Why has film music hit rock bottom?

[Brónach 1,302]

There are many people who still think rather highly of Elfman and Giacchino.

Still? Giacchino is still in the group of those in their 30's-40's. Elfman is on the generation earlier...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's taken me a generation to appreciate Elfman, but I think he's doing some of the best work he's ever done.

[crocodile 7,998]

He's trying out new things. While it might be hit or miss sometimes, I enjoy most of his recent work.

Karol

[Salacius 7]

After Hans Zimmer (who let’s face it , is an over-glorified keyboard player, but an outstanding producer) gave the option of ‘simple’ self taught music to the world of filmscoring,

all ties to the traditionalism that the greats have taken their inspiration and knowledge from where cut.

It seems like you have a personal vendetta against Zimmer, who frankly didn't do anything too different when he first started composing. Hell he got all his ideas from Morricone and Stanley Myers. Blame them.

Can't find the words to say how I feel about the change that man brought to the film music world. He is not solely responsible but he has a huge part in shaping music for films the way it is today.

Do you honestly think that he planned that modern film music would turn out this way? He just loves what he does. Remote Control/Media Ventures was basically intended to be like Apple when the Beatles first made it.

I think he did actually, by handpicking and promoting composers that only sound a certain way and saturating the market with wallpaper music.

Also I feel that it is pretty much impossible to write orchestral music if you don’t know your stuff. And by that I mean a ton of musical theory, instrumentation and orchestration.

All three of which are a derived from the behavior of sound, and are basically rigid constraints to achieve the signature sound of Western orchestral music.

"Classical training" is like this little planet in a musical universe, it's kinda neat, rich, complex, but at the end of the day it's just one tiny segment of possibility. And that's the problem with film music today. Everyone has struck upon the magical formulas that yield the most liked results in this school, and everyone keeps going back to the well. It grows tiresome on the ears.

What everyone should be doing is starting to leave that comfort zone, that bubble of "this combination of notes yields pleasant results to [Western] human ears," that is dictated by classical music's interpretation of the behavior of sound.

I’m not sure I can agree with the fact that it can become tiresome. The only reason orchestral music can become tiresome is probably because some composer’s don’t do a good job at writing it.

Also yes I agree classical music is a very small part of the musical pallet as a whole, but my argument is that orchestral music (which derives from classical)is the core element that is utilised in film music. Therefore composers who want to write for films should have a deep knowledge of anything to do with musical composition and orchestral writing.

It's taken me a generation to appreciate Elfman, but I think he's doing some of the best work he's ever done.

I really enjoyed Hellboy 2.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

It's taken me a generation to appreciate Elfman, but I think he's doing some of the best work he's ever done.

I really enjoyed Hellboy 2.

Me too, I thought it was brilliant.

[crocodile 7,998]

I like it too. Even moreso than upon its release.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

After Hans Zimmer (who let's face it , is an over-glorified keyboard player, but an outstanding producer) gave the option of 'simple' self taught music to the world of filmscoring,

all ties to the traditionalism that the greats have taken their inspiration and knowledge from where cut.

It seems like you have a personal vendetta against Zimmer, who frankly didn't do anything too different when he first started composing. Hell he got all his ideas from Morricone and Stanley Myers. Blame them.

Can't find the words to say how I feel about the change that man brought to the film music world. He is not solely responsible but he has a huge part in shaping music for films the way it is today.

Do you honestly think that he planned that modern film music would turn out this way? He just loves what he does. Remote Control/Media Ventures was basically intended to be like Apple when the Beatles first made it.

I think he did actually, by handpicking and promoting composers that only sound a certain way and saturating the market with wallpaper music.

Yep, Hans Zimmer is pure evil and planned the demise of film music as we know it. Black smoke I tell ya!

[crocodile 7,998]

But then it's his hypothetical brother's fault. And his mother! He just wanted to leave Hollywood.

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

It's taken me a generation to appreciate Elfman, but I think he's doing some of the best work he's ever done.

I really enjoyed Hellboy 2.

Me too, I thought it was brilliant.

The love theme is beautiful and some parts are really interesting. However, I vastly prefer Beltrami's effort.

[skyy38 21]

I sense a bias...

When it comes to John Williams, it's not a bias

it's the *truth*....

