Modern Film Scores Are Terrible

[Datameister 2,043]

When I was a kid, I had a dream in which I ate worms. They tasted pretty good.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nice, lovely juicy wormses!

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

The distinction in musicology is usually between "absolute music" on one hand and "program music" on the other. That's how I evaluate film music, as program music, that involves some kind of extra-musical representation. It should be judged on how well works both in the context of the film, and outside. Not strictly one or the other.

Again, I think it's unfair to judge film music as regular, classical program music. I'm all for judging the purely musical merits of a soundtrack album, but when it comes to assessing a film SCORE, how effective it is and how successful the "film music scene" is (general as that term may be), you can only - and ONLY - do so by looking at how it responds to the film.

I don't understand, at all. You're throwing the baby out the bathwater, just as much as those responding to film music from solely from a pure music perspective. One should take BOTH into account, just as when deconstructing opera or ballet. One CAN separate both the quality of the music on its own, AND when applied to film. How it works on its own terms, and how it ENHANCES (or intentionally remains NEUTRAL to) the DRAMA!

If you're going to generalize (which in itself is a dubious project unless you're being specific)

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Are you saying 'if you're going to generalise (which in itself is a dubious project unless you're not going to generalise)'?

it doesn't make sense to me to do so based on what style there is or isn't. Especially not film music, which isn't ONE type of music, but rather an umbrella category of many different musical styles that are APPLIED to a film as a tool (like cinematography, acting, sound, editing etc.), based on what type of music the film calls for. Some benefit from a solo guitar score, others from an RC-style score, others from a classical symphonic score, others from an electronic or pop-based scores and others again on more modernistic techniques. And so on and so forth.

All scores, can benefit from ANY score. The only determining factor on its success, is whether or not it's good - meaning it serves the film, and hopefully can function reasonably well on its own. Style is irrelevant, tone is what's important. You seem to arguing that films require only a certain a 'style', and all others are simply inappropriate. That to me, is plain ludicrous.

Evaluation comes from looking at each film individually.

And that can lead to a welter of good possibilities, not just one pre-determined outcome. Unfortunately, that deterministic mentality is what's leading to certain cookie cutter, homogenised, sounds in Hollywood. Certain cliches.

Thor, I'm not sure why you're insisting on completely ignoring the film while evaluating a soundtrack album and completely ignoring anything other than function in the film when evaluating a film score, but some of us just don't approach it that way. Obviously, a film composer's job is to serve the film. But most of us became fans because of composers who weren't satisfied with just doing that.

Exaclty. Thor seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator of film scoring. Can't we aspire to MORE than just music working well in the film?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You guys are blind!

The short, truncated presentation of a score, preferably running under 30 minutes and arranged in a "best-listening-experience" is the only way to properly judge the quality of a score. It's function in the film, and any excess music not deemed worthy for inclusion on the CD should not be taken into account!

Varese Sarabande did it best in the 80's and 90's!

[Salacius 7]

.

[Thor 7,506]

don't understand, at all. You're throwing the baby out the bathwater, just as much as those responding to film music from solely from a pure music perspective. One should take BOTH into account, just as when deconstructing opera or ballet. One CAN separate both the quality of the music on its own, AND when applied to film. How it works on its own terms, and how it ENHANCES (or intentionally remains NEUTRAL to) the DRAMA!

No, I disagree. First you need to ask how it responds to the movie. For example, it would be unfair to judge something like TERMINATOR on its own terms, as it's basically just a bunch of noise. Or some horror score with a bunch of stingers and tremolo sneaking-around stuff. But in context with the film, the brilliance comes to the fore.

Of course, once it is released on soundtrack, it can be judged like any other music album, but that's not a way to assess the state of film music or anything like that.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Are you saying 'if you're going to generalise (which in itself is a dubious project unless you're not going to generalise)'?

No. What I mean is that sweeping generalizations (like the one in the topic header) should be avoided altogether. If you're going to point out certain trends, you need to be far more specific and focus on certain sounds or sub-categories (like the RC sound in mainstream Hollywood action films). That's the only way to have a fruitful debate, because then one does at least have a common point-of-departure.

You seem to arguing that films require only a certain a 'style', and all others are simply inappropriate. That to me, is plain ludicrous.

No, that was YOUR argument. YOU were the one who said that you wish more scores were groundbreaking and in a modernist, avantgarde style...whereas my argument is that you can't use that as any sort benchmark by which to judge the state of something. It's like saying film music sucks nowadays because there aren't more scores featuring kazoos (well, it's a pointed argument, but you know what I mean).

Exaclty. Thor seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator of film scoring. Can't we aspire to MORE than just music working well in the film?

No, why should it? If it does, that's very cool, and guys like Goldenthal or Williams have this whole baggage of classical compositional techniques that automatically makes their scores live a life on their own. But it's not a prerogative. It's a BONUS! As it should be.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Thanks, gkgyver, that was so helpful.

Well, if you want some serious response on my part:

What he calls "real" emotion is probably best described as "deeper emotion", opposed to superficial emotion.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

First you need to ask how it responds to the movie. For example, it would be unfair to judge something like TERMINATOR on its own terms, as it's basically just a bunch of noise. Or some horror score with a bunch of stingers and tremolo sneaking-around stuff. But in context with the film, the brilliance comes to the fore.

I'll admit I'm not the biggest fan of THE TERMINATOR scores (any of them to be honest, though I know we're talking about Brad Fiedel's output), but they're certainly more than 'just a bunch of noise.' They have their own self-contained structure - repetition, contrasts of tone, leitmotifs, additive rhythms, certain electro-minimalist devices. All of which contributes to their effectiveness in the film. It's own internal strength and identify is not extraneous to its dramatic affect. It's intertwined.

Personally, I don't think I've ever heard a 'brilliant' horror score that was simply a bunch of "stingers and tremolo sneaking around." I know you're not being specific here, but could you quote be some concrete examples, as with TERMINATOR? As you said, we need to avoid generalisations.

Of course, once it is released on soundtrack, it can be judged like any other music album, but that's not a way to assess the state of film music or anything like that.

It can easily be. Assessing the state of film in my book, is the total sum of a score's effectiveness in the film, and its own musical quality.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Are you saying 'if you're going to generalise (which in itself is a dubious project unless you're not going to generalise)'?

No. What I mean is that sweeping generalizations (like the one in the topic header) should be avoided altogether.

Maybe you should email Hans's agents? He started it.

If you're going to point out certain trends, you need to be far more specific and focus on certain sounds or sub-categories (like the RC sound in mainstream Hollywood action films). That's the only way to have a fruitful debate, because then one does at least have a common point-of-departure.

