted by the fact that you have a 100 piece orchestra, a director, an orchestrator (or two, three), etc. You can consider that the creative process is being augmented slightly rather than diluted. When a composer uses someone else to conduct it is most likely going to be someone they trust musically - a type of proxy for them on the stage who will act on behalf of the composer's best interst so in my opinoin, that is a very reasonable approach to maintain artistic integrity but get good results too.

[crocodile 8,017]

I for one don't care who's conducting. As long as it is a good performance it doesn't matter. And the composer's version of many classical pieces sound so-so compared to other people's interpretations.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why would a conductor have no affinity for it? Does someone who is conducting Beethoven have no affinity for it?

[Henry B 50]

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

Those are some valid points but the time to get better at a craft like this can ruin a career because the results ultimately aren't as good as they would be if a specialist does the conducting. What do you think of composers who don't orchestrate their own music? I personally feel more interpretative skill goes into the orchestration yet almost all composers hire out orchestration due to the extremely tight schedules. Yes, I know in the old days you had Bernard Herrmann who orchestrated his own music but even Franz Waxman, Max Steiner, Jerry Goldsmith, John Williams use orchestrators. Not because they have to but because they need to focus on getting the job of writing a score of very high quality out by a tight deadline. I see the conducting issue as similar - in many cases it is not because of necessity but rather because it is in their best interest to have a specialist conduct so they can focus on the final result - a product that pleases the director and comes in on budget (or nearly on budget) because quickly getting good performances is a unique skill. If there was enought time and someone had their own orchestra where the mistakes wouldn't be career ending, sure, it would be great to learn to improve as a conductor - but that isn't the reality of the situation in Hollywood. There is never enought time and never enough money to do things exactly the way you want and that goes for everyone - John Williams too. There are many great composers who were not good conductors. Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, were week at conducting their own music. This might be sacriligious but I wouldn't even consider their interpretations to be definitive. Stravinsky conducted the Rite of Spring multiple times changing his mind on the interpretation with some more successful than others. Robert Schumann was a poor conductor. According to The Great Conductors, "The great composer Schumann was impossible on the platform...There is something heartrending about poor Schumann's epochal inefficiency as a conductor." In a highly competitive industry, it would be in the best interst of one's career to hire a capable conductor to handle the logistics of putting down the performance quickly. A great composer can still be a bad conductor. Many composers conduct even though they shouldn't because its another revenue stream or it serves there ego. Just because they composed it doesn't necessarilly mean they are the best at getting it recorded quickly.

Or, to put it another way, film score conducting is one of the most difficult jobs in music. It's not an extra skill a composer can just work on now and then.

[crocodile 8,017]

Time pressure is probably the key component here, as it was eloquently stated in some the posts above. Writing film music can be occassionally rewarding experience, but I can imagine it being very frustrating most of the time. It's amazing what these guys can achieve in such a little time.

Karol

[Marcus 390]

Actually, composing music and conducting music are two separate crafts. And the vast majority of composers don't conduct their own music, and probably rightfully so. Yes, we all have basic training in conducting (those of us who are academically trained, anyway), but you need more than bare essentials in order to be a good conductor. It is a whole other field of study. Conversely, most conductors aren't good composers -Mahler and Strauss were the exception, not the rule, and composer/conductor-figures are very much a minority (at least since the romantic era, when conducting became something separate from simply "leading" an orchestra in performance, a role that had been filled by the concertmaster, or a soloist, or simply a "time-beater", as in the case of some baroque practices).

As far as fixing things on the spot in a recording context, or in a rehearsal, it is absolutely unproblematic to do so even if you're not on the podium. The code of conduct in such scenarios is that we the composers address the conductor regarding the issue (and its solution), and the conductor in turn addresses the performers.

Finally, a conductor is trained to "get" a score. Most of the primary intentions are clearly marked in the score to begin with, and a lot of the interpretation is readily understood by the individual performers. And in commercial settings, such as a film score recording, there typically won't be room for truly "deep" interpretation. You get the job done, and hopefully the music is good enough to work well on a purely musical level. But still the interpretation is limited in that it has to conform to timings and on-screen action. When you get to the notion of the conductor-as-artist, as in a conductor doing his or her personal take on the material at hand, you've left the studio and entered the concert hall.

And as concert-hall conductors, the only ones eligible are those who truly are conductors, and not all the composers who merely know how to conduct (this is a matter of specific training and talent).

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

But what about the subtle and no-to-subtle changes a composer can do to his own score, in the podium? Changes in rubato and phrasing that are more easily accomplished by the 'maker' of the score who knows it in-and-out, rather than having it all done by proxy? The exhilaration of actively realising your own music, in charge of large symphony orchestra, as opposed to another professional's interpretation?

