Is Hans Zimmer the most revolutionary film composer of all time?

[filmmusic 1,822]

You are either a good composer or you're not and in most cases it's a talent you're born with which you then have to develop.

“Generally speaking, I think that a good composer for film must have a COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of COMPOSITION and ORCHESTRATION TECHNIQUES, but also a WIDE KNOWLEDGE of MUSICAL STYLES and LANGUAGES.”

Ennio Morricone

“I am often asked by young composers how they might gain entry into the world of film

music. The answer, of course, cannot be simple. While there is no magic formula, GOOD TRAINING, patience, and a large measure of assistance from lady luck will be INDISPENSABLE”

John Williams

(foreword to “On the Track: A Guide to film scoring”)

“What does it take to be a film composer? First and foremost, a film composer should

have a natural musical talent and an inherent dramatic sense. A WELL ROUNDED TECHNICAL BACKGROUND IS A NECCESSITY, but to be successful, a film composer’s technical skills must be

supported by emotional and psychological disciplines”

Fred Carlin

“from the book “On the Track: A Guide to film scoring”)

No disrespect to "academic" type composers but most of their work is too intellectual to resonate on an emotional level and is meaningless to the majority of the public.

So, John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Herrmann, E.W. Korngold, Miklos Rozsa etc. etc. are meaningless to the public?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

A few people hold on to this notion that Hans Zimmer and his influence are a fleeting fad that will fade to memory in another 25 or 50 years.

They then use this as a basis for why he has made no lasting contribution to the industry.

In two years, Hans will have exerted his stylistic influence on the industry for 20 years.

John Williams own neoromantic influence on film music (Star Wars) was only 18 years old when Zimmer's Crimson Tide rolled around and began permeating Hollywood.

I think it's safe to say Hans influence is not a fleeting fad and hasn't been for quite some time.

[Quintus 5,399]

No, because synth dates very quickly. That is a fact. Even the most sophisticated synth of the day will sound kitsch in time; Zimmer's sophisticatedly engineered pseudo-orchestral bombast isn't immune to that. If you think otherwise you're deluded. His stylistic choices are what will date his music more than any other element of the composition. The melodies will still be good, just like the one for Beverly Hills Cop is. But immediately the listener will be transported back to that exact decade because of the synth. However I'm not aware of Faltermeyer's enduring influence on film music nearly thirty years later.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

His synths may age, but his influence will remain Quint.

It'll more than remain. As synths get better and better it will grow.

[Quintus 5,399]

Mock orchestral synths never gonna replace the symphony orchestra and the truly enduring desire for certain sorts of filmmakers to want real timbre and depth provided by a real orchestra, Blume.

As for the music - well even the man himself has recently claimed that his extremely popular style of pulsing ostinato strings for all things action has had its day in the sun.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah Hans ushered in the contemporary action scoring style of both the 90s and 00s. Does listening to Kormgold and Steiner not transport you back immediately to the 40s and 50s? They're just as dated.

[Quintus 5,399]

No because for me the only thing which dates original Korngold/Steiner scoring is the crude recording technology used at the time. Hearing a modern BBC orchestra play snippets of King Kong and Gone With the Wind was pure power.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Still dated though. The only thing that dates Hans are the crude synths.

[Quintus 5,399]

They didn't sound crude at the time he composed for them though, they sounded cool and modern. Which is my whole point. MoS will sound crude in thirty years. (some would argue it already does )

Zimmer's sound will not endure in Hollywood. Had he used a symphony orchestra it would be different.

Of the last hundred years the only new sound to appear and be proven to have enduring influence is that of the electric guitar. And you think Hans and his keyboard tinkering stands a chance of being anywhere near as indelible?

Cute.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

No because for me the only thing which dates original Korngold/Steiner scoring is the crude recording technology used at the time. Hearing a modern BBC orchestra play snippets of King Kong and Gone With the Wind was pure power.

You are not versed enough to identify a musical time period? What does that say about the validity of the rest of your claims?