[Romão 2,274]

I don't mean to sound too conservative or old fashioned (I'm totally open to new aproaches in film music), but I still think a symphony orchestra, even with an update or two, is still one of the great accomplishments of human genious.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yes.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

True story. I just spent two hours listening to one of my lecturers waffle on about how to move forward we must listen to and do exactly as the great musicians did. Except that a lot of the great musicians didn't listen to their peers, and barely listened to anyone else. They were too busy playing and writing their own stuff...

Rubbish. The Beatles listened and listened to what had gone before. That much is evident in their music, as well as the influences they have cited themselves. The same is true of Bach, Beethoven, Miles Davis, and every great musician. Trace every great musician back to their roots and you'll find a lot of influences and listening going on. Your lecturer is quite right. He may not have expressed himself very effectively, but he is correct.

Which musicians do you think "didn't listen to their peers"? I'd be very surprised if you can name a single musician who has no influences whatsoever. I have heard music composed by students who clearly never listen to any music beyond whatever is on the jukebox at their local bar. Trust me, it's miserable stuff. Their lack of knowledge about what great music is out there for them to discover is matched only by their misguided belief that their own music is worth a shit.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Once again, I'm a victim of my own poor choice of words and thought-out ideas. I realised soon after I posted that I didn't write what I meant to, I was feeling incredibly frustrated by that lecturer and wasn't thinking straight.

What I meant to say: This old piano player dude was telling us that the only way to be a truly great musician (in my case, jazz pianist) was to listen to, copy and transcribe as much music as possible from great players, like Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Miles Davis et al. He didn't even say that it was a recommended path, but rather the only one. Naturally, I completely disagreed with him. I can understand the positives of studying what the greats did in order to understand their musicianship better, and mimicking to an extent can improve one's one skills by learning. However, this guy said he wanted us to sound exactly like them, which is what I had a problem with. None of those mentioned musicians sounded like anyone who came before them; they didn't sit for hours on end and transcribe solos - they were constantly absorbing the music that they and others were creating around them, but taking massive risks in their performances and compositions and cultivating a unique sound. Davis' "Bitches Brew" is the result of nothing more than an exceptional musician completely disregarding conventional harmony and rhythm, experimenting with new sounds and ideas. He wasn't copying anyone. This is what I meant about "listening" to peers. Not listening as a passive exercise, with influence manifesting subconsciously, but listening as a way of intentionally copying and mimicking.

I'm not trying to sound like the rebellious and arrogant Gen Y music student, I simply think that when it comes to art forms like music the truth is plain and clear: dwelling too much in what has come before leaves a stale and uninteresting culture. I can understand the merit in listening to great musicians and their ideas, but I feel that for me, now - in the very beginnings of what I hope to be a long career in music - I shouldn't be trying to be someone I'm not. I can learn from what has come before, but I currently see people getting too absorbed in that and turning into excellent replicas of greater players. I want to be something different; not just for the sake of it, but because I want to contribute to an art form that has given me so much, in my own humble way.

[Salacius 7]

Once again, I'm a victim of my own poor choice of words and thought-out ideas. I realised soon after I posted that I didn't write what I meant to, I was feeling incredibly frustrated by that lecturer and wasn't thinking straight.

What I meant to say: This old piano player dude was telling us that the only way to be a truly great musician (in my case, jazz pianist) was to listen to, copy and transcribe as much music as possible from great players, like Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Miles Davis et al. He didn't even say that it was a recommended path, but rather the only one. Naturally, I completely disagreed with him. I can understand the positives of studying what the greats did in order to understand their musicianship better, and mimicking to an extent can improve one's one skills by learning. However, this guy said he wanted us to sound exactly like them, which is what I had a problem with. None of those mentioned musicians sounded like anyone who came before them; they didn't sit for hours on end and transcribe solos - they were constantly absorbing the music that they and others were creating around them, but taking massive risks in their performances and compositions and cultivating a unique sound. Davis' "Bitches Brew" is the result of nothing more than an exceptional musician completely disregarding conventional harmony and rhythm, experimenting with new sounds and ideas. He wasn't copying anyone. This is what I meant about "listening" to peers. Not listening as a passive exercise, with influence manifesting subconsciously, but listening as a way of intentionally copying and mimicking.

I'm not trying to sound like the rebellious and arrogant Gen Y music student, I simply think that when it comes to art forms like music the truth is plain and clear: dwelling too much in what has come before leaves a stale and uninteresting culture. I can understand the merit in listening to great musicians and their ideas, but I feel that for me, now - in the very beginnings of what I hope to be a long career in music - I shouldn't be trying to be someone I'm not. I can learn from what has come before, but I currently see people getting too absorbed in that and turning into excellent replicas of greater players. I want to be something different; not just for the sake of it, but because I want to contribute to an art form that has given me so much, in my own humble way.

