 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alex North said he had a hard time connecting to Dragonslayer. I don't think he said he "hated" scoring it but just found it difficult to get into it.
He still delivered an amazing score nonetheless!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect way more composes hate the projects they've worked on than will ever say/post, simply because they don't want to burn bridges and deny themselves future paychecks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo Friedhofer wasn't fond of scoring "Private Parts" which he called "repellent"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are different things a composer may "hate". This is talking about the film itself, but a composer may hate the feedback from the director or production team.
In the case of hating the film, the composer does not see merit in the film itself and is uninspired with the music.
In the case of hating the feedback, the composer usually has a perspective they are invested in, which usually means they care. In the case of ALIENS, Goldsmith disagreed with the director and I think still believed his approach was better. In the case of STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, Goldsmith disagreed
For describing the work as being like any other job vs. being art, I think there are some key misunderstandings. First off, film composing is a job in "the arts", which is fundamentally going to be different than jobs that are not in the arts. Whether it's true "art", the job still requires artistic sensibilities and creative approaches at the minimum. Secondly, film composing is a project-based job. Some composers will only do a couple "projects" per year. In contrast, many jobs are NOT project-based and the ones that ARE project / client based are still part of a continuum of work throughout an entire year.
Finally, there are composers who view their work as art. John Williams is one of them - his whole lifestyle is built around love of the art of composing and you see a consistent push in his work to achieve that. However, film music, like a film itself, has key moments and not EVERY moment is a moment of pure art. When it comes to the orchestrations and filling out moments of action, there is a lot more room for the composer / orchestrators to just "do the job".
In the case of Goldsmith, the quality of the films he worked on has always been a point of confusion, especially when compared to Williams, because Goldsmith has worked on a lot of bad films. But in interviews, Goldsmith clearly has an artistic and creative point of view.
Both Goldsmith and Williams achieved a point in their careers where they could approach film music as a pure art form. Goldsmith, for whatever reason, was less-successful at this as he still took on bad films. But both composers have described in interviews thinking about how the music will play outside the film. That's art. But any composer starts out by cranking out the work. Goldsmith's and Williams' early work in TV? Artful, creative, but not something I'd say are pure works of art.
Steve Jablonsky, Klaus Badelt, Junkie XL? Going to their day job.
Bear McCreary, Ramin Djawadi? Mostly going to their day job.
Michael Giacchino, Alexandre Desplat, Dario Marianelli? Composers trying very hard to make artful scores.
Jerry Goldsmith, Ennio Morricone, John Williams? Artists making commercial art with a keen eye for the "pure-art" outside the film as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are different things a composer may "hate". This is talking about the film itself, but a composer may hate the feedback from the director or production team.
In the case of hating the film, the composer does not see merit in the film itself and is uninspired with the music.
In the case of hating the feedback, the composer usually has a perspective they are invested in, which usually means they care. In the case of ALIENS, Goldsmith disagreed with the director and I think still believed his approach was better. In the case of STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, Goldsmith disagreed
For describing the work as being like any other job vs. being art, I think there are some key misunderstandings. First off, film composing is a job in "the arts", which is fundamentally going to be different than jobs that are not in the arts. Whether it's true "art", the job still requires artistic sensibilities and creative approaches at the minimum. Secondly, film composing is a project-based job. Some composers will only do a couple "projects" per year. In contrast, many jobs are NOT project-based and the ones that ARE project / client based are still part of a continuum of work throughout an entire year.
Finally, there are composers who view their work as art. John Williams is one of them - his whole lifestyle is built around love of the art of composing and you see a consistent push in his work to achieve that. However, film music, like a film itself, has key moments and not EVERY moment is a moment of pure art. When it comes to the orchestrations and filling out moments of action, there is a lot more room for the composer / orchestrators to just "do the job".
In the case of Goldsmith, the quality of the films he worked on has always been a point of confusion, especially when compared to Williams, because Goldsmith has worked on a lot of bad films. But in interviews, Goldsmith clearly has an artistic and creative point of view.
Both Goldsmith and Williams achieved a point in their careers where they could approach film music as a pure art form. Goldsmith, for whatever reason, was less-successful at this as he still took on bad films. But both composers have described in interviews thinking about how the music will play outside the film. That's art. But any composer starts out by cranking out the work. Goldsmith's and Williams' early work in TV? Artful, creative, but not something I'd say are pure works of art.