I just think the fear a lot of 'booth composers' have of making mistakes, and the hire cost spiralling up - is somewhat overblown. If you're not a particularly good conductor, what about the taking the initiative to work on the craft yourself when you're not on the studio's time? The whole idea of accepting you're a bad conductor (from a few awkward experiences) and that there's nothing you can about it, seems incredibly limiting.

Those are some valid points but the time to get better at a craft like this can ruin a career because the results ultimately aren't as good as they would be if a specialist does the conducting.

A professional film score conductor, or a concert conductor? Fundamental difference IMO between the passion, skill, charisma of the two, in most cases.

What do you think of composers who don't orchestrate their own music?

I depends largely on how detailed the sketches are. I mean with Williams and Goldsmith, they were pretty thorough, and even if there was any doubt - Spencer, Morton and Courage would usually defer to the composers. Hell, apparently Goldsmith's The Final Conflict was so detailed that it was close to an orchestrated score. That's not even mentioning Herrmann, who on practically every occasion treated his sketches as full scores!

Whereas with say Arnold, Zimmer and a great number of the RCM gang - their 'sketches' are little more than mock-ups. And in the case of Arnold and Dodd, there's some good reason to suspect that most of the trademark 'Arnold sound' from Stargate and Independence Day (that many love), is mostly down to Nicholas Dodd's orchestration, which in this case is more of an arrangement. Just listen to Dodd's Renaissance.

I see the conducting issue as similar - in many cases it is not because of necessity but rather because it is in their best interest to have a specialist conduct so they can focus on the final result - a product that pleases the director and comes in on budget (or nearly on budget) because quickly getting good performances is a unique skill. If there was enought time and someone had their own orchestra where the mistakes wouldn't be career ending, sure, it would be great to learn to improve as a conductor - but that isn't the reality of the situation in Hollywood.

No I understand, it's a fast moving conveyor belt. And probably one of the many reasons why the most interesting scores at the moment aren't coming the unadventurous Hollywood crowd.

There are many great composers who were not good conductors. Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, were week at conducting their own music. This might be sacriligious but I wouldn't even consider their interpretations to be definitive. Stravinsky conducted the Rite of Spring multiple times changing his mind on the interpretation with some more successful than others.

Again with Le Scare, here it depends not only which recording, but which Stravinksy you're talking about. The most laboured and reticent is the neoclassical-Stravinsky recording of 1929, the most distinctive and violent (and my personal favourite of his takes on The Rite) probably being the serial-Stravinksy of 1961 for Columbia Records, though apparently he still wasn't happy with it. But I think that inconsistency was endemic to his chameleon-like nature. Constantly changing his colours many times throughout his lifetime, re-assessing his own repertoire in many different readings. He wasn't a great conductor, but nor was he was a poor one by any means. At least he made the effort.

In his own words:

"I find that all composer must conduct. And they must conduct not only for the public, but for themselves. To know how to write music. When you know how to conduct music, you know better how to write music. And the other reason is that it's a burden. It's a very serious burden, much more serious than my own music."

In no way would I say Stravinsky's performances of his work better or even match those of Monteux, Stokowski, Durati, Rattle, Boulez, Craft, Gergiev and Salonen - but they're far from the worst.

Robert Schumann was a poor conductor. According to The Great Conductors, "The great composer Schumann was impossible on the platform...There is something heartrending about poor Schumann's epochal inefficiency as a conductor." In a highly competitive industry, it would be in the best interst of one's career to hire a capable conductor to handle the logistics of putting down the performance quickly. A great composer can still be a bad conductor. Many composers conduct even though they shouldn't because its another revenue stream or it serves there ego. Just because they composed it doesn't necessarilly mean they are the best at getting it recorded quickly.

I think it's crucial to distinguish the difference between efficiency and innate passion. In the film scoring business the former tends to outweigh the later, which is sad, but entirely understandable from a financial perspective.

Though as for Schumann - since we have no recordings of his conducting, we can only rely on accounts of his performances, which are notoriously subjective.

All in all, I'd rather here a composer who's not a natural conductor interpret his own work, rather than hear it performed by someone more qualified, but with little affinity for it - since it's not his own. Diluting the creative process.

But, you aren't the one hiring the composer. The creative process would already be diluted by the fact that you have a 100 piece orchestra, a director, an orchestrator (or two, three), etc.

Sure, you should be writing music to suit the director's needs for film. But not only his needs, one should also write music to please oneself. It's a careful balancing act of compromises, that not always works - but when it does... That's a success.

As for the large orchestra, if one is conducting well, he should be able to telegraph his personality and expression onto the orchestra. Ideally, of course. It requires a communicative conductor, and sensitive players.

For the orchestrators - again, it comes down to how complete (or sketchy) the sketched scores are. The less precise they are, the more it becomes a form of arranging, as opposed to orchestration. From there onwards, you're likely to have the orchestrator 'leave his own mark' on the score, which is less likely when it's already all there in shorthand.

