 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 25, 2013 - 3:11 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CinemaScope
(Member)
|
Hmmm...I don't know. I'm not in the mood for another "oh, everything sucks these days and everything used to be so much better back in the day" rants, no matter who says them. Before I click it, can you tell me something about the balance of negativity/positivity?
If it's wellbalanced, I'll have a listen. If it's one-sided, I'll skip it.
Well I thought it was well balanced, but that's probably because I'm tired of the - thick wall of sound, big echoey drums & not remembering a note of the score two minutes after the film has finished. But then it's not like some great movies are getting bad scores, more like a lot of bad movies are getting bad scores. Movie making by committee, bad idea, but it looks like Hollywood has lost its nerve & doesn't trust any one person anymore. I was surprised just how cheesed off Horner was about the whole situation.
I'd skip it if I was you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor:
If it's one-sided, I'll skip it.
I'm going to use that for every post you make in new limited edition announcement threads. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 25, 2013 - 3:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Hmmm...I don't know. I'm not in the mood for another "oh, everything sucks these days and everything used to be so much better back in the day" rants, no matter who says them. Before I click it, can you tell me something about the balance of negativity/positivity?
If it's wellbalanced, I'll have a listen. If it's one-sided, I'll skip it.
Well I thought it was well balanced, but that's probably because I'm tired of the - thick wall of sound, big echoey drums & not remembering a note of the score two minutes after the film has finished. But then it's not like some great movies are getting bad scores, more like a lot of bad movies are getting bad scores. Movie making by committee, bad idea, but it looks like Hollywood has lost its nerve & doesn't trust any one person anymore. I was surprised just how cheesed off Horner was about the whole situation.
I'd skip it if I was you
Yeah, from your description it sounds like something that could provoke me in its one-sidedness. I'll save it for a later time when I'm more receptive to that kind of stuff. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My issue with this debate is that it seems to ignore the history of Hollywood film music.
Most movies in a given period share a certain sound, or really a set of sound choices. Sweeping (and often weepy) Golden Age scores built on late Romanticism and popular song styles; eighties and nineties adventures of all kinds that couldn't shake Star Wars for a generation; Oscar-bait pictures that might as well all be scored by late-period John Barry, whoever is penning them; simplified orchestral jazz updated by period to the noir demands of the decade. And on and on.
There are occasional outliers like Bernard Herrmann who ultimately sound like no one else, and exceptional practitioners who own a sound and are exemplars in their practice (Rozsa, Williams, Goldsmith, Barry). But the sound is very consistent, and often less and less distinctive the longer it goes on - whatever the period.
That is essentially what's happening now - wacky comedy scores that sound more-or-less like wacky comedy scores throughout film history; bombastic minimalism; quirky minimalism; foreboding sound design; sad (or sadly triumphant) piano and strings. With the innovation of less reliance on melody ... but that too is a long road, that includes much of Herrmann and Goldsmith, whose music is often built on small musical cells (even if extended into longer tunes) rather than long-limbed melody - because that approach works especially well for films - you can make a musical impression in just a few notes, which is very helpful in movie time.
This is not new - just the preferences of the period have changed. And will change again - and most of the movies of that next period will be mostly consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was fun to hear Horner enthusing about Williams' "Superman."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 25, 2013 - 10:26 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
dv95327
(Member)
|
I have to say that Yared's closing thoughts were just on point. A lack of ethic in the emotional process and the oncoming death of classical music are really tied into what is going on in film music. If you notice, no one wants to feel as a result of their films anymore (unless that feeling is some very extreme emotion). Is it indicative of our society now that we are incapable of feeling subtle emotions?
I also, as always, appreciated Horner's candor. His discussion of where Man of Steel is inadequate is spot on. His thought on modern music are clear and correct (it does lead me to wonder how many more scores Horner has left in him as he sounds depressed and disillusioned through this interview, especially considering both his 2013 projects were beached). I also found it interesting that Horner could explain the Zimmer/RC musical construct better than either Balfe or Zimmer could!
I love the discussion of 300 and the legalese in there. Bates' statement was hysterically evasive!
Finally, I just have to comment on Lorne Balfe. Balfe seemed like a very nasty person and listening to him was painful. He seemed so sneering of the interviewer and dismissive of anyone--be them composers or filmmakers--with legitimate, academic musical knowledge. Balfe seemed absolutely arrogant about his utter lack of education, very much "Hey look at me! I'm modern and I'm 100% right and you're stupid for knowing these terms." Balfe seemed bewildered anyone would know musical terminology, and I was horrified when he said he'd need to Google it! His interview stood in stark contrast to Zimmer, who as always was humble about his lack of knowledge but demonstrated a craving to learn the musical language. Perfect? No, but I give him a lot of props.
One missed opportunity was the time spent with Elfman. One could (and really should) bring up that Elfman, like Zimmer, is not classically trained and came out of the rock world. But yet, Elfman still uses big orchestras, themes, style, etc. So Zimmer/Balfe saying that's why they write like they do could be easily demonstrated to be an excuse (I'm not trying to degrade Zimmer, just pointing out how is logic doesn't quite work).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