That sounds pretty reasonable too me, it's good to go trough other people's works as you said. Learn from their wisdom they accumulated over the years and the legacy given to them by their teachers. Once one has gone through different techniques and styles one can hopefully create an individual style.

Good luck buddy, and never lose the love for music

[pixie_twinkle 48]

Once again, I'm a victim of my own poor choice of words and thought-out ideas. I realised soon after I posted that I didn't write what I meant to, I was feeling incredibly frustrated by that lecturer and wasn't thinking straight.

What I meant to say: This old piano player dude was telling us that the only way to be a truly great musician (in my case, jazz pianist) was to listen to, copy and transcribe as much music as possible from great players, like Oscar Peterson, Bill Evans, Miles Davis et al. He didn't even say that it was a recommended path, but rather the only one. Naturally, I completely disagreed with him. I can understand the positives of studying what the greats did in order to understand their musicianship better, and mimicking to an extent can improve one's one skills by learning. However, this guy said he wanted us to sound exactly like them, which is what I had a problem with. None of those mentioned musicians sounded like anyone who came before them; they didn't sit for hours on end and transcribe solos - they were constantly absorbing the music that they and others were creating around them, but taking massive risks in their performances and compositions and cultivating a unique sound. Davis' "Bitches Brew" is the result of nothing more than an exceptional musician completely disregarding conventional harmony and rhythm, experimenting with new sounds and ideas. He wasn't copying anyone. This is what I meant about "listening" to peers. Not listening as a passive exercise, with influence manifesting subconsciously, but listening as a way of intentionally copying and mimicking.

I'm not trying to sound like the rebellious and arrogant Gen Y music student, I simply think that when it comes to art forms like music the truth is plain and clear: dwelling too much in what has come before leaves a stale and uninteresting culture. I can understand the merit in listening to great musicians and their ideas, but I feel that for me, now - in the very beginnings of what I hope to be a long career in music - I shouldn't be trying to be someone I'm not. I can learn from what has come before, but I currently see people getting too absorbed in that and turning into excellent replicas of greater players. I want to be something different; not just for the sake of it, but because I want to contribute to an art form that has given me so much, in my own humble way.

Now that's the kind of well-reasoned argument I expect from a fellow Dr Who fan! Well spoken, Sir . Generation Y, is that what we're calling those students? You described them as rebellious and arrogant. I would just describe them as arrogant. Rebellious suggests that they give a crap about something!

Now I see where you're coming from regarding what your teacher said. I absolutely think that every musician needs to listen to and study the work their peers and older (dead!) musicians as much as possible to know what is out there. Only through studying everyone else will an individual learn what combination of techniques works best for them, and will help him to shape his own style. As for copying, I think all musicians must learns to play scales, learn the modes, learn everything out there, but don't just copy other musicians. That makes no sense to me either. Everyone has to find their own way. Just so long as they are not so arrogant as to assume that they already know everything they need to just because they can play a C-major chord on the piano. Seriously, I've had students who play their new "composition" which consists of bashing out a C-major chord for a few measures, then switching to G major, then back to C. They play it with their eyes closed, and a look of rapture on their face as if they've just discovered the most amazing music ever written! It's pathetic!

Do you know this Miles interview? It's brilliant. He says "You got to learn your theory" but only so you can use it to find your own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWXBEj4HoE

[Melange 446]

Why has film music hit rock bottom?

Mmm, has it though? I simply don't watch as many movies anymore (especially in the cinema) as I did in my teens and early 20s, so I hear far less scores now. Perhaps it's just that tastes change as we get older, too? (Star Trek II glasses and Romulan Ale scene). Film Music isn't as dominant in my field of interest as it used to be, and my musical interests are far wider now meaning that it may be weeks before putting on a bit of film music. Music composed for the Bourne movies was amazing, in my view. Clever and pretty recent stuff. It isn't the 70s and 80s form of Williams of course, but they were effective.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Thanks for your reply pixie_twinkle, and the link to that video. I had not seen it before. It gave me a lot to think about! I'm excited to be at a point in my life where I have so much to learn about music, despite all of my existing knowledge (which is tiny in comparison to others). Seeing Miles talk like that makes me even more grateful.

[gkgyver 1,645]

My take on this can be put into simple words.