[Quintus 5,399]

Of course I hear different, currently unfashionable writing sensibilities, but the music in itself - the sound of it played live - is not dated. And to be quite frank I don't think James Newton Howard's own King Kong is that far removed from Steiner's original.

That's because certain styles of composition have a certain enduring power and can be called upon when necessary, seamlessly.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Still dated though.

Yes, all of those diminished chords and appassionata strings.

[Quintus 5,399]

This thread has reminded me of The Godfather (or really The Sopranos).

Just when I thought I was out... they puuuuuulled me back in.

[publicist 4,643]

We shouldn't forget how the films will be rated in which these kind of scores operate.

[Thor 7,452]

No, because synth dates very quickly. That is a fact. Even the most sophisticated synth of the day will sound kitsch in time; Zimmer's sophisticatedly engineered pseudo-orchestral bombast isn't immune to that. If you think otherwise you're deluded. His stylistic choices are what will date his music more than any other element of the composition. The melodies will still be good, just like the one for Beverly Hills Cop is. But immediately the listener will be transported back to that exact decade because of the synth. However I'm not aware of Faltermeyer's enduring influence on film music nearly thirty years later.

Three points I want to make to that:

1. First of all, Zimmer isn't all about synths. His real pioneering effort was combining them with orchestra (both acoustic and sampled) in a tonal language that lies closer to rock/prog rock/electronica/etc. than classical music, using orchestra as colour rather than an end in itself. The whole 'power anthem' approach was based on this.

2. He has managed to 'update' his own sound and approach consistently. From the early experiments to the power anthems to the textural to the ostinato-based and so on, using whatever new technology is at his disposal. His legacy can only be properly assessed in 20 years, maybe, but he's ALREADY had such an impact for 25 years that I find it 'history-less' to just sweep him off as a fad (whether you like him or not).

3. Faltermeyer had a huge influence (alongside other composers/pop producers who utilized the MIDI technology in the early 80s). While there may not be a lot of things that scream "Faltermeyer" these days in terms of sound, he laid a lot of the groundwork for what you hear today -- a further development of what he did back then. In other words - his enduring influence lies in what he did then.

[Quintus 5,399]

It's not exactly the Star Wars, China Town or Vertigo variety of longevity though is it. Come on. These are the movie sounds which endure. Not Axel F.

[Thor 7,452]

Let's wait and see.

Oh, and I would argue that "Axel F" has long since become a part of popular film music themes as much as JAWS or STAR WARS or PSYCHO. The "Crazy Frog" remix a few years ago (which was awful, btw) which popped up on every radio station and dance floor is an example thereof.

[Quintus 5,399]

As I said, kitschy nostalgia.

[Thor 7,452]

Maybe. I love the 80s myself, and not only the 'kitch' parts.

[Andreas 112]

LOL, no Hans Zimmer is not a revolutionary composer.

The problem with Zimmer is: What is Zimmer?

I am 100% sure that all Zimmer Scores are not complete from the "master" himself.

Pirate of the caribbean OST (first only, Zimmer only Producer) are create from more then 5 composers.

Hans Zimmer use many many ghost writers for his music.

OK he knows some techniques but when you are putting Hans Zimmer alone in room,

give him a synthesizer and a movie to score: HE WILL EPIC FAIL!

Andreas

[Faleel 5,326]

The Root Admin has spoken!

So let it be written...
So let it be done!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Andreas spake the Doom of Zimmer!

And we see that his words are the Truth!

Close this thread!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The problem with Zimmer is: What is Zimmer?

It's an idea.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

He's what Hollywood deserves, but doesn't need right now.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[gkgyver 1,645]

He's what Hollywood deserves, but doesn't need right now.

He's what Hollywood created, and nobody needs right now.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Some people can't dissociate "good" from "influential."

There are lots of things in this world that have been highly influential but not good. The influence of some of these not so good things lasted hundreds if not thousands of years. Consider Vladimir Lenin. He was influential and a revolutionary. His work was an ultimate failure. Yet that failure still exerts influence on our lives to this day.

