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

[publicist 4,643]

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,

How exactly does this help in discussing the influence of something or someone? I think not even Thor will dispute that RCP scores are rather innocous musically, but their influence still dwarfs gazillions of more musically advanced approaches.

[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!

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

You seem to be under the impression that the musically trained and versed always have interesting things to say and are the only valid voice in such debates when history here has shown that they're instead often dull as dishwater with the same old blinkered points of view.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Well, i think the discussion was not always about the influence of someone, but it turned out again that this composer is good, that composer is bad and so on.

The title of the thread is about "revolutionary".

Again, for someone to prove that, i think he would need to be based on valid theories..

If we talk about "popularity", that is another thing.

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?

You seem to be under the impression that the musically trained and versed have interesting things to say and are the only valid voice in such debates when history here has shown that they're instead often dull as dishwater with the same old blinkered points of view.

No, i don't think that they have interesting things to say, but i think that they could more easily prove, why one's music is more sophisticated than the other's.

And there are degrees in the way the musical trained that you say, see things.

I mean, I know quite a few that would even say that all film music is of no importance whatsoever. (even Herrmann's or Williams').

I don't mean them...

And i wouldn't go on labeling a person's views that may have studied 40-50 years on music as dull.

They may seem to you like this, as a doctor's views on the new revolutionary ways of surgery will seem to me.

[publicist 4,643]

Semantically, 'revolutionary' is a rather broad term (though i suspect that Hlao-roo might have had something in mind, even if it was just a bit of shit-stirring). There are no valid theories to prove 'revolutionary-ness' (in relation to what, anyway? Film composing isn't an exact science, either)

[filmmusic 1,838]

Then it would be wiser to use specific adjectives when we're talking about something.

We mean revolutionary musically? (here music theory comes to answer)

Revolutionary sociologically? (here social sciences will come to answer)

Revolutionary narratively to the film? (here film sciences will come to answer)

But anyway, my post was more general about the good /bad debate and the need of all of us to prove that something is good or otherwise.

[Thor 7,518]

filmmusic,

It would definitely be an advantage if all the participants were versed in musical theory. As it happens, though, it's not really a prerequisite when it comes to film music discussion, since one is able to talk about how it works in CONTEXT with visuals. All you really need for that is a keen analytical sense and maybe an adjective or two.

Furthermore, I also think it's possible to talk about the music itself without a musical education. Again, we all have adjectives and at least some BASIC understanding of musical terminology. It's often enough to describe the music in laymen terms, and how it relates to us (where we see the qualities and where we don't).

One can actually have some pretty decent, in-depth discussions without either education in film or music terminology.

[Quintus 5,399]

We just need a couple of musicians to come in and talk down to us about it and we're all set!

[publicist 4,643]

Sociologically is a wrong term, cultural may be what you mean, narratively might apply, too. But still, the tendency here and elsewhere is to simply slap terms that have a positive connotation onto things you like while rejecting terms that might be seen more as neutral or negative. 'Revolution' isn't a positive term, per se, but most people associate it with a forward movement. On these grounds it is fair to say RCP has introduced a technical revolution and a musical regression at the same time.

[Quintus 5,399]

Well worded.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Furthermore, I also think it's possible to talk about the music itself without a musical education.

of course there can be talks and in-depth discussions about music without a musical background, but I'm trying to explain that those discussions reflect the personal tastes of the participants.

If you don't like Stravinsky, i can't persuade you to like him or that he is one of the most important composers.

But if you have a musical background (i use "you" rhetorically), perhaps you could understand why he is an important composer.

That's exactly why i'm saying such discussions don't lead to anywhere, because noone can persuade the other about something.

It's all a matter of personal taste.

(again, if we're talking about the strictly musical side of things)

I don't know if Ludwig, who teaches in an academic level, can understand what I'm trying to say, and if I put it correctly.

Am I entirely wrong Ludwig or is there a point somewhere?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wait...is Filmmusic really saying I need a music degree to be able to state that JW's music is more sophisticated then Zimmers???