Either way, there's a lot of factors that one can't discount.

You can consider that the creative process is being augmented slightly rather than diluted. When a composer uses someone else to conduct it is most likely going to be someone they trust musically - a type of proxy for them on the stage who will act on behalf of the composer's best interst so in my opinoin, that is a very reasonable approach to maintain artistic integrity but get good results too.

Perhaps, but in quite a few cases a composer will stick with a conductor to perform his works (as a sort of team) throughout his career, rarely experimenting with other conductors. So how will he know he's the best possible by-proxy method to do interpret his music, with no comparisons?

Not to forget that also that mutual 'trust' can also lead to a sort of musical stagnancy in terms of the performance. A comfort zone that the composer often doesn't break out of, because it's the same familiar faces.

Why would a conductor have no affinity for it? Does someone who is conducting Beethoven have no affinity for it?

Possibly less affinity for it, not none on at all. That was overstatement on my part. If old Ludwig were alive today, I'd rather here his interpretation first before any world class conductor, however flawed or rough around the edges.

In John Barry's words:

"Q: So, conducting to you is very important?

JB: It's terribly important. It's trying to make it happen. You spot the music, you compose the music, you orchestrate it, and then you get into that studio and the whole thing takes on its life for the first time, really. That's what the performance works out, although you work, watching that orchestra in the studio, those who make the shift—I mean, I'm not talking of rock, maybe three seconds—maybe you'll hit something, but when you're writing it, you've hidden it for a certain time. You might get a recoil effect. The performance is the real fun. And that's also another problem that's happening today. Many of the young composers are not conducting their own music. I think you have to have composed it, conduct it, and know every phrase and movement, and then you're in the master driving seat, where you make all those subtle changes which will finalize your piece of music. And if you have to explain to somebody, the conductor, it loses a lot."

"Q: Do you always conduct your own music?

JB: Always, that’s all the fun of it. When you write, you write to specific timings, but when you finally get on the floor and you start to conduct and you have a 70-80 piece orchestra, certain things start to change, the orchestra breathes in a different way. Conducting your own music is so important. You can make all kinds of adjustments. I’m not talking about vast adjustments, but slight adjustments. You can move a moment a little forward or a little back. You have written the whole thing and feel that and know the picture backwards, you’re quick on your feet and do all those changes."

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I depends largely on how detailed the sketches are. I mean with Williams and Goldsmith, they were pretty thorough, and even if there was any doubt - Spencer, Morton and Courage would usually defer to the composers. Hell, apparently Goldsmith's The Final Conflict was so detailed that it was close to an orchestrated score. That's not even mentioning Herrmann, who on practically every occasion treated his sketches as full scores!

Whereas with say Arnold, Zimmer and a great number of the RCM gang - their 'sketches' are little more than mock-ups. And in the case of Arnold and Dodd, there's some good reason to suspect that most of the trademark 'Arnold sound' from Stargate and Independence Day (that many love), is mostly down to Nicholas Dodd's orchestration, which in this case is more of an arrangement. Just listen to Dodd's Renaissance.

Something I don't quite understand is exactly how detailed the synth mockups made by the 'keyboard' guys are. JNH, Zimmer, the RCP lot and many others use a computer to compose, but I'd always been under the impression that they wrote for each group of instruments, so that the 'full' mix was playable. HGW mentions in a video that he can make a mockup that's "roughly what it will sound like", meaning that every instrument is represented somehow.

But in a video I saw a while back of a lecture on film scoring, the guy played a synth version of something from Treasure Planet and commented that some assistant spent ages making the full mockup of the cue.

So do these composers actually only do the basic thematic layers and let the orchestrator flesh it out to other instruments? Or do they do some, and let an orchestrator do cues they don't have time for?

[Wojo 2,453]

Did Prometheus just write the longest post in the history of this site that didn't consist of movie stills or girlie pics? I think I broke my mouse wheel from scrolling.

[Jay 37,369]

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Did Prometheus just write the longest post in the history of this site that didn't consist of movie stills or girlie pics? I think I broke my mouse wheel from scrolling.

I'm used to that on the other sites I frequent. I did one about a week ago that was 3 times that length. It feels good when you've got something like that off your chest.

[Wojo 2,453]

Well you certainly know your stuff. There were a lot of heavy thoughts and big words in that post that left me drained and ready to go back to work.

[lostinspace 8]

"I depends largely on how detailed the sketches are. I mean with Williams and Goldsmith, they were pretty thorough, and even if there was any doubt - Spencer, Morton and Courage would usually defer to the composers. Hell, apparently Goldsmith's The Final Conflict was so detailed that it was close to an orchestrated score. That's not even mentioning Herrmann, who on practically every occasion treated his sketches as full scores!