Ok, to narrow things down a little - I'm referring to a sort of quasi-minimalist sound, along with a certain standardised approach to action, that's related to the RC sound - but not as specific. Kinda broad I know, but I associate it with the likes of Horner, Powell, Newton Howard, Gregson Williams, Desplat etc... To name a few.

And when I mean "minimalistic", I don't mean imitating Philip Glass, Elliot Goldenthal, Don Davis, or even John Williams. It has more roots in a lot of synth scores from 90s and late 80s, new age ambiance, and the way film music is now often composed - on a Finale/Sibelius or a Midi sequencer + sample libraries. Also, perhaps responding to the way films are now made, or stylised.

The reason why I'm often talking in loose generalisations, is because I'm not sure what jargon there is for it (like 'RC sound') - that people will understand.

You seem to arguing that films require only a certain a 'style', and all others are simply inappropriate. That to me, is plain ludicrous.

No, that was YOUR argument. YOU were the one who said that you wish more scores were groundbreaking and in a modernist, avantgarde style...

That's right, that's my personal wish - but I don't think ALL scores should be in that vein. Just A FEW. There's dozens of releases out there that could have easily benefited from that approach, or several others.

Exaclty. Thor seems to be pandering to the lowest common denominator of film scoring. Can't we aspire to MORE than just music working well in the film?

No, why should it? If it does, that's very cool, and guys like Goldenthal or Williams have this whole baggage of classical compositional techniques that automatically makes their scores live a life on their own. But it's not a prerogative. It's a BONUS! As it should be.

I guess I've got high standards, unreasonably so in your opinion. You could say what I'm arguing about is the lack of truly GREAT scores. These bonuses, as you'd call them. I think someone earlier mentioned this - it's that cream of the crop, that seems to be all but gone today. Or least look like pale substitutes compared to the standouts of yester year.

They're come eventually, I'm certain. These things always go in cycles.

[Thor 7,506]

Personally, I don't think I've ever heard a 'brilliant' horror score that was simply a bunch of "stingers and tremolo sneaking around." I know you're not being specific here, but could you quote be some concrete examples, as with TERMINATOR? As you said, we need to avoid generalisations.

Most horror scores work that way for me. The only ones I could really care to listen to on their own are those that utilize a more romantic idiom or more classically-oriented structures (HELLRAISER, ALIEN 3, THE FURY). But I'm hardpressed -- off the top of my head -- to think of a horror score that wasn't effective in the film it was supporting somehow. Even ALIEN. I think it's a masterpiece of scoring in the film, but I hate to listen to it on its own.

Of course, once it is released on soundtrack, it can be judged like any other music album, but that's not a way to assess the state of film music or anything like that.

It can easily be. Assessing the state of film in my book, is the total sum of a score's effectiveness in the film, and its own musical quality.

Well, there's no way we'll see eye to eye on that, so we'll have to agree to disagree. It's great if the score has musical qualities on its own (since I am a soundtrack album buff too, after all), but its effectiveness can only be judged by how it works in the film, IMO.

The reason why I'm often talking in loose generalisations, is because I'm not sure what jargon there is for it (like 'RC sound') - that people will understand.

Well, your description of the minimalistic sound was certainly one step in the right direction. At least now I know -- at least vaguely -- what you're talking about. I agree there's a lot Glass influence going on (both inside Hollywood and outside), as well as "Bourne riffs" in various forms and shapes. I don't really have a problem with that yet, although I sometimes encounter examples where the temptrackitis is a little too obvious for its own good. Like the "Bourne riffs" in Zanelli's HITMAN.

I guess I've got high standards, unreasonably so in your opinion. You could say what I'm arguing about is the lack of truly GREAT scores. These bonuses, as you'd call them. I think someone earlier mentioned this - it's that cream of the crop, that seems to be all but gone today. Or least look like pale substitutes compared to the standouts of yester year.

Welll, that's in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I see great scores pop up around me all the time, so many that I even have a hard time keeping up.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Personally, I don't think I've ever heard a 'brilliant' horror score that was simply a bunch of "stingers and tremolo sneaking around." I know you're not being specific here, but could you quote be some concrete examples, as with TERMINATOR? As you said, we need to avoid generalisations.

Most horror scores work that way for me. The only ones I could really care to listen to on their own are those that utilize a more romantic idiom or more classically-oriented structures (HELLRAISER, ALIEN 3, THE FURY). But I'm hardpressed -- off the top of my head -- to think of a horror score that wasn't effective in the film it was supporting somehow. Even ALIEN. I think it's a masterpiece of scoring in the film, but I hate to listen to it on its own.

I guess that's more of a taste thing, regarding dissonance, atonality etc. Personally I have no problem listening to the complete Intrada release. It's very far from being 'wall to wall stingers and tremolo figures' or whatever. There's lots of peaks and valleys, in terms of mood, intensity, dynamics, dissonance levels, expression, and so on. Many recurring motifs, and lots of influences - from Debussy, Mahler and Strauss, to Bartok, Penderecki, Takemitsu, Varese, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, etc.. Many innovative (for the time) orchestral techniques and studio recording effects (such as the MXR echoplex).

I think because of that, it all helps to make a far better film score - than a merely serviceable one - laden with stingers, drones and a gazillion horror cliches. More to it, if you like.

Of course, once it is released on soundtrack, it can be judged like any other music album, but that's not a way to assess the state of film music or anything like that.

It can easily be. Assessing the state of film in my book, is the total sum of a score's effectiveness in the film, and its own musical quality.

Well, there's no way we'll see eye to eye on that, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sure, no problem.

The reason why I'm often talking in loose generalisations, is because I'm not sure what jargon there is for it (like 'RC sound') - that people will understand.

Well, your description of the minimalistic sound was certainly one step in the right direction. At least now I know -- at least vaguely -- what you're talking about. I agree there's a lot Glass influence going on (both inside Hollywood and outside), as well as "Bourne riffs" in various forms and shapes. I don't really have a problem with that yet, although I sometimes encounter examples where the temptrackitis is a little too obvious for its own good. Like the "Bourne riffs" in Zanelli's HITMAN.

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just another mode of scoring, but it's seems to have become an almost silently accepted autopilot approach. You know what I mean - ethnic percussion (i.e. taiko drums), detaché string figures (the Bourne riff),

, constantly changing meter, tone clusters, throbbing synth samples, 'big bangs', pulsing electronic beats, guitar chords, bowed cymbal, snare, and and unnecessary surplus of trombones or horns (I know one could argue Bernard Herrmann started this - but many from the RC gang almost do this by default, yet with none of the skill or imagination of Herrmann).