So the situation is this: people bitch about Zimmer's influence permeating the film industry for the last 13 years. But the answer to "is Zimmer influential?" is "no." So either film music for the last 13 years has been spot on and fantastic for the last 13 years, or Zimmer is influential. A revolutionary as it were!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I am the walrus!

[gkgyver 1,645]

Some people can't dissociate "good" from "influential."

There are lots of things in this world that have been highly influential but not good. The influence of some of these not so good things lasted hundreds if not thousands of years. Consider Vladimir Lenin. He was influential and a revolutionary. His work was an ultimate failure. Yet that failure still exerts influence on our lives to this day.

So the situation is this: people bitch about Zimmer's influence permeating the film industry for the last 13 years. But the answer to "is Zimmer influential?" is "no." So either film music for the last 13 years has been spot on and fantastic for the last 13 years, or Zimmer is influential. A revolutionary as it were!

I don't doubt Zimmer's impact, never have.

He's just an average composer at best, and is going far and beyond berserk on movies beyond his abilities.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I am the walrus!

[Dixon Hill 4,232]

Maybe we should stop calling him a composer. That might make people happier. He's like... a songwriter/producer who works on film music. Not saying that derisively, I just think maybe it better suits his whole aesthetic.

[gkgyver 1,645]

He's a composer alright, just not a very good and diverse one, with a massive loss of reality.

And before Koray poops in, yes, Zimmer used to be somewhat diverse, but that HanZ died a long time ago.

[Ludwig 1,120]

Well, the discussion started off civilly enough, but has devolved into stone throwing, as usual with Zimmer threads. Our community here is tiny enough as it is. Why must we cause giant rifts with the same old Zimmer debate? Save the venom for FSM, where the Zimmer debates are monumental.

[publicist 4,643]

Historically, the word 'revolutionary' denotes an idea or an individual that sets out to radically change something, usually out of a pretty miserable basic situation. It is not 100% applicable in this case, since it was a rather pragmatic shift rather than leading the oppressed Hollywood film music out of misery into the light.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[publicist 4,643]

At least they end in blood boals. Not a pretty sight, either.

[Incanus 5,713]

Well I think it is the JW fan in me that makes me read the title of the thread every time as Is Hans Zimmer the most reviled film composer of all time?

[Thor 7,452]

Well, the discussion started off civilly enough, but has devolved into stone throwing, as usual with Zimmer threads. Our community here is tiny enough as it is. Why must we cause giant rifts with the same old Zimmer debate? Save the venom for FSM, where the Zimmer debates are monumental.

My points exactly, except that I'd prefer the discussions at FSM to be better too.

There are some very few of us (including myself) who are huge Zimmer fans, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to engage in a more critical conversation about some of his output (yes, there are some things that I don't like either) -- as long as it's done constructively with actual concrete arguments and with respect for each other's viewpoints/preferences. That rarely happens, however, which is why I tend to write more about HOW we discuss -- the meta-perspective -- than the actual topic at hand. Like this very post.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,488]

Is HZ the most...etc, etc?

Frankly, no. That is Bernard Herrmann. Whatever anyone did in film music, he did it first. That's why he is the greatest film composer of all-time.

[TownerFan 4,983]

There are some very few of us (including myself) who are huge Zimmer fans, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to engage in a more critical conversation about some of his output (yes, there are some things that I don't like either) -- as long as it's done constructively with actual concrete arguments and with respect for each other's viewpoints/preferences. That rarely happens, however, which is why I tend to write more about HOW we discuss -- the meta-perspective -- than the actual topic at hand. Like this very post.

This is something that happens virtually in every message board after a long time, mainly because the people who post more frequently start to get used to each other and to the respective POVs about most of the topics in discussion, especially in cases of very specific, niche-like subjects like film scores. It's part of the game, I guess, and the reason why many people in the end feel more comfortable in some boards than others.