When a movie like Inception has a score like the one Zimmer wrote, when superhero movies are scored like The Dark Knight, when fantasy adventures like Harry Potter can't have adventure music anymore, when a score that sounds like an epileptic banging on random metal objects wins an Academy Award, then you know film music hit a new low.

[Trent B 337]

My take on this can be put into simple words.

When a movie like Inception has a score like the one Zimmer wrote, when superhero movies are scored like The Dark Knight, when fantasy adventures like Harry Potter can't have adventure music anymore, when a score that sounds like an epileptic banging on random metal objects wins an Academy Award, then you know film music hit a new low.

Indeed especially when that type of a score out beats a much better one that Powell did for HTTYD.

[Richard Penna 3,679]

Potter doesn't have 'adventurous music'?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

apparently not the last one. I hear it did not even have a theme.

[vmw331 2]

My take on this can be put into simple words.

When a movie like Inception has a score like the one Zimmer wrote, when superhero movies are scored like The Dark Knight, when fantasy adventures like Harry Potter can't have adventure music anymore, when a score that sounds like an epileptic banging on random metal objects wins an Academy Award, then you know film music hit a new low.

Indeed especially when that type of a score out beats a much better one that Powell did for HTTYD.

I totally agree with these statements but by no means has film music hit "rock bottom". Great music is getting cranked out all of the time...you've just got to discover it. I love pure orchestral scores and it's sad to see that it's on the downfall in terms of usage, but I really enjoy the hybrid stuff out there (electronic + orchestral). It's a new type of music that is affected by the types of movies that are popular and the different compositional tools that are available.

My love for film music started with JW of course. When I first started listening to Zimmer, I really didn't like his heavy use of synths and thought that he was sort of degrading film music. Now as I am more familiar with scores from composers other than just Williams, I can say that Zimmer has actual composed a lot of stuff that is up there with Williams in terms of quality and effectiveness. Zimmer has influenced the new wave of film composes with his successful use of electronics, similiar to Williams of 20-30 years ago with the success of his pure orchestral music.

Zimmer is a big name today because he is associated with many of the films in pop culture and those that are successful by today's standards. The problem does not lie with Zimmer. It's when other composers emulate his style and think that they too will have similar success. My stance is that one Zimmer is enough. I just hope the the hybrid scores will not die out and become replaced with all electronics....

We shall see....but film music is certainly not at a low. Decreasing in quality? Yes, but there is still hope with the current wave of decent composers.

Now the other part about good music not being recognized by those in the industry(the Oscars) is troubling. The Social Network is total crap. A few good techno tracks does not constitute a good score. If film music starts to go down this path, I'll take zimmer clones anyday. I would have been prefectly fine if Zimmer won for inception. There needs to be some other way to showcase QUALITY other than at the Oscars where there is a lot of bias involved in the selections.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

My stance is that one Zimmer is enough. I just hope the the hybrid scores will not die out and become replaced with all electronics....

Personally I'd rather hear a synthesiser, and a synthesiser alone play Hans Zimmer's highly synthetic compositions, rather than forcing orchestras to function as de facto synths. Abusing their talents.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It has been proven often enough that the fusion of orchestra and synth can lead to fantastic results.

[Salacius 7]

It has been proven often enough that the fusion of orchestra and synth can lead to fantastic results.

Gerry Goldsmith's Legend does amaze me. What a wonderful score and the keyboards contributed and melted within the orchestral arrangements seamlessly.

And I agree on a couple of posts above. Iron Man II sounded like an over glorified East West virtual orchestra score. What's the point?

Orchestral writing should be just that and not a situation where you force the orchestra to emulate keyboard playing.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Since when has an orchestra ever emulated synth? Isn't it the other way around?

[Salacius 7]

Since when has an orchestra ever emulated synth? Isn't it the other way around?

You'll be surprised.

Samples channel you to write a specific way.

A lot of new composers use virtual instruments to write but I don't think they can

anti gravitate from what sounds good at their Mac or PC.

Hence most orchestrations nowadays sound exactly the same.

Plus most young composers (and some old) write on a keyboard like manner

and you can really tell that it was done that way from the final result.

[Joe Brausam 214]

Really, for me at least, the key to integrating synths successfully with acoustic instruments is to treat the synth as it's own instrument. This means giving it it's own independent part in the textures, in regards to the timbre it's producing, et all, as opposed to merely doubling acoustic lines and trying to mimic their timbre in order to "beef up" the sound.