That's what I'm talking I say "commodified." Just like how there's particular orchestral sample libraries out there (i.e. Project SAM's Symphobia) that offer demos that sound exactly like many mainstream action, adventure and thriller scores coming from Hollywood today, along with patches that can duplicate those Powell-isms or Jablonsky-isms with one click of a button.

It's depressing.

As I said, I think the democratisation of film scoring, through technology) - has got a lot answer for. In as much as its given people without the technical skill, experience, self-discipline, and rigour - software that allows them far too much freedom. The same could be said digital video. Art works best under restraint - not free reign.

[Thor 7,506]

I guess that's more of a taste thing, regarding dissonance, atonality etc. Personally I have no problem listening to the complete Intrada release. It's very far from being 'wall to wall stingers and tremolo figures' or whatever. There's lots of peaks and valleys, in terms of mood, intensity, dynamics, dissonance levels, expression, and so on. Many recurring motifs, and lots of influences - from Debussy, Mahler and Strauss, to Bartok, Penderecki, Takemitsu, Varese, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, etc.. Many innovative (for the time) orchestral techniques and studio recording effects (such as the MXR echoplex).

I think because of that, it all helps to make a far better film score - than a merely serviceable one - laden with stingers, drones and a gazillion horror cliches. More to it, if you like.

It's not that I don't like dissonant music. I can find pleasure in lots of contemporary avantgarde music. But I need to have some sort of tangible structure (which is why, say, Goldenthal is one of my favourite composers). It's just that when the horror stuff becomes too mickey-mousey or "film-specific", that I'm thrown off. Perhaps ALIEN wasn't the best example. Perhaps something like Charlie Clouser's SAW scores (contemporary version)? Or something like Harry Sukman's SALEM'S LOT (oldfashioned version)?

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just another mode of scoring, but it's seems to have become an almost silently accepted autopilot approach. You know what I mean - ethnic percussion (i.e. taiko drums), detaché string figures (the Bourne riff),

, constantly changing meter, tone clusters, throbbing synth samples, 'big bangs', pulsing electronic beats, guitar chords, bowed cymbal, snare, and and unnecessary surplus of trombones or horns (I know one could argue Bernard Herrmann started this - but many from the RC gang almost do this by default, yet with none of the skill or imagination of Herrmann).

I agree. Powell started a whole thing there in the early 2000's, and you could argue that even Zimmer's BATMAN films as well as INCEPTION is an extension of that. As well as TRON: LEGACY, PRIEST, SOCIAL NETWORK (to an extent). Philipp Glass is also all over stuff by Desplat, Elfman, Korzeniowski etc. Those are the two main influences within certain particular films and genres these days, IMO. But it's still ONE sound and ONE paradigm. There's still a LOT of stuff out there that isn't even remotely like that. I like the discussions like the one we're just having....on particular aspects that we like or dislike...far more than sweeping generalizations about "the current state of film music" and likewise.

As I said, I think the democratisation of film scoring, through technology) - has got a lot answer for. In as much as its given people without the technical skill, experience, self-discipline, and rigour - software that allows them far too much freedom. The same could be said digital video. Art works best under restraint - not free reign.

Well, I wouldn't be quite as technology-deterministic as that. The proliferation of technology does not guarantee talent, but it makes it easier for the talent out there to have a voice. At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. People who have the technology, but who can't really do anything special with it, are quite transparent and don't usually succeed in the business.

Then there are people who are absolutely WIZARDS when it comes to creating samples and high quality work, yet have no interest in working for film. Like Thomas J. Bergersen of the RC crowd. He's like a legend in that area, but hardly ever scores films.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I guess that's more of a taste thing, regarding dissonance, atonality etc. Personally I have no problem listening to the complete Intrada release. It's very far from being 'wall to wall stingers and tremolo figures' or whatever. There's lots of peaks and valleys, in terms of mood, intensity, dynamics, dissonance levels, expression, and so on. Many recurring motifs, and lots of influences - from Debussy, Mahler and Strauss, to Bartok, Penderecki, Takemitsu, Varese, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, etc.. Many innovative (for the time) orchestral techniques and studio recording effects (such as the MXR echoplex).

I think because of that, it all helps to make a far better film score - than a merely serviceable one - laden with stingers, drones and a gazillion horror cliches. More to it, if you like.

It's not that I don't like dissonant music. I can find pleasure in lots of contemporary avantgarde music. But I need to have some sort of tangible structure (which is why, say, Goldenthal is one of my favourite composers). It's just that when the horror stuff becomes too mickey-mousey or "film-specific", that I'm thrown off. Perhaps ALIEN wasn't the best example. Perhaps something like Charlie Clouser's SAW scores (contemporary version)? Or something like Harry Sukman's SALEM'S LOT (oldfashioned version)?

Oh yeah, the SAW scores are great example, though I'm not too familiar with the SALEM'S LOT example. Both Clouser's SAW scores (despite having a memorable main theme) and Jablonsky's horror scores (TEXAS CHAINSAW, AMITYVILLE HORROR, THE HITCHER, FRIDAY THE 13TH, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) - both of which rely extensively on very broad brush, industrial/grunge ambiance and certain stock atonal effects (which were once groundbreaking for film, back in the days of Toru Takemtitsu's 60s/60s avant garde scores, FANTASTIC VOYAGE, PLANET OF THE APES, THE DEVILS, THE HELLSTROM CHRONICLE, DIRTY HARRY, POSEIDON ADVENTURE, IMAGES, JAWS, THE OMEN, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, PROPHECY, ALIEN etc... - but have now been commodified).

That kind of wallpaper application of atonality is plain boring, and very hard to listen to. It might serve the film well and remain unobtrusive (probably thanks to being buried deep in sound fx, which is a major problem with contemporary scores), or have the music's awfulness outweighed by the sheer awfulness of the scenes/film itself.

Yeah, exactly. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just another mode of scoring, but it's seems to have become an almost silently accepted autopilot approach. You know what I mean - ethnic percussion (i.e. taiko drums), detaché string figures (the Bourne riff),

, constantly changing meter, tone clusters, throbbing synth samples, 'big bangs', pulsing electronic beats, guitar chords, bowed cymbal, snare, and and unnecessary surplus of trombones or horns (I know one could argue Bernard Herrmann started this - but many from the RC gang almost do this by default, yet with none of the skill or imagination of Herrmann).

I agree. Powell started a whole thing there in the early 2000's, and you could argue that even Zimmer's BATMAN films as well as INCEPTION is an extension of that. As well as TRON: LEGACY, PRIEST, SOCIAL NETWORK (to an extent). Philipp Glass is also all over stuff by Desplat, Elfman etc. Those are the two main influences within certain particular films and genres these days, IMO. But it's still ONE sound and ONE paradigm. There's still a LOT of stuff out there that isn't even remotely like that.