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

All you need for that is a pair of ears.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[publicist 4,643]

And he was better back then.

[Thor 7,518]

Please let me know when the Zimmer bashing/cheap shots have wound down again so we can continue the discussion. Those are exactly the kind of things we were trying to counter in our "meta-discussion".

[publicist 4,643]

And were defeated...again!

[filmmusic 1,838]

Wait...is Filmmusic really saying I need a music degree to be able to state that JW's music is more sophisticated then Zimmers???

No.

I was really saying that you need a musical education to prove if this statement is true or false.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

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...

So you are saying two things. One: that it is provable, via music theory, that music A is better than music B?

False.

Music theory is simply a body of knowledge. A body of knowledge that helps analyze and create. Analysis helps us better understand the question of "how does this work" it does not tell us whether music is good or bad.

Two: you are saying that knowing music theory would help the conversation, in that it will reduce confusion if everyone is on the same page in terms of terminology and concepts discussed.

I think you are right on that second point.

[filmmusic 1,838]

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...

So you are saying two things. One: that it is provable, via music theory, that music A is better than music B?

False.

Music theory is simply a body of knowledge. A body of knowledge that helps analyze and create. Analysis helps us better understand the question of "how does this work" it does not tell us whether music is good or bad.

So, you're saying that having studied and having a good knowledge of a language, having a very rich vocabulary, knowing narrative techniques and so on, won't help me prove that a Tolstoy novel is better than an X novel that just someone wrote?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That is comparing apples with oranges..

Structuring a story, or even a sentence is something very different then structuring a piece of music.

Your suggestion that non musically educated people are not in any position to have an informed and valid opinion is quite ignorant and totally ignores the fact that there are some here that have listened to John William's music for decades.

[publicist 4,643]

@ filmmusic:

You're on a slippery ladder there, boy. What you are saying is that we're all grown adults ( ) that should be able to acknowledge that 1+1=2.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE!

A lot of people have an irrational attachment to things they like and are hardly able to differentiate that WHAT I THINK is not necessarily badge of honor or any distinguishing factor. So if we leave aside Zimmer for a moment, i think we can objectively say that John Williams is no innovator and this could be objectively proven - as far as such a thing is possible. It would be no foul against Williams, either, since part of his longstanding success seems to be exactly based on that fact. Still, there would be plenty of people going gung-ho about it.

Your suggestion that non musically educated people are not in any position to have an informed and valid opinion is quite ignorant and totally ignores the fact that there are some here that have listened to John William's music for decades.

I think it's more that he hopes that between musically educated, there would be no poll asking about RCP and musical revolutions in one sentence.

[filmmusic 1,838]

That is comparing apples with oranges..

Structuring a story, or even a sentence is something very different then structuring a piece of music.

I'm afraid it's not THAT different (and this is not my personal opinion. It's scientifically proven. We even use terms borrowed from linguistics in music [phrase, period, sentence etc.])

(Williams himself has said also that the Beethoven sonatas read like novels, and that he reads them before sleeping)

Your suggestion that non musically educated people are not in any position to have an informed and valid opinion is quite ignorant and totally ignores the fact that there are some here that have listened to John William's music for decades.

Do you read my posts Stefan?

i said they won't be able to prove it. Not that they don't have an opinion.

And i'm strictly speaking about the musical side.

Every argument that will be used will be in connection to the film or in connection to instrumentation.

There will be no argument that will persuade me or you that Williams is a better musical composer than someone else.

yes, you listen to John Williams' music and you know it's great! You know he is a great composer. You know that he is greater than others. I don't argue at all with that.

I believe you know it and I'm sure you do! You are listening for decades to film soundtracks and you have developed a certain aesthetics and know what is good and what is bad.

But can you explain why?

[Quintus 5,399]

Wait...is Filmmusic really saying I need a music degree to be able to state that JW's music is more sophisticated then Zimmers???

No.

I was really saying that you need a musical education to prove if this statement is true or false.