Steve Jablonsky, Klaus Badelt, Junkie XL? Going to their day job.
Bear McCreary, Ramin Djawadi? Mostly going to their day job.
Michael Giacchino, Alexandre Desplat, Dario Marianelli? Composers trying very hard to make artful scores.
Jerry Goldsmith, Ennio Morricone, John Williams? Artists making commercial art with a keen eye for the "pure-art" outside the film as well.
So, you're the gatekeeper of what constitutes art now? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well sometimes it's apparent. It's obvious to make distinctions between a child's paint-by-numbers and the Mona Lisa, but sometimes you have people that want to say if stupid words and phrasing that Alfred Hitchcock and Michael Bay are on the same playing field. Some people see it, some don't. Doesn't make the person who can see it a gatekeeper. There's not even a gate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you're the gatekeeper of what constitutes art now?
You should test yourself to see if you can come up with an even lazier response than that. Unless of course you were offering me a job as a gatekeeper, to which I say "thanks, but no thanks", because in this world of opinions such a proposition would be crazy.
If you read my post, I describe the differences between things that composers may "hate" about the job itself vs. the film, as well as differences between jobs in the arts (like in film) vs. other jobs that a lot of other posters were describing as having. I think it doesn't facilitate understanding in the conversation to compare the two so I wanted to point out the differences to help the conversation along.
I also explained that whether a film score is considered art is largely up to the composers themselves and described how Goldsmith and Williams have viewed some of their works as art and also described how they reached a point in their careers where they crossed the threshold of "working for food" to the luxury of "working for art". I further described how Williams seemed to succeed more than Goldsmith, as Goldsmith still seemed to score bad films, long after he had reached the "film scores as art" part of his career. From my perspective, some film scores ARE art, but not all of them. I also clearly described the role of "creativity" and "artistry" in music as always part of music and separate from the far more elusive "music AS art".
To further highlight that point, I then concluded with a breakdown of different types of composers, who, in my opinion, exhibit the qualities of a composer that may view their work as art vs. the qualities of a composer who may not. To put my perspective more simply:
COMPOSERS JUST STARTING or COMPOSERS JUST FOLLOWING PRODUCERS / TRENDS: Going to a day job
COMPOSERS FURTHER ALONG IN THEIR CAREER WHO HAVE A POINT-OF-VIEW BUT STILL GENERALLY FOLLOW TRENDS: Mostly going to a day job
COMPOSERS FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THEIR CAREER THAT THEY ARE RECOGNIZED AND REQUESTED BUT DON'T QUITE HAVE RIGHT OF REFUSAL, BUT STILL TAKE CREATIVE CHANCES: Composers that can be trying to make art
COMPOSERS SO FAR IN THEIR CAREERS THEY CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER PROJECTS THEY WANT: Composers with the luxury to pursue film scores as art if they choose
You will also know, if you read my post, that the above list is a function primarily of the working record AND that at any point in that list, a composer can still be utilizing "creativity" and "artistry" at their discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you're the gatekeeper of what constitutes art now?
You should test yourself to see if you can come up with an even lazier response than that. Unless of course you were offering me a job as a gatekeeper, to which I say "thanks, but no thanks", because in this world of opinions such a proposition would be crazy.
If you read my post, I describe the differences between things that composers may "hate" about the job itself vs. the film, as well as differences between jobs in the arts (like in film) vs. other jobs that a lot of other posters were describing as having. I think it doesn't facilitate understanding in the conversation to compare the two so I wanted to point out the differences to help the conversation along.
I also explained that whether a film score is considered art is largely up to the composers themselves and described how Goldsmith and Williams have viewed some of their works as art and also described how they reached a point in their careers where they crossed the threshold of "working for food" to the luxury of "working for art". I further described how Williams seemed to succeed more than Goldsmith, as Goldsmith still seemed to score bad films, long after he had reached the "film scores as art" part of his career. From my perspective, some film scores ARE art, but not all of them. I also clearly described the role of "creativity" and "artistry" in music as always part of music and separate from the far more elusive "music AS art".