However, that's also a sign that more often than not the subject of the discussions themselves probably arrived at a dead point. I mean, how long we can discuss perspectives, ideas and point of views about a certain topic, especially a very specific one (like, say, the aesthetic of Hans Zimmer's music or Williams' current style or complete & chronological release vs. album presentation, etc.) after years and years of debate and confrontation? The repetition of the very same concepts and threads is certainly something that speaks more about people's passion for a certain argument than the validity of the argument itself. I mean, we're not UN ambassadors talking about how keeping peace between countries (it's a stretch, I know, but take it as the ultimate example). Certain topics have only a delimited area of discussion that, after a certain amount of time, arrive at its natural end.

That's not to say people cannot nor shouldn't discuss any of those topics--this is a message board after all! But the insistence on certain arguments and the fact that, like you pointed, the subject changes rapidly from "what we're discussing" to "how we're discussing it" is likely a sign that we maybe prefer contributing because we want mainly our voice to be heard, we want to see our opinion valued and appreciated by other fellow members so that we can feel more at ease with our own point of view on certain things. At the very end, we will have always the evergreen "It's all personal taste, you know!" argument on our side, which is usually the killer of any good exchange of POVs. Because let's be frank: what we probably care the most is our own personal opinion about certain things.

I know, this very post is an example of what I just said, but actually this is the reason why I don't post much here nor any other board. I still prefer the "what" than the "how", in this very case. And that's usually much easier and funnier to do in real life conversation than in virtual places. I'd love to see more people getting engaged into speaking WHY they LOVE something instead of getting into pointless bickering about the same old things all the time and getting defensive about certain things or offensive about others. I'm not talking about personal attacks of course, those are simply a sign of disrespect and incivility.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Let's just all go back to calling Giacchino the next Williams!

[Quintus 5,399]

Some people can't dissociate "good" from "influential."

There are lots of things in this world that have been highly influential but not good. The influence of some of these not so good things lasted hundreds if not thousands of years. Consider Vladimir Lenin. He was influential and a revolutionary. His work was an ultimate failure. Yet that failure still exerts influence on our lives to this day.

So the situation is this: people bitch about Zimmer's influence permeating the film industry for the last 13 years. But the answer to "is Zimmer influential?" is "no." So either film music for the last 13 years has been spot on and fantastic for the last 13 years, or Zimmer is influential. A revolutionary as it were!

I can only speak for myself but I don't dispute Zimmer's MASSIVE influence in both the medium and wider pop culture (does anyone?). I'm merely getting involved in the debate as to whether or not Hans' contributions will have longevity and enduring appeal beyond his working lifetime, to which I believe the answer will be no: his sound is just the latest musical fashion and as a result it will not stand the test of time. Hans Zimmer's score work IS revolutionary - in its time. But I don't accept the notion that it represents a lasting musical evolution.

Well, the discussion started off civilly enough, but has devolved into stone throwing, as usual with Zimmer threads. Our community here is tiny enough as it is. Why must we cause giant rifts with the same old Zimmer debate? Save the venom for FSM, where the Zimmer debates are monumental.

Where is this happening in this thread? I must have missed it. All seems relatively civilised to me.

[Thor 7,452]

There are some very few of us (including myself) who are huge Zimmer fans, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to engage in a more critical conversation about some of his output (yes, there are some things that I don't like either) -- as long as it's done constructively with actual concrete arguments and with respect for each other's viewpoints/preferences. That rarely happens, however, which is why I tend to write more about HOW we discuss -- the meta-perspective -- than the actual topic at hand. Like this very post.

This is something that happens virtually in every message board after a long time, mainly because the people who post more frequently start to get used to each other and to the respective POVs about most of the topics in discussion, especially in cases of very specific, niche-like subjects like film scores. It's part of the game, I guess, and the reason why many people in the end feel more comfortable in some boards than others.