Sorry, but a qualified musician is still unqualified to "prove" your statement one way or the other. The "truth" isn't in the hands of the academia exclusively, ya know.

[publicist 4,643]

You need at least 20!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

So, you're saying that having studied and having a good knowledge of a language, having a very rich vocabulary, knowing narrative techniques and so on, won't help me prove that a Tolstoy novel is better than an X novel that just someone wrote?

That's a good question. So let's answer it with some more questions:

Does having in-depth knowledge of the English language, vocabulary, narrative techniques mean you know what a good novel is? What is a good novel? How do you define it? Do you define it as how well it adheres to the in-depth rules of grammar you just learned? Does that really tell you how "good" the literary work is?

Or does it just tell you "this book adheres closely to the rules I have in my body of knowledge." Sure, you can choose to define "good" as how closely the novel adheres to the rules you've learned. But let's be clear: that is you defining good, not the prevailing rule of English grammar or English vocabulary. All you've done is turn "good" into a synonym for "adheres to the rules of prevailing English language."

So let's bring it back to music theory, and this discussion. Western music theory is the rulebook for a particular language: western classical music. Now you are trying to compare Zimmer and Williams. Can you even consider Zimmer as a Western Musician? Yeah, he lives in the West. But his music is a big departure from traditional Western music that John Williams writes.

The only empirical conclusion you can draw with your vast array of knowledge is that Zimmer does not write traditional Western music. In the same way that if you are comparing The Sound and the Fury and Beowulf using Old English grammar and vocabulary, the only empirical conclusion you can draw is The Sound and the Fury is not written in Old English.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But can you explain why?

Yes I can.

John Williams is a great composer because, aside from his obvious technical compositional skill, he also has the ability to move people to tears with his music. The scare them, involve them, make them care. None of thi sactually has a lot to do with technical skill alone (though natirally it is part of it)

But the fact is compositional skill alone is not enough to make you a great composer. There needs to be a so-called X-Factor.

[filmmusic 1,838]

But can you explain why?

Yes I can.

John Williams is a great composer because, aside from his obvious technical compositional skill, he also has the ability to move people to tears with his music. The scare them, involve them, make them care. None of thi sactually has a lot to do with technical skill alone (though natirally it is part of it)

But the fact is compositional skill alone is not enough to make you a great composer. There needs to be a so-called X-Factor.

The exact same thing can someone say about Hans Zimmer!

So, who's wrong and who's right?

@Blum

that's why maybe "better" or "good" is not a suitable word.

Maybe we should use "interesting", "sophisticated".

Eg." using a variety of chords and inversions of chords in a musical piece, makes it more interesting, and more sophisticated, for the standards of Western music, than a piece which uses 3-4 common chords the most and no inversions at all."

This is an example, of what I'm taking about.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So, you're saying that having studied and having a good knowledge of a language, having a very rich vocabulary, knowing narrative techniques and so on, won't help me prove that a Tolstoy novel is better than an X novel that just someone wrote?

That's a good question. So let's answer it with some more questions:

Does having in-depth knowledge of the English language, vocabulary, narrative techniques mean you know what a good novel is? What is a good novel? How do you define it? Do you define it as how well it adheres to the in-depth rules of grammar you just learned? Does that really tell you how "good" the literary work is?

It does if you completely discount the imagination of the author.

There seems to be a modern day tendency among the academically learned to want to explain artistic "brilliance" in absolute, mathematical terms. Like it can be explained in a formula, and therefore replicated.

If that is so, why has there never been a second Shakespeare? Or Mozart? or Van Gogh?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

There seems to be a modern day tendency among the academically learned to want to explain artistic "brilliance" in absolute, mathematical terms. Like it can be explained in a formula, and therefore replicated.

If that is so, why has there never been a second Shakespeare? Or Mozart? or Van Gogh?

Because they are complicated equations.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But can you explain why?

Yes I can.

John Williams is a great composer because, aside from his obvious technical compositional skill, he also has the ability to move people to tears with his music. The scare them, involve them, make them care. None of thi sactually has a lot to do with technical skill alone (though natirally it is part of it)

But the fact is compositional skill alone is not enough to make you a great composer. There needs to be a so-called X-Factor.