Sure, but nearly all of that's not coming from the Hollywood crowd. It's overlooked composers like Michael Andrews, David Hirschfelder, Johnny Greenwood, Angelo Badalamenti, Pierre Ardenot, Osvaldo Golijov, David Holmes etc. Though out of the current Hollywood lot, my favourites would be Mark Isham and Christopher Young.

As I said, I think the democratisation of film scoring, through technology) - has got a lot answer for. In as much as its given people without the technical skill, experience, self-discipline, and rigour - software that allows them far too much freedom. The same could be said digital video. Art works best under restraint - not free reign.

Well, I wouldn't be quite as technology-deterministic as that. The proliferation of technology does not guarantee talent, but it makes it easier for the talent out there to have a voice.

Yes, but it also gives many (even talented people) carte blanche, when they'd likely produce much more interesting works with the restraints of a piano and score paper. Even if that means not having your music immediately (or easily) performed. It seems to be part of the 'instant gratification' that our technology-saturated age has brought upon us. A lack of inhibition, which is an important part of composition - self-criticism.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. People who have the technology, but who can't really do anything special with it, are quite transparent and don't usually succeed in the business.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Technology can provide an artificial polish, as can many of the orchestrators (who in a lot of these cases, function more like arrangers) - when it comes to the music being recorded acoustically. I've noticed (from personal experience here) that they can also make it quite easy to sound like an derivative of the Powell/Jablnosky/Zimmer/Gregson Williams or Desplat/Arnold/Elfman/Newton Howard/Giacchino paradigms (though I know - those collections aren't as black and white as that).

As Christopher Young once said in an interview, there's a hell of a lot of 'hummers' working in Hollywood, who'd have the rugged swept under them if their orchestrators and workstations disappeared.

Then there are people who are absolutely WIZARDS when it comes to creating samples and high quality work, yet have no interest in working for film. Like Thomas J. Bergersen of the RC crowd. He's like a legend in that area, but hardly ever scores films.

It's these behind-the-scenes wizards who should get more acclaim. Howard Scarr is another. He was the guy who Hans Zimmer consulted to help him with the Zebra 2 patches in THE DARK KNIGHT, ANGELS AND DEMONS, SHERLOCK HOLMES and INCEPTION. Not only that, but he's designed sounds for Roland, Access Virus, NI, Waldorf, Steinberg and countless others.

[Thor 7,506]

Sure, but nearly all of that's not coming from the Hollywood crowd. It's overlooked composers like Michael Andrews, David Hirschfelder, Johnny Greenwood, Angelo Badalamenti, Pierre Ardenot, Osvaldo Golijov, David Holmes etc. Though out of the current Hollywood lot, my favourites would be Mark Isham and Christopher Young.

Quite a few inside Hollywood too, IMO - both established and newcomers from other arenas. But we'd be here all day if we were to list examples across styles, genres and musical idioms.

Yes, but it also gives many (even talented people) carte blanche, when they'd likely produce much more interesting works with the restraints of a piano and score paper. Even if that means not having your music immediately (or easily) performed. It seems to be part of the 'instant gratification' that our technology-saturated age has brought upon us. A lack of inhibition, which is an important part of composition - self-criticism.

Maybe, but I still believe proliferation of technology and talent is a GOOD thing. There are far more sources of musical talent to pull from, depending on what style of music you prefer, and easier for those that are truly talented to get "out there". Sure, once in a while a hack may slip through the tight net of quality control that makes filmmakers approach them, but that seems to be a rare commodity. They're probably still sitting in their basements somewhere, with all the equipment in the world, but no musical talent to make use of it beyond a "hobby" basis.

[A24 4,337]

Tree Line by Takemitsu on The Five Sacred Trees is great. Now here's a composer with a really distinctive voice. The music is mood and colors so it's best not to look for melodies and structure. Calling it wallpaper seems so wrong to me.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Tree Line by Takemitsu on The Five Sacred Trees is great. Now here's a composer with a really distinctive voice. The music is mood and colors so it's best not to look for melodies and structure. Calling it wallpaper seems so wrong to me.

I never said that. Toru Takemitsu, along with Stravinsky, Debussy, Herrmann, Ligeti, Penderecki, Messaien, Bartok and several others - is one of my favourite 20th century composers.

By 'wallpaper', I was referring to the diluted application of techniques that Takemitsu and others used. A utilitarian approach, that's often due to lack of talent, and time constraints.

Maybe, but I still believe proliferation of technology and talent is a GOOD thing. There are far more sources of musical talent to pull from, depending on what style of music you prefer, and easier for those that are truly talented to get "out there". Sure, once in a while a hack may slip through the tight net of quality control that makes filmmakers approach them, but that seems to be a rare commodity.

I'm not sure the net is as tight, or principled as you say. Often, simply a another RC or Philip Glass clone can slip through, without a skeptical eye - because he/she conforms to their work method (synth mockups) or desired sound. It's business, a music factory. If it works for the picture and sells, it's Ok. Artistic talent is inconsequential to them.

They're probably still sitting in their basements somewhere, with all the equipment in the world, but no musical talent to make use of it beyond a "hobby" basis.

Or composing in their West Hollywood home studios, while several dozen orchestrators work 'round the clock to interpret their ramblings.

[Thor 7,506]

I just don't agree that so many hacks get through the "eye of the needle" as you suggest. If you knew the tough competition and high bar they set at RC, for example, in order to be accepted as an "intern" there, you'd be surprised!

Henry Jackman, for example, which has this IMMENSE musical education (for orchestra), but has chosen to compose in a more electronic medium (esp. trip hop), since that is closer to his heart. I think it was Zimmer who finally convinced him to do some string arrangements on some recent score (KUNG FU PANDA? X-MEN?) and use some of the skills he possessed in that arena.

[A24 4,337]

I never said that. Toru Takemitsu, along with Stravinsky, Debussy, Herrmann, Ligeti, Penderecki, Messaien, Bartok and several others - is one of my favourite 20th century composers.

I like what I know from Takemitsu (How Slow The Wind, Treeline), Stravinsky, Debussy, Herrmann (Symphony N.1/Sinfonietta For String Orchestra), Penderecki (Metaporphosen) and several others too.

Alex

[crocodile 8,017]

Speaking of Penderecki... While I appreciate his avant-garde music, I find his more quasi-neoromantic to be very good. I know it has many detractors though. His second symphony, probably his most accessible work, is one of my absolute favourite pieces ever. His mass Credo is beautiful too, mostly because it's much more gentle than his large choral pieces.