However, that's also a sign that more often than not the subject of the discussions themselves probably arrived at a dead point. I mean, how long we can discuss perspectives, ideas and point of views about a certain topic, especially a very specific one (like, say, the aesthetic of Hans Zimmer's music or Williams' current style or complete & chronological release vs. album presentation, etc.) after years and years of debate and confrontation? The repetition of the very same concepts and threads is certainly something that speaks more about people's passion for a certain argument than the validity of the argument itself. I mean, we're not UN ambassadors talking about how keeping peace between countries (it's a stretch, I know, but take it as the ultimate example). Certain topics have only a delimited area of discussion that, after a certain amount of time, arrive at its natural end.

That's not to say people cannot nor shouldn't discuss any of those topics--this is a message board after all! But the insistence on certain arguments and the fact that, like you pointed, the subject changes rapidly from "what we're discussing" to "how we're discussing it" is likely a sign that we maybe prefer contributing because we want mainly our voice to be heard, we want to see our opinion valued and appreciated by other fellow members so that we can feel more at ease with our own point of view on certain things. At the very end, we will have always the evergreen "It's all personal taste, you know!" argument on our side, which is usually the killer of any good exchange of POVs. Because let's be frank: what we probably care the most is our own personal opinion about certain things.

I know, this very post is an example of what I just said, but actually this is the reason why I don't post much here nor any other board. I still prefer the "what" than the "how", in this very case. And that's usually much easier and funnier to do in real life conversation than in virtual places. I'd love to see more people getting engaged into speaking WHY they LOVE something instead of getting into pointless bickering about the same old things all the time and getting defensive about certain things or offensive about others. I'm not talking about personal attacks of course, those are simply a sign of disrespect and incivility.

You make some good points, Maurizio, and I agree with most of what you say. The only place I'm more "positive" than you, perhaps, is that I see the potential for new discoveries even in topics that have been debated to death over the years. One of the best examples I can think of is a debate I had with member estgrey at FSM some years ago, where we discussed the pros and cons of original recordings vs. rerecordings. Our discussion was long and heated at times, but there was always a thrust forward into somewhat new territory because we had to challenge our own conceptions about things as specific points were brought up. On the other end of the scale, it also allowed room for general, philosophical discussions about what it is, exactly, that we look for in film music and film music recordings.

Of course, such discussions are rare. You need a) at least two participants with somewhat opposing views that b) respect each other's viewpoints, c) have the desire to keep a discussion going for a while (stamina), d) avoid personal attacks and e) have an interest in in-depth discussions about aesthetics/film analysis/sociology etc. Getting all these elements in place is not easy in a niche forum or any kind of forum, really. At some point, others may butt in who do not have the same qualities or interests in mind and so it derails from there. But I do think it is something to strive for, and I don't want to announce the "death of film music topics" just yet.

[Ludwig 1,120]

Some people can't dissociate "good" from "influential."

There are lots of things in this world that have been highly influential but not good. The influence of some of these not so good things lasted hundreds if not thousands of years. Consider Vladimir Lenin. He was influential and a revolutionary. His work was an ultimate failure. Yet that failure still exerts influence on our lives to this day.

So the situation is this: people bitch about Zimmer's influence permeating the film industry for the last 13 years. But the answer to "is Zimmer influential?" is "no." So either film music for the last 13 years has been spot on and fantastic for the last 13 years, or Zimmer is influential. A revolutionary as it were!

I can only speak for myself but I don't dispute Zimmer's MASSIVE influence in both the medium and wider pop culture (does anyone?). I'm merely getting involved in the debate as to whether or not Hans' contributions will have longevity and enduring appeal beyond his working lifetime, to which I believe the answer will be no: his sound is just the latest musical fashion and as a result it will not stand the test of time. Hans Zimmer's score work IS revolutionary - in its time. But I don't accept that it represents a lasting musical evolution.

Well, the discussion started off civilly enough, but has devolved into stone throwing, as usual with Zimmer threads. Our community here is tiny enough as it is. Why must we cause giant rifts with the same old Zimmer debate? Save the venom for FSM, where the Zimmer debates are monumental.

