Jump to content

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


Hlao-roo

  

34 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      27


Recommended Posts

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's all on a continuum. All music has roots back thousands of years. But at some arbitrary point we draw a line and say "This is where classical started" and "this is where Romantic music" and "this is the beginning of Jazz" ;)

I think it's fair to say the arbitrary line for where "film music design" begins with Zimmer. Crimson Tide with its beeps and submarine sounds might be the first qualifying entry.

But we could go all the way back to Tom and Jerry for musical design for picture. So yes, it's all a continuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

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.

I agree with the sentiment you raise, but it's not really fair to say he's not a composer, is it? Anyone who writes music of any kind is a composer. There's no other way to define it objectively. Why not just say there are different types of composers, some who have a background in pop and rock rather than classical? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it can sound like we're trying to preserve the term "composer" for only those who are "worthy" of the title, when there is no objective distinction to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One problem with comparing Zimmer with more traditional film music composers is that Zimmer still works very much from a pop background.

While a composer like JW writes every note himself and his orchestrators do little more then copyist work. Zimmer is a collaborator. He invloves others in the writing and production of his music. This is perfectly normal in the pop world, where songs usually arent the sole result of a single artist.

And like the pop scene, Zimmer credits his collaborators on the CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

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.

I agree with the sentiment you raise, but it's not really fair to say he's not a composer, is it? Anyone who writes music of any kind is a composer. There's no other way to define it objectively. Why not just say there are different types of composers, some who have a background in pop and rock rather than classical? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it can sound like we're trying to preserve the term "composer" for only those who are "worthy" of the title, when there is no objective distinction to be made.

No, I agree with you. I'm (rather jokingly) suggesting it might soothe the souls of others if Zimmer and Williams are more semantically segregated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Music Design"

Fits right in with "Costume Design" "Make-Up Design" "Lighting Design"

Not really. Design is just another word for create. I don't understand why everyone is so insecure about calling Zimmer's music music. If you don't like it that's fine, but belittling an artform doesn't make your Johnny Dubs any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You beat me to it. I was about to say that Zimmer had a history as a keyboard and synth player as well as producer in the pop/rock world before he started composing for film, and I think that history is clearly audible in his film music. Also, James Newton Howard commented that when he worked with Zimmer on Batman Begins, it was a good match because they both conceived of the score much like an album, i.e., the way a music producer would. Consider how different his soundtrack albums are from their respective films, blending cues together and rearranging them according to the concerns of an album. All this is to say that Zimmer's film music has strong roots in another kind of music than the formerly more typical connection to concert music. We could probably say it's a new kind of film music, but it would be difficult to call it a new, purely "filmic" type of music.

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.

I agree with the sentiment you raise, but it's not really fair to say he's not a composer, is it? Anyone who writes music of any kind is a composer. There's no other way to define it objectively. Why not just say there are different types of composers, some who have a background in pop and rock rather than classical? I know this isn't what you're saying, but it can sound like we're trying to preserve the term "composer" for only those who are "worthy" of the title, when there is no objective distinction to be made.

No, I agree with you. I'm (rather jokingly) suggesting it might soothe the souls of others if Zimmer and Williams are more semantically segregated.

Ah, jokingly. Gotcha. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) 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.

2) But it does NOT make a piece inherently better than the other.

3) 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....

1) I COMPLETELY agree!

2) I didn't say that.

3) Stravinsky's music broke the "rules" of music theory, yes, but it went FORTH.

It didn't go BACK (if you understand what I'm saying)!

It was something entirely new, that's why it caused so much fuss..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but that was not understood at the time. Its hard, often impossible to distinguish a monumental change with just a temporary fad at the time it's happening.

The Beatles, Elvis etc changed popular music, but it took time for that to be fully acknowledged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.