Whereas with say Arnold, Zimmer and a great number of the RCM gang - their 'sketches' are little more than mock-ups. And in the case of Arnold and Dodd, there's some good reason to suspect that most of the trademark 'Arnold sound' from Stargate and Independence Day (that many love), is mostly down to Nicholas Dodd's orchestration, which in this case is more of an arrangement. Just listen to Dodd's Renaissance."

Hans Zimmer's midi sketches are very detailed mockups. I believe the reason why Zimmer has so many orchestrators is that transfering a midi sketch to a fully orchestrated page, in traditional notation if you will, is quite a bit more time consuming than the pencil sketch from say Williams to Conrad Pope.

I listened to an interview with Conrad Pope and he stated orchestrating for John Williams is a 2% job. Some examples of the 2% would be:

-Splitting up string lines ( divisi - should the cello carry the melody, should violin double viola for thickness against whatever else is occuring.

-Tutti Woodwind lines for all wind instruments - making sure the register is playable ie not out of range. Allowing adequate rest for wind/brass instruments.

-Balance issues eg. 2 horns or 8 horns, 1 trombone or 3 trombones.

-Playability ie dovetailing arpeggios.

- Detailing harp glissandos for harpist

Aside from when William's notates keyboard, ww's, low brass where the orchestrator is given some leeway, they do not decide what instrument should play a line, it is already there on the page.

Zimmer would be interesting to orchestrate for because he uses so many sampled, different sounds in addition to the orchestra. In my opinion this would be more difficult for an orchestrator and more akin to producing a record - where the sound mixer has a larger responsibility for the final sound.

[Datameister 2,044]

I listened to an interview with Conrad Pope and he stated orchestrating for John Williams is a 2% job. Some examples of the 2% would be:

...

-Balance issues eg. 2 horns or 8 horns, 1 trombone or 3 trombones.

And for that one, sometimes it's not even necessary. Williams will literally write "6 Hrns" on the sketch in some cases.

[airmanjerm 78]

Hope you guys don't mind if I throw my hat into the ring on this one...

FIrst, someone back in the thread mentioned something about how Zimmer's scores would work for real instruments..."so that the 'full' mix was playable." I'm sure we can all agree that real instruments will always be preferable to synthetic versions, but when it comes to Zimmer's scores, it must be pointed out that he writes with the synthetic instruments in mind, not always the real musician. I joked about this previously on the boards somewhere, but it's still true: if you handed a Hans Zimmer horn part to a real horn player (not a computer), that horn player would likely punch you right in the knee cap.

I must say...that's an unfortunate reality these days. If you like Hans Zimmer, then more power to you...he puts out a product many people love, and it sounds great in the theater. I'm not talking about Zimmer here...so don't get your dander up. In the rest of the world, too many composers write things that sound great "on the computer," but really sound about as good as a box of hair when you have actual instrumentalists [try to] play it. You can't write for the computer unless you've got the computer equipment (as Zimmer and others do) to pull it off in the end. If that 32nd-note run sounded great to you when Finale played it back on a trombone patch, then just keep wishing... You've got to write for what you've got, and that goes for everything from 5th grade beginning clarinet players to advanced studio pros to synth software, and any combinations. It's your job as "Mr. or Mrs. Composer" to know how to write for what you've got! (If not, find another job.)

Pertaining to Composers and their Conducting (or not):

First, let's agree on one thing: composing for film is much different than composing for the stage. You still have to compose, but there's the added obstacle of exact timing to the visual.

But, I'll say this about writing music: knowing how to conduct is a tremendous asset to the compositional process. That doesn't mean that composers who don't have the "stick technique" aren't still capable of conducting through the music in their mind, or even an elementary attempt in the studio by themselves. It just means they either aren't capable of conducting a live group, or they are capable yet prefer to focus on other things.

Any time I'm in the middle of a piece and want to think through a tricky transition - a tempo change, a meter change, etc. - I will pick up an actual baton in my office and just conduct through it in my head. Hey, it works for me, but maybe nobody else. My undergraduate Composition Teacher Robert Jager (some of you wind band folks may be familiar with some of his tunes) made me study conducting, for this reason: he said that one of the reasons he became a well-known band composer through the 60s-90s was because he was capable of conducting the premiere of his works as a guest composer. And guess what...that works!

At the same time, I have dealt with conducting through a reading or rehearsal of music I have written, and I must admit.....sometimes I end up paying WAY more attention listening to the music than worrying about the conducting aspect. It's a challenge I have to plan for, and just be particularly careful to think through the music in my head before the rehearsal so that I'm not surprised by the sounds I hear. (Well....it'll ALWAYS be a surprise, ha!)

OK enough of my late-night rambling. Nothing here meant to be a "solution," just more fuel for the fire.

Or, I suppose.....sauce, for the goose.

[The odds will be even...]

[sorry]

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Any thoughts from our newer posters?