Karol - who finds it ironic that Kubrick used his Utrenya in a horror film

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Speaking of Penderecki... While I appreciate his avant-garde music, I find his more quasi-neoromantic to be very good. I know it has many detractors though. His second symphony, probably his most accessible work, is one of my absolute favourite pieces ever. His mass Credo is beautiful too, mostly because it's much more gentle than his large choral pieces.

Out of all his later neo-romantic works, my favourite has to be his Symphony No. 7 "Seven Gates of Jerusalem". Mind blowing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5Md4Yt20Q

Karol - who finds it ironic that Kubrick used his Utrenya in a horror film

Not me. The work is intended to be from a small child's perspective (Penderecki as a young boy), witnessing the arcane often frighting Polish Orthodox liturgies, devoted to celebrating the entombment and ascension of Christ.

Just because something is Holy, that doesn't mean it can't be also strange or frightening either.

RE: Alex - Check out Herrmann's For the Fallen, Wuthering Heights and his Moby Dick Cantata. Great works.

[crocodile 8,017]

Speaking of Penderecki... While I appreciate his avant-garde music, I find his more quasi-neoromantic to be very good. I know it has many detractors though. His second symphony, probably his most accessible work, is one of my absolute favourite pieces ever. His mass Credo is beautiful too, mostly because it's much more gentle than his large choral pieces.

Out of all his later neo-romantic works, my favourite has to be his Symphony No. 7 "Seven Gates of Jerusalem". Mind blowing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp5Md4Yt20Q

I know it very well. But I definitely prefer Credo over this one. It's a gentler piece, but, at the same time, cut from the same cloth. You should check it out if you haven't already. Penderecki generally tends to be quite heavy, which is something I sometimes can't get into. It's encouraging that he can also write something more direct emotionally.

Karol - who finds it ironic that Kubrick used his Utrenya in a horror film

Not me. The work is intended to be from a small child's perspective (Penderecki as a young boy), witnessing the arcane often frighting Polish Orthodox liturgies, devoted to celebrating the entombment and ascension of Christ.

I would say it has more in common with Orthodox liturgy in general. The piece definitely wanders even farther into the east as far as the influences go. But that's an interesting interpretation anyway (child's perspective).

Just because something is Holy, that doesn't mean it can't be also strange or frightening either.

No, I was mostly referring to the subject matter of these pieces, which is, ironically, quite joyful (the resurrection).

Karol

[A24 4,337]

RE: Alex - Check out Herrmann's For the Fallen, Wuthering Heights and his Moby Dick Cantata. Great works.

Thanks for the tips. Are these works based on his scores?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

For The Fallen is not based on a film work I believe.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Nope. For the Fallen was commissioned by New York Philharmonic and the League of Composers, to commemorate those who died in WWII. Though he stole some of Wuthering Heights (which he worked on for several decades) - when scoring THE GHOST AND MRS MUIR. And as many already know, he also later recycled some of Sinfonietta for String Orchestra for PSYCHO.

[QMM 4]

I don't know where else to post this and I didn't want to start another thread.

Today I went to a talk held by the LA Film Festival with Thomas Newman, Clint Mansell and Mychael Danna. Good talk, Newman was especially well spoken. No one outright said it, but they all sort of gave the impression that they aren't happy with how scores are being made today. Temping was brought up a bit and Newman said that he hopes that the temps are bland so he can make something better. Also was interesting that none of them listen to other film scores and don't want to.

[Thor 7,506]

I don't know where else to post this and I didn't want to start another thread.

Today I went to a talk held by the LA Film Festival with Thomas Newman, Clint Mansell and Mychael Danna. Good talk, Newman was especially well spoken. No one outright said it, but they all sort of gave the impression that they aren't happy with how scores are being made today. Temping was brought up a bit and Newman said that he hopes that the temps are bland so he can make something better. Also was interesting that none of them listen to other film scores and don't want to.

That's what they always say, but they're obviously well up-to-date on what's moving on the film music scene. Especially if a score makes an impact somehow. It's just a common thing to say to give the impression of artistic integrity, "untainted" by what's happening otherwise.

But sounds like a cool seminar thing. I'd have loved to be there. Lucky LA'ers!

[TheHouseholdCat 4]

I don't know where else to post this and I didn't want to start another thread.

Today I went to a talk held by the LA Film Festival with Thomas Newman, Clint Mansell and Mychael Danna. Good talk, Newman was especially well spoken. No one outright said it, but they all sort of gave the impression that they aren't happy with how scores are being made today. Temping was brought up a bit and Newman said that he hopes that the temps are bland so he can make something better. Also was interesting that none of them listen to other film scores and don't want to.

Yeah, that's something that puzzles me, too.

But I can totally see where they are coming from....

[wanner251 17]

There is some good music coming out of films these days, but not nearly the quantity like in previous decades.

This could be because of what was previously stated: that filmmakers are demanding a certain "sound." But I disagree that creating a certain sound means dumping solid music writing.

What happened to writing a great 4-minute set piece for the film, like an overture even if it isn't "classic" in nature? I was watching three movies over the weekend: Clue, Dennis the Menace, and Kindergarten Cop. If those films had been made today and used composers popular today, the scores would have had music that sucked--just because of the way that many modern composers tackle cues. Composers for the most part no longer write mini-concert pieces for their projects, which is a shame.

How come composers don't tackle scenes like they used to? Scores to romantic comedies and crappy dramas nowadays have scores that one can't really differentiate anymore from one another.

I still argue that 1993 was the last great year for film scores (and for movies!). Today, would we get a "Rookie of the Year" score like we did from Bill Conti? Would 'Free Willy" have that gorgeous Basil theme? Jerry's "Rudy?"

Or great scores with solid "mini-concert" tracks like we found 1993's "Age of Innocence," "Cliffhanger," "Dave," "Dragon: Bruce Lee Story," "The Firm," "The Fugitive," "Jurassic Park," "Schindler's List," "Mrs. Doubtfire,"

Even Beethoven's 2nd, Point of No Return, RoboCop 3, Pelican Brief, and Searching for Bobby Fisher had very good scores.

I think a lot of composers of the past were "Talented classical composers who just happened to work in film," rather than today's mostly "filmmakers who happen to like to write music."

Today's films are missing those wonderful set pieces because many composers haven't really been adequately trained in composition; they haven't studied enough.

That's a shame. You'll find that those who you really love in today's modern climate mostly likely have that training.

THIS!!!