Where is this happening in this thread? I must have missed it. All seems relatively civilised to me.

It's the general mud-slinging I'm opposed to. There are more respectful ways of disagreeing.

You make some good points, Maurizio, and I agree with most of what you say. The only place I'm more "positive" than you, perhaps, is that I see the potential for new discoveries even in topics that have been debated to death over the years. One of the best examples I can think of is a debate I had with member estgrey at FSM some years ago, where we discussed the pros and cons of original recordings vs. rerecordings. Our discussion was long and heated at times, but there was always a thrust forward into somewhat new territory because we had to challenge our own conceptions about things as specific points were brought up. On the other end of the scale, it also allowed room for general, philosophical discussions about what it is, exactly, that we look for in film music and film music recordings.

Of course, such discussions are rare. You need a) at least two participants with somewhat opposing views that b) respect each other's viewpoints, c) have the desire to keep a discussion going for a while (stamina), d) avoid personal attacks and e) have an interest in in-depth discussions about aesthetics/film analysis/sociology etc. Getting all these elements in place is not easy in a niche forum or any kind of forum, really. At some point, others may butt in who do not have the same qualities or interests in mind and so it derails from there. But I do think it is something to strive for, and I don't want to announce the "death of film music topics" just yet.

I would agree, though we could simplify somewhat. Point (d) falls under (b), and © is a consequence of (e). For point (a), I would add that the participants need not disagree, only to be willing to assess things from another point of view, whether or not one has encountered that viewpoint before. In short, if one is interested in the in-depth discussions you mention, what is needed is a willingness to change or refine one's thinking based on others' ideas, and a respectful manner of discussion. Disagreement is a good source of this kind of change, but more often than not, it's posed in condescending or outright offensive language, and that serves as a roadblock to further discussion. Even if one fundamentally disagrees with a certain point of view and a discussion doesn't end up changing that, with enough depth to the discussion, it is possible to come away understanding better what the opposing views are, and hence further refine one's own views. So even the most polarized debate can be a valuable source of understanding, so long as those involved are willing to allow discussions to open up and resist the urge to shut them down with caustic remarks.

[Thor 7,452]

Yeah, what he said!

[filmmusic 1,822]

Although i try to abstain from this thread, I wanted to say this:

In my opinion , if the participants in a music discussion about the significance or not of a music composer, don't use any specific musical and scientific arguments based on melody, harmony, form and generally music theory, every other discussion is really vague and noone can prove that John Williams' music is good, or Zimmer's music is bad or whatever else.

It's just one's arguments against the other's.

So, since this is not a musical academic forum, I think that such discussions don't offer anything and will always result in the same thing...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[filmmusic 1,822]

Please, be more polite on the internet when you're talking to someone, filmmusic!

What part of my post is impolite?

(Ok, i get the joke.. )

[Quintus 5,399]

Although i try to abstain from this thread, I wanted to say this:

In my opinion , if the participants in a music discussion about the significance or not of a music composer, don't use any specific musical and scientific arguments based on melody, harmony, form and generally music theory, every other discussion is really vague and noone can prove that John Williams' music is good, or Zimmer's music is bad or whatever else.

It's just one's arguments against the other's.

So, since this is not a musical academic forum, I think that such discussions don't offer anything and will always result in the same thing...

Oh get over yourself!

[filmmusic 1,822]

Although i try to abstain from this thread, I wanted to say this:

In my opinion , if the participants in a music discussion about the significance or not of a music composer, don't use any specific musical and scientific arguments based on melody, harmony, form and generally music theory, every other discussion is really vague and noone can prove that John Williams' music is good, or Zimmer's music is bad or whatever else.

It's just one's arguments against the other's.

So, since this is not a musical academic forum, I think that such discussions don't offer anything and will always result in the same thing...

Oh get over yourself!

Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you explain what do you mean?