Wasted Opportunities
By Jesse Hopkins
I think it's time for a new band of composers to do the same thing
Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams did for film music in the '70s and
'80s. The two are still outshining the rest, and the younger composers
need to try harder things. Some stand out a little more than others.
Elfman, Ottman, Beltrami. But mainly, I feel what they add is textural
in content. Good orchestral writing seems to be reserved for suspense
and horror. I would say they carry on the tradition of Herrmann more
than Goldsmith or Williams. Those that are trying to continue in John
Williams' example, such as John Debney, John Powell and Harry
Gregson-Williams are failing to straddle the past and the present of
orchestral music in an all encompassing way. Take for instance, John
Williams use of the 18th century ornaments in his film music. He hasn't
abandoned the use of the "turn" because it has proven throughout the
years to add momentum to a melodic line. All I ever hear from other
lyrical composers are long lines. Harmonically, other lyrical composers
stray from notes that might be considered "weird" in the middle of a
lyrical line. So many things sound like
Chicken Run and Antz's
all white keys and no intrigue approach. Randy Newman has great sense,
and orchestral writing ability, and Thomas Newman has great major/minor
harmonic moments, such as in the climaxes of Shawshank Redemption. But Randy is
typecast in comedy and Thomas is not too orchestral in most of his
delivery.
If I were around during the disputes of the late 19th century, I would
be on the side of programmatic music, and would also hope that all
aspects of previously established techniques would somehow live on in
that music. The romantic sensibility was effective, like a Spielberg
movie is effective. We have all heard detractors of emotional films and
music say that they resented being manipulated by a work. How many
people do you know who hate the emotional content of A.I., claiming that Kubrick would
have remained cerebral. Film can be emotional, but can also be
informational. Music is emotional, and since human emotion is
limitless, musical practices should be limitless.
Those who think romantic practices should be left in the past don't
realize how much the romantics actually accomplished for future
composers. An entire generation of composers sought to define human
emotion in music, based upon the most refined grouping of instruments
ever created: the symphony orchestra. The technical developments in the
instruments themselves followed the desire for more expression. There
are conservatories who ironically use these instruments, yet shun the
expression they were devised around. The instruments were designed to
express, so why would one hope to rob them of their duty? Today's
conservatory composers believe more in the qualities inherent in the
note values themselves. If the goal is to excise expression, then why
not just be a MIDI composer then and stop the accidental expression
that inevitably happens when musicians play any of the Symphonic
instruments no matter how dryly they try to play? Are they hoping that
by using symphonic instruments, they will get the expression they
secretly crave without having to go through the embarrassment of
admitting it in their writing? I hereby challenge the serialists,
atonalists, modernists, sound designers and avante gardists by saying
that their art form too, follows the pattern of the past, taking
advantage of the increased virtuosity of the instruments. No longer
stuck in a scale, they seek new sounds melodies that might inspire the
way the tried and true have.
Though one might search for new timbres and methods, I believe that
many things have been established as effective, and to ignore them when
seeking to compose effective music is to lie with notes. Of course
there is a time and place for everything, therefore serialism and avant
garde could easily mesh with the tried and true to effect the listener
in ways that many polarized listeners have not paid attention to. John
Williams already composes scores which expose vast numbers of people to
all ranges of orchestral sensibility. Do the detractors of Williams see
him as a carrier of the torch of atonality? Certainly not, but I
believe this is because he also uses blatant romanticism, which no
"serious" modern composer would acknowledge in their work. In fact,
they probably don't even hear the moments in A.I. or Close Encounters that are modern
because they take "background music" for granted, acting as though it
wasn't really composed, but crapped out of the film itself, which they
see as the opposite of art. Hollywood is seen by artists as something
to ignore until you notice how much it effects your neighbors -- then
it is time to "deconstruct" its contents. Anyone who claims to be
against Hollywood has reaped its benefits of the soul at least a few
times, unless they were a deprived child who was raised by people who
hoped they would never be corrupted by mainstream entertainment. Even
then, they probably have felt the joy of at least one film or
soundtrack, against the warnings of their tortured guardian souls.
Email the author at: Jeshopk@aol.com
MailBag@filmscoremonthly.com
|