The exact same thing can someone say about Hans Zimmer!

So, who's wrong and who's right?

Since we are talking about, in some ways, an artform, it really isn't scientifically provable that John Williams is a better composer. It's a matter of opinion, instinct, and ultimatly posterity.

I feel John Williams is a better, more diverse, rounded composer the Hans Zimmer will ever be. I base that opinion on decades of knowledge of the music of both composers. I can't offer a scientifically founded argument for that opinion. But I feel I should not be expected too.

If you ask Zimmer if John Williams is a better composer I'm 100% sure he would yes yes, and mean it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

There seems to be a modern day tendency among the academically learned to want to explain artistic "brilliance" in absolute, mathematical terms. Like it can be explained in a formula, and therefore replicated.

If that is so, why has there never been a second Shakespeare? Or Mozart? or Van Gogh?

Because they are complicated equations.

Careful. That's a slippery slope. It's easy to show mathematically that the Beatles "Hey Jude" is a more complex piece mathematically than "Theme from Jurassic Park."

[filmmusic 1,838]

So, you're saying that having studied and having a good knowledge of a language, having a very rich vocabulary, knowing narrative techniques and so on, won't help me prove that a Tolstoy novel is better than an X novel that just someone wrote?

That's a good question. So let's answer it with some more questions:

Does having in-depth knowledge of the English language, vocabulary, narrative techniques mean you know what a good novel is? What is a good novel? How do you define it? Do you define it as how well it adheres to the in-depth rules of grammar you just learned? Does that really tell you how "good" the literary work is?

It does if you completely discount the imagination of the author.

There seems to be a modern day tendency among the academically learned to want to explain artistic "brilliance" in absolute, mathematical terms. Like it can be explained in a formula, and therefore replicated.

If that is so, why has there never been a second Shakespeare? Or Mozart? or Van Gogh?

you raise a VERY GOOD POINT here!!!

Because a GREAT composer is a COMBINATION of good musical background/knowledge AND an inherent natural talent!

[publicist 4,643]

Talent for what? Writing music or writing music to picture? Two very different things.

[Faleel 5,359]

.....Hans Zimmer sucks. lets move on

[filmmusic 1,838]

Talent for what? Writing music or writing music to picture? Two very different things.

oh, i was speaking generally about a composer.

Then, if we're speaking specifically about a film composer, talent for BOTH.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I think Zimmer actually has quite a good talent for writing music to picture. Far more often then not his music serves the film well. And at times he really elevates it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Filmmusic, your comments hint that you may have studied music theory for the wrong reasons. You don't seem to appreciate its purpose, its utility, or its limitations.

I would hope that you studied music theory in the hopes of wanting to understand and dissect music. But you seem to want to bastardize it for the purposes of making arbitrary binary judgements in arguments.

Kudos. The world needs MORE people like you.

[tedfud 38]

whether or not you like his music....and i do....he has completely revolutionised the way soundtracks are made. Partly in the musical approach and partly in the actual business of there construction. I would say his influence has probably had the biggest effect in the history of cinema music. I really can't think of any other composer who has had such an effect on both these areas.

t

[filmmusic 1,838]

Filmmusic, your comments hint that you may have studied music theory for the wrong reasons. You don't seem to appreciate its purpose, its utility, or its limitations.

I would hope that you studied music theory in the hopes of wanting to understand and dissect music. But you seem to want to bastardize it for the purposes of making arbitrary binary judgements in arguments.

Kudos. The world needs MORE people like you.

well, i think you got the wrong impression here and that is really why I should have abstained from this thread, as I said in the start.

And I'd really appreciate it if you didn't use ironic comments towards me, because I think I haven't used irony towards anyone here (and i'm always trying not to), and I'm just trying to discuss and express as more eloquently as I can (due to the language restrictions) my views..

edit:

I just wanted to add this.

Everything in music is not at random or by chance.