[Brónach 1,302]

Really, for me at least, the key to integrating synths successfully with acoustic instruments is to treat the synth as it's own instrument. This means giving it it's own independent part in the textures, in regards to the timbre it's producing, et all, as opposed to merely doubling acoustic lines and trying to mimic their timbre in order to "beef up" the sound.

And the greats have used it that way.

[Datameister 2,041]

Really, for me at least, the key to integrating synths successfully with acoustic instruments is to treat the synth as it's own instrument. This means giving it it's own independent part in the textures, in regards to the timbre it's producing, et all, as opposed to merely doubling acoustic lines and trying to mimic their timbre in order to "beef up" the sound.

Rather surprisingly, Williams does both all the time. But he's so subtle about the latter that it doesn't negatively impact the music - in fact, sometimes I can't pick it out at all. And, of course, his mastery of the orchestra is more or less unrivaled among living film composers, so his music doesn't sound like it was written on a synthesizer, either.

[vmw331 2]

Yeah, it's all about knowing how and when to use the electronics to create a better score.

Film music is so great because it is so diverse. You've got the techno or urban laced scores, ethnic scores, pure orchestral scores, etc. My fear is that synths will become the standard tool for composing because they are easily accessible in the music making process and the sound is becoming more and more acceptable. I think the increasing focus on synths will limit the diverse sound that we all love in scores and will put limitations on the creativity and originality of composers. Everything will sound so similar and then that's when I think film music will have hit rock bottom.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Film music will never hit rock bottom.

[gkgyver 1,645]

True.

There will always be people saying the trash being thrown on the market is genius.

[Thor 7,490]

It's been a few posts since I said it now, so here goes....

FILM MUSIC NOWADAYS RULES!!! I love it.

There. That's the counter-balance of the day.

[Kevin 22]

It's been a few posts since I said it now, so here goes....

FILM MUSIC NOWADAYS RULES!!! I love it.

There. That's the counter-balance of the day.

But no one listens to you Thor, at least not here, and definitely not at FSM. One person voicing their opinion that's opposite to 10 others is not really counterbalance.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'm with Thor on this one. So us combined beats out everybody. Fact. Accept it and move on.

[Salacius 7]

It's been a few posts since I said it now, so here goes....

FILM MUSIC NOWADAYS RULES!!! I love it.

There. That's the counter-balance of the day.

I so wish this was true, but you know if I would agree with you we would both be wrong.

Last time I watched a film and loved the music was watching Ratatouille.

Have been disappointed with every film I watched ever since.

No melodies (or crappy ones), ostinato strings, big drums and a boomy bass line.

Over and over again...

I breath a sigh of relief if a score at least 'does the job'

I CAN'T wait for the new Williams releases.

It will be like surfacing from a pool of poo

to take a huge breath.

True.

There will always be people saying the trash being thrown on the market is genius.

Agreed, with a heavy heart

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I'm with Thor on this one. So us combined beats out everybody. Fact. Accept it and move on.

But no one listens to you either

[Thor 7,490]

I'm with Thor on this one. So us combined beats out everybody. Fact. Accept it and move on.

Great, Koray. Between that and our mutual appreciation of Zimmer, we will rule the world together! RULE THE WORLD!!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

[Ollie 1,059]

I'm with Thor on this one. So us combined beats out everybody. Fact. Accept it and move on.

I expect more from you.

[Brónach 1,302]

I don't think film music has hit rock bottom, it just needs to get back to when it was treated with greater care and concern.

[Wojo 2,453]

Why has film music hit rock bottom?

Better to ask why films have hit rock bottom.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Ollie 1,059]

Why has film music hit rock bottom?

Better to ask why films have hit rock bottom.

I've been asking that question as well.

[Brónach 1,302]

Or maybe 'why blockbusters have hit rock bottom?' would be more spot on.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Now that's the better question, because great films are continuously being made. Our entertainment flair and action films on the other hand...

[Ollie 1,059]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There are just as many crappy Foreign and Independent films being made as there are mainstream films coming out of Hollywood.

Don't be fooled by the concept of the Foreign and Indy films being superior.

[Wojo 2,453]

Blockbusters are meant to appeal to the masses. The masses are dumb.

No. The perception is that the masses are dumb. The studios can ignore there's a difference.

[Brónach 1,302]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There are just as many crappy Foreign and Independent films being made as there are mainstream films coming out of Hollywood.

Don't be fooled by the concept of the Foreign and Indy films being superior.

We are not saying that.

Also, in my case, I prefer foreign films!