For everyone who is touting the idea that "trained" composers come out of music colleges and conservatories, I'm sorry to say that that is a load of complete and utter B.S.! Anyone who has been to music school and actually paid attention to what is happening to him/her while they are there will tell you that the number one goal of such things is conformity. Experience is not only always the better teacher, but it is what also creates true opportunity. Understanding what makes a good melody, or good orchestration, is something that comes from experience, and no music school teaches to that, no matter how prestigious. The bulk of music school curriculum is geared toward harmonic analysis. And therefore, what do you think you end up with as a result? That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for. However, someone who was actually gifted from the time that they were 4 years old, and actually has learned to be individualistic through experience, has no place in music school. Colleges have nothing to offer them, and they are often dismissed because they can't conform.

Moreover, the way one used to get into the film industry many years ago was by gaining compositional experience and dramatic instinct through television. Television of the day lent itself better to the composition being much more involved with what was happening on screen, than the more subdued modern television shows. Also, the composer often had to be quite the gifted songwriter, as the melodies of the older TV shows had to hook you into the show (think Gilligan's Island vs. the X Files, they serve completely different functions.) These days, the faster growing stepping stone to film is video game music. Video game music is an entirely different animal than TV and even film. You have to write something that loops well... which, unfortunately has worked its way into modern film scoring, with very little to say when the action is continuous, rather than looped.

Anyway, I hope that the classic way of writing gets popular again because I'm also pretty tired of the subdued thing, unless the film really calls for it. I will always be of the opinion that any film needs music that is involved especially for it, rather than music that could serve as a subdued underscore for ANY film.

[Trent B 337]

It does suck that most of scores today just plain suck. Now grant some of the older composers IE: Elfman, Silvestri, Arnold and such can come up with better scores. It's just others are ugh....

[Henry B 50]

.

[karelm 2,913]

For everyone who is touting the idea that "trained" composers come out of music colleges and conservatories, I'm sorry to say that that is a load of complete and utter B.S.! Anyone who has been to music school and actually paid attention to what is happening to him/her while they are there will tell you that the number one goal of such things is conformity. Experience is not only always the better teacher, but it is what also creates true opportunity. Understanding what makes a good melody, or good orchestration, is something that comes from experience, and no music school teaches to that, no matter how prestigious. The bulk of music school curriculum is geared toward harmonic analysis. And therefore, what do you think you end up with as a result? That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for. However, someone who was actually gifted from the time that they were 4 years old, and actually has learned to be individualistic through experience, has no place in music school. Colleges have nothing to offer them, and they are often dismissed because they can't conform.

This is an uninformed opinion. I take it you've not studied music at a professional level hense your opinion? Those composers who are untrained are dependent on the ones who are trained so either way your point is wrong.

[Richard Penna 3,692]

It does suck that most of scores today just plain suck. Now grant some of the older composers IE: Elfman, Silvestri, Arnold and such can come up with better scores. It's just others are ugh....

I don't think it's so much a question of age, as much as the opportunity the composer is given.

But yes, I agree that the majority of music being composed today is unremarkable.

[Henry B 50]

For everyone who is touting the idea that "trained" composers come out of music colleges and conservatories, I'm sorry to say that that is a load of complete and utter B.S.! Anyone who has been to music school and actually paid attention to what is happening to him/her while they are there will tell you that the number one goal of such things is conformity. Experience is not only always the better teacher, but it is what also creates true opportunity. Understanding what makes a good melody, or good orchestration, is something that comes from experience, and no music school teaches to that, no matter how prestigious. The bulk of music school curriculum is geared toward harmonic analysis. And therefore, what do you think you end up with as a result? That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for. However, someone who was actually gifted from the time that they were 4 years old, and actually has learned to be individualistic through experience, has no place in music school. Colleges have nothing to offer them, and they are often dismissed because they can't conform.

I completely disagree with everything you've said, and I seriously wonder if you've actually been through a college music program, or have any knowledge of one. The goal of most college music programs is to create well-rounded musicians. Harmonic analysis is the focus of two or three semesters of theory, yes, but that comprises only a small part of a music degree. There's history, ear training, writing, conducting, pedagogy and above all performance. Most music degrees are chiefly about equipping students to find work in professional ensembles or in teaching positions. Some tracks like history and composition prepare students for further studies in grad school. Experience is certainly built into the curriculum. Music education students are required to do a semester of student teaching to earn their degrees. I had to put on an entire recital of my own compositions for my degree. I was able to have a piece performed by the university orchestra. For performance students, a half-recital junior year and a full recital senior year is required. History students have to write a thesis. You get the idea. But no matter your concentration, you will undoubtedly come out of college with a deeper understanding of what music is, where it comes from and how to perform it. Of course a school can't completely let imaginations soar because there would be no structure to such a program. Students are taught all the major forms and historical trends because knowledge enriches. You seem to think that genius develops best in a vacuum. That runs completely against everything we know. Nearly every prodigious composer was also a respected performer and teacher. Some were also conductors, critics, historians, and so on. They were all educated in the musical traditions of their time, and would have been afforded far less freedom than music students today. If you simply turn a person loose in the work world to gain experience, with no training and guidance, the result is usually disastrous.

And colleges dismiss musical prodigies for being too individualistic? I'm convinced you just made that up on the spot. Most students I knew, especially piano and string students, began their studies at a very early age. Actually, I was unusual because I didn't start taking piano lessons until age 10. Most gifted and well developed students come into college eager to expand their experience and understanding, not to shut themselves away and ignore the history of music.

You say harmonic analysis leads to works like Inception. Do you even know what harmonic analysis is? Most undergrad programs cover music of the late Baroque and Classical periods, counterpoint in the style of J.S. Bach. Do you know who Bach is? Yeah... he doesn't really sound like Hans Zimmer. By the way, Zimmer got his start in pop music and never went through a conservatory program. He didn't care much for the formal training that you seem so eager to trash.

There's only one possible cause I can find for all these claims, which is that many of today's blander composers have formal training. For example, Brian Tyler went to UCLA and Harvard. But drawing a straight line between the overproduced, creatively bankrupt music most of us dislike and college music programs is completely wrong. You're ignoring everything the studio system does to composers. Look, college music professors hate this stuff most of all. My composition professor didn't like the idea of me trying to make it as a Hollywood composer because he felt that it stifled creativity and even human decency.

You hate today's conformity, but everything you say makes it obvious that you just want yesterday's conformity back.

These days, the faster growing stepping stone to film is video game music. Video game music is an entirely different animal than TV and even film. You have to write something that loops well... which, unfortunately has worked its way into modern film scoring, with very little to say when the action is continuous, rather than looped.