There is a reason why Mozart is considered the greatest composer and not another one from his time.

There is a reason why Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, Debussy etc. are great composers.

The reasons CAN be explained by musical theory.

That is what I'm trying to say all this time.

I'm not suggesting at all that we must use musical theory to distinguish the bad from the good composers.

I'm suggesting that we can use it to explain why is something good or bad. (or more or less interesting, or more or less sophisticated if you like)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well the vienanese school of film composition (Steiner, Korngold, etc) was hugly influential for a very long time

But I would have to agree that Zimmer's style (even though it's rooted in other European "pop" composers) has been one of the longest lasting influences on Hollywood film music thus far.

If it will will have any longivity beyond the career of Zimmer is simply a matter that history will rule out.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Zimmer did something very important for film music. He severed the awkward link between concert music and film music. Film composers had this awkward relationship with their classical counterparts: they were doing classical works, but at the same time being lambasted by the classical/concert community for doing so.

That tenuous link was sustained though because film composers wanted to be known and respected as composers. Not just film composers.

Zimmer's music ended that. He turned film music into film music, not music that served dual purposes: concert-worthy and film-music worthy.

I honestly don't know if that's a good thing or bad, but it will be a lasting influence for sure.

[publicist 4,643]

He did nothing of the sort, symphonic writing still exists and there were other pop/jazz/rock composers before Zimmer.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

No one is disputing that symphonic writing exists. But most film music today is now fully in service of film rather than trying to serve any concert purpose. That is the doing of Zimmer. That is why film music sounds the way it does. That is why most of us lament modern film music.

The era of "film composers" is fading out. The era of "Music Designers" is gradually supplanting it.

there were other pop/jazz/rock composers before Zimmer.

I don't think Zimmer is writing orchestral pop. When I think orchestral pop I think of Ludovico Einaudi and Yani.

Zimmer is designing film music.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with Blume.

John Williams is a symphonic composer witha jazz background who happens to have written most of his works for film.

Zimmer might be the first PURE film composer.

[KK 3,307]

In a sense, I agree with Blume. Zimmer pushed film music to become a form that in the majority, is there to solely serve the film, not so much to stand on its own legs outside of it. Again, doesn't apply to all music, because symphonic writing continues to exist. But where once film music could be celebrated in the concert hall almost as much as concert music is, it's not so much the case anymore.

And filmmusic, it's important to understand what exactly musical theory is. It's not there to show that music A is greater than music B. Musical Theory is essentially a language we essentially use to express the various facets of music and why things are the way things are. It's a language that allows us to dig into music with greater detail to find what makes it so great for us. It's a language that allows us to explain why we think music A is better than music B. But it does NOT make a piece inherently better than the other.

What you're saying seems to apply that the more a piece conforms to established musical rules, the better it is. If this was the case, you're essentially agreeing with all the folks who thought Stravinsky was a talentless composer and The Rite of Spring was utter trash. That was a piece that largely broke all the rules of the musical trends of the time (which is why it was hated at first). Rules in music, just as in literature, are there to help us understand how things work, and oftentimes, especially with greater works, are meant to be broken.

Ultimately, all opinions on music are in some way subjective. As I said before, being well versed in musical theory is great because it allows us to appreciate and express why we enjoy or marvel at a certain piece. It also helps us construct pieces of our own, because it's easier to write a book knowing the language than to start from scratch. The reason we celebrate Mozart and Beethoven is because the majority of the world appreciates the music, and musical theory allows to express why.

Hopefully some of that makes sense....

[Quintus 5,399]

Didn't Zimmer used to be in a band among other things as well?

[KK 3,307]

I think so. Before he started writing for commercials and working with Stanley Meyer.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Didn't Zimmer used to be in a band among other things as well?

Yes he was. Don't tell me you don't know this classic?

[Quintus 5,399]

Yeah, and who can forget the awesome theme to Going For Gold with Henry Kelly.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed.

Elfman and Shore were in bands too, around the same time as Zimmer. They eventually chose a more conventional symphonic route as film composers though.