You're about twenty years out of date here. Some game music continues to be looped, but many games call for all the same standalone forms that film does. Many feel that game music is actually outpacing film music at the moment in terms of creativity and expression. I bet you don't really know any game composers. Maybe you've heard of Mario and Pac-man and assume that game music is a bunch of robotic beeps. If you're interesting in actually getting up to speed on this stuff, check out:

Nobuo Uematasu

Jeremy Soule

Mark Griskey

Inon Zur

Peter Land

Jared Emerson-Johnson

James Hannigan

Christopher Lennertz

Stephen Rippy

Garry Schyman

Jack Wall

Just for starters.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Don't forgot Greg Edmonson and Giacchino.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[karelm 2,913]

For everyone who is touting the idea that "trained" composers come out of music colleges and conservatories, I'm sorry to say that that is a load of complete and utter B.S.! Anyone who has been to music school and actually paid attention to what is happening to him/her while they are there will tell you that the number one goal of such things is conformity. Experience is not only always the better teacher, but it is what also creates true opportunity. Understanding what makes a good melody, or good orchestration, is something that comes from experience, and no music school teaches to that, no matter how prestigious. The bulk of music school curriculum is geared toward harmonic analysis. And therefore, what do you think you end up with as a result? That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for. However, someone who was actually gifted from the time that they were 4 years old, and actually has learned to be individualistic through experience, has no place in music school. Colleges have nothing to offer them, and they are often dismissed because they can't conform.

I completely disagree with everything you've said, and I seriously wonder if you've actually been through a college music program, or have any knowledge of one. The goal of most college music programs is to create well-rounded musicians. Harmonic analysis is the focus of two or three semesters of theory, yes, but that comprises only a small part of a music degree. There's history, ear training, writing, conducting, pedagogy and above all performance. Most music degrees are chiefly about equipping students to find work in professional ensembles or in teaching positions. Some tracks like history and composition prepare students for further studies in grad school. Experience is certainly built into the curriculum. Music education students are required to do a semester of student teaching to earn their degrees. I had to put on an entire recital of my own compositions for my degree. I was able to have a piece performed by the university orchestra. For performance students, a half-recital junior year and a full recital senior year is required. History students have to write a thesis. You get the idea. But no matter your concentration, you will undoubtedly come out of college with a deeper understanding of what music is, where it comes from and how to perform it. Of course a school can't completely let imaginations soar because there would be no structure to such a program. Students are taught all the major forms and historical trends because knowledge enriches. You seem to think that genius develops best in a vacuum. That runs completely against everything we know. Nearly every prodigious composer was also a respected performer and teacher. Some were also conductors, critics, historians, and so on. They were all educated in the musical traditions of their time, and would have been afforded far less freedom than music students today. If you simply turn a person loose in the work world to gain experience, with no training and guidance, the result is usually disastrous.

And colleges dismiss musical prodigies for being too individualistic? I'm convinced you just made that up on the spot. Most students I knew, especially piano and string students, began their studies at a very early age. Actually, I was unusual because I didn't start taking piano lessons until age 10. Most gifted and well developed students come into college eager to expand their experience and understanding, not to shut themselves away and ignore the history of music.

You say harmonic analysis leads to works like Inception. Do you even know what harmonic analysis is? Most undergrad programs cover music of the late Baroque and Classical periods, counterpoint in the style of J.S. Bach. Do you know who Bach is? Yeah... he doesn't really sound like Hans Zimmer. By the way, Zimmer got his start in pop music and never went through a conservatory program. He didn't care much for the formal training that you seem so eager to trash.

There's only one possible cause I can find for all these claims, which is that many of today's blander composers have formal training. For example, Brian Tyler went to UCLA and Harvard. But drawing a straight line between the overproduced, creatively bankrupt music most of us dislike and college music programs is completely wrong. You're ignoring everything the studio system does to composers. Look, college music professors hate this stuff most of all. My composition professor didn't like the idea of me trying to make it as a Hollywood composer because he felt that it stifled creativity and even human decency.

You hate today's conformity, but everything you say makes it obvious that you just want yesterday's conformity back.

These days, the faster growing stepping stone to film is video game music. Video game music is an entirely different animal than TV and even film. You have to write something that loops well... which, unfortunately has worked its way into modern film scoring, with very little to say when the action is continuous, rather than looped.

You're about twenty years out of date here. Some game music continues to be looped, but many games call for all the same standalone forms that film does. Many feel that game music is actually outpacing film music at the moment in terms of creativity and expression. I bet you don't really know any game composers. Maybe you've heard of Mario and Pac-man and assume that game music is a bunch of robotic beeps. If you're interesting in actually getting up to speed on this stuff, check out:

Nobuo Uematasu

Jeremy Soule

Mark Griskey

Inon Zur

Peter Land

Jared Emerson-Johnson

James Hannigan

Christopher Lennertz

Stephen Rippy

Garry Schyman

Jack Wall

Just for starters.

Completely agree with Henry Buck. I don't think wanner251 understands what he doesn't know.

[wanner251 17]

This is an uninformed opinion. I take it you've not studied music at a professional level hense your opinion? Those composers who are untrained are dependent on the ones who are trained so either way your point is wrong.

Sorry... Music is how I make my living... I have trained for 30 years. And I also went to music school for 10. You sound like a college professor. Protect thy job...

For those of you who enjoy the "well-rounded" idea... Then you must enjoy the factory-stamped result we are getting. One must always ask the question, well-rounded according to whom? I haven't met a college music student yet that actually fits the definition of what my 30 years of experience have shown me to be well-rounded. And I have had countless discussions with other professionals about how and why this is true. They all agree.

And furthermore, to Mr. Buck, nearly your entire first paragraph is spot on. I agree with all of it, but I've been through it. And it did nothing for me except encouraged me to conform in such a way that I was no longer being challenged. They look down on you if you are doing real meaningful work because it takes away for your studies, nor do they value it in any way, shape or form. They would never count it toward any of the requirements, even though I was learning way more from it than any professor could have taught. I find college professors to be quite knowledgeable, but they are cloistered.

I will give a very clear example of "conservatory" mentality. When I began my first year at USC, I took an ear training and theory placement exam. I have perfect pitch, and instead of writing out only SB with Roman numerals, I wrote the entire four and five part chorales in the same 5 hearings that everyone else had. I also wrote what the Roman numerals, but did not know inversion symbols. Instead of taking the 10 minutes to show me the symbols and have me take the test again, they placed me at the very beginning of theory, and I had to take 3 semesters of stuff that I pretty much already knew. And there was no recourse for it.

[karelm 2,913]

Sorry... Music is how I make my living... I have trained for 30 years. And I also went to music school for 10. You sound like a college professor. Protect thy job...

For those of you who enjoy the "well-rounded" idea... Then you must enjoy the factory-stamped result we are getting. One must always ask the question, well-rounded according to whom? I haven't met a college music student yet that actually fits the definition of what my 30 years of experience have shown me to be well-rounded. And I have had countless discussions with other professionals about how and why this is true. They all agree.

And furthermore, to Mr. Buck, nearly your entire first paragraph is spot on. I agree with all of it, but I've been through it. And it did nothing for me except encouraged me to conform in such a way that I was no longer being challenged. They look down on you if you are doing real meaningful work because it takes away for your studies, nor do they value it in any way, shape or form. They would never count it toward any of the requirements, even though I was learning way more from it than any professor could have taught. I find college professors to be quite knowledgeable, but they are cloistered.

I will give a very clear example of "conservatory" mentality. When I began my first year at USC, I took an ear training and theory placement exam. I have perfect pitch, and instead of writing out only SB with Roman numerals, I wrote the entire four and five part chorales in the same 5 hearings that everyone else had. I also wrote what the Roman numerals, but did not know inversion symbols. Instead of taking the 10 minutes to show me the symbols and have me take the test again, they placed me at the very beginning of theory, and I had to take 3 semesters of stuff that I pretty much already knew. And there was no recourse for it.

Fair enough - Nope, not a college professor. I too went to USC and make my living in music. We disagree. In my classes, there were students who complained this stuff was all beneath them and saw this lack of humility as a demonstration of their self professed brilliance. Many ended up not showing up to classes, not taking part in working with the musicians we had access to in order to further their skills since they already “had these skills”, and then complaining what a waste of time and money it all was. You sound like those students who were convinced you already knew these things. I'm not saying experience isn't valuable or even more valuable, but that much of your premise is still wrong and still uninformed despite your experience in music schools. Music education is not all that matters, but it requires effort from both student and teacher to help create a foundation built on being exposed beyond what you know in a rigorous academic setting and ultimately is beneficial and an important part of getting the solid foundation on which to nurture and embolden one’s creative voice (rather than hinder it).

I haven't met a college music student yet that actually fits the definition of what my 30 years of experience have shown me to be well-rounded. And I have had countless discussions with other professionals about how and why this is true. They all agree.

I disagree. The problem is when you make general statements like this and present it as fact: "...I have had countless discussions with other professionals about how and why this is true. They all agree."

Another example of yours: "That's why we have the crap like Inception, because harmonic texture is the main focus we get out of these composers who probably began playing in a band in high school, and decided to continue their music education in college. This is who these programs are geared for."

Scores like "Inception" are exactly why schools are needed!! Composers without proper training think that experience trumps a basic understanding of the fundamentals of music composition. Your example of "Inception" disproves your point. So, I take the opposite opinion to you. I am glad for my years of study and have come to realize it will take a lifetime of study to reach where I want. I have much to learn from faculty, players, and other students and probably/hopefully always will.

[wanner251 17]

The world of music is much larger than any of us. I don't make the claim that I know any more or less of it than anyone else. I had a horrible experience in music school simply for the reason that it seemed generic and not nearly as all-inclusive as one might think. It all comes down to what the academics deem to be important that everyone should know. For a person who already has a clear understanding of these things, it does nothing. I was also not encouraged to explore because that goes beyond drinking the kool-aid.

Also, the great composers are not defined as great because of their training. Their greatness comes from their passion to create. True, in order to create well, the more understanding one has of the craft, the better... However, there exists a whole contingent of musicians who are fantastic, yet can't even read music. Formal training is not a garuntee of anything except being able to say that you've been formally trained. It all comes down to what is in you. A person can be smart enough to learn these things on his/her own, as long as one has the drive.

[wanner251 17]

I do realize that I am a bit over-opinionated about this subject. Music school can be a great experience for some people. But I found that for me, wanting to push the envelope was not looked upon well..

[karelm 2,913]

The world of music is much larger than any of us. I don't make the claim that I know any more or less of it than anyone else. I had a horrible experience in music school simply for the reason that it seemed generic and not nearly as all-inclusive as one might think. It all comes down to what the academics deem to be important that everyone should know. For a person who already has a clear understanding of these things, it does nothing. I was also not encouraged to explore because that goes beyond drinking the kool-aid.

Also, the great composers are not defined as great because of their training. Their greatness comes from their passion to create. True, in order to create well, the more understanding one has of the craft, the better... However, there exists a whole contingent of musicians who are fantastic, yet can't even read music. Formal training is not a garuntee of anything except being able to say that you've been formally trained. It all comes down to what is in you. A person can be smart enough to learn these things on his/her own, as long as one has the drive.

Fair enough - the take away I have from your point here is how important a teacher can be to one’s music school experience. I loved my teacher because he was open to ideas and saw the good in the junk. (just to be clear, he wasn't saying everything I did was good, but that there are always things done well and things that need work...it was a balanced view in my opinion, plus I was very critical of myself so it meant a lot to hear a prof say nice work). I know others had teachers who were hyper critical so obviously that's not good.

I think great composers are neither regarded by their training nor their passion to create but from the ultimate quality of their work. I know many bad passionate composers. I believe that any great composer, somewhere, somehow had a great mentor. Sometimes it was in school. School provides a relatively safe environment to take risks and fail. We were taught that failure was good. Success might indicate you were playing it safe. I know these are generalizations but it helped me not throw in the towel in an arduous learning process.

I completely agree with you that formal training is not a guarantee of success. A diploma is simply a statement of pedigree but my point is that it serves a very solid purpose even if it isn’t an indicator of ultimate success. Prokofiev had a miserable time at the St Petersburg Conservatory because he was such a unique talent that his conservative mentors (Glazunov) misunderstood. It would be a mistake to interpret that as proof the St Petersburg Conservatory served no purpose since this is by far the exception and not the rule.

[wanner251 17]

These are the types of discussions that I enjoy. Universities and conservatories definitely serve a very clear purpose. But unfortunately, they can't serve everyone. I suppose, in my own experience, I wanted to receive from conservatory what everyone else seemed to be getting. Everyone seemed pretty happy with what they were getting, and I kept wondering why I wasn't happy with it. I wish that my experience had been better, and as such, I really bounced around from program to program (jazz, to comp, to eventually classical piano performance). I was really bothered though, that somehow my real-world experience didn't count for anything.

I'm glad that we have both found some middle ground on this. I do think that formal training has its place, but we also need perspective from those who don't have it in order to break through the norm walls that we put up for ourselves with formal training. Sometimes it comes from people who ARE trained as well, but, to me, it is usually a result of perspective outside the ideas of conventional training to break through these walls.

[Salacius 7]

.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

If it wasn't for John I would have found my self completely drifting away from it.

You really need to listen to more scores, dude.

[Salacius 7]

.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So you don't even like film scores, you like John Williams.

[KK 3,307]

That's what I got from all that too.

[Salacius 7]

.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yep, you don't like film scores.

[Salacius 7]

.

[BloodBoal 7,538]