To further highlight that point, I then concluded with a breakdown of different types of composers, who, in my opinion, exhibit the qualities of a composer that may view their work as art vs. the qualities of a composer who may not. To put my perspective more simply:
COMPOSERS JUST STARTING or COMPOSERS JUST FOLLOWING PRODUCERS / TRENDS: Going to a day job
COMPOSERS FURTHER ALONG IN THEIR CAREER WHO HAVE A POINT-OF-VIEW BUT STILL GENERALLY FOLLOW TRENDS: Mostly going to a day job
COMPOSERS FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THEIR CAREER THAT THEY ARE RECOGNIZED AND REQUESTED BUT DON'T QUITE HAVE RIGHT OF REFUSAL, BUT STILL TAKE CREATIVE CHANCES: Composers that can be trying to make art
COMPOSERS SO FAR IN THEIR CAREERS THEY CAN CHOOSE WHATEVER PROJECTS THEY WANT: Composers with the luxury to pursue film scores as art if they choose
You will also know, if you read my post, that the above list is a function primarily of the working record AND that at any point in that list, a composer can still be utilizing "creativity" and "artistry" at their discretion.
And easy as pie, you've been (predictively) set off.
The self-importance on this board sometimes (often)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, you're the gatekeeper of what constitutes art now?
Your constant belittling attitude toward anything or any one you don’t agree with has become so tiring and is deleterious from the camaraderie I enjoy and expect here. For god sakes grow up.
Incorrect. It is far from constant. You don't have much of an eye for detail I gather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an inherent contradiction in this thread...
...I get it that this is art. But professional art.
A friend of mine is a professional script doctor. He doesn't need to love a project to do a professional job of doctoring its script. He just needs to be able to see that he can do some doctoring on its script.
Sometimes I think folks have an overly romantic ideal about what it's like to work in the film business. Admittedly, I don't work in the film business either, so I don't know any better than anybody. I'll just bet it's not this highly romanticized fantasy a lot of people have in their heads.
Cheers
Your perspective was my main drive to talk about this - I do agree that working in the film industry is romanticized, as there are plenty of aspects of it that are as much of a grind as other jobs if not more. At the same time though, people still like THIS specific kind of work.
The example of your script doctor friend is great in that the work itself, while there are opportunities to be an artist, is still the kind of work that is part of a greater piece of work. Film in general is mostly like that with so many people collaborating together that it's hard to find a place where you can make a giant overall impact.
I think the music score can be a place to do so, particularly because it's not interdependent with the other disciplines, except for editing, during which the music editor can change the music. But being one of the the last significant pieces of the creative work for a film, it can make a huge impact.
However, not every film is totally absolutely some amazing piece of art. Many films are just simply "good" and the music is also simply "good". To your point, everyone involved did put in their professional level of creative and artistic effort, because it's their job. As I see it, you kind of need a particular combination of things to really be working in order to make a significant piece of art. Speculating, I think it's a combination of:
-a strong connection to the material
-a balanced dynamic between the composer and the director (+ editor, producers)
-freedom in the creative process to let the music connect with music as an artform in itself
-a perspective for how the music will work outside the movie
It's pretty hard to come up with a formula/list, but I also think that illustrates how difficult it can be to find really good films and to then match them with really good composers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was there an interview where Randy Newman said he didn't like AIR FORCE ONE and couldn't score it seriously?
I think he might have not liked the direction he was being asked to go with the score for MAVERICK. It might be a common thing with Randy Newman, but it seems like he generally disagrees with the filmmakers for the films he works on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was there an interview where Randy Newman said he didn't like AIR FORCE ONE and couldn't score it seriously?
I worked with (well, mostly near) Randy Newman for two hours in 1997. He was taking a quick break from scoring Air Force One, and he was complaining to the person in front of me that no matter what he did, the producers didn't like it, and had even broached the idea of Ennio Morricone co-scoring it with him. (I have no idea if that was anything other than something somebody said out of thin air; all I know is, it seriously pissed Newman off.) He was clearly very frustrated, but he never said anything bad about the film in those two hours.
Great story!
I did find some old interviews finally and it's consistent with what you're saying - frustrating process, but no ill will (or bad words about the movie):
RANDY: "I guess we were on different pages. He is an accomplished director but perhaps we didn’t understand each other very well."
WOLFGANG: “It has nothing to do with the quality of the music... Randy’s one of the greatest in the business, and a hugely talented man. We all know that. But it was not my taste, and finally I had to make that decision.”
AIR FORCE ONE made by Quentin Tarantino with an Ennio Morricone score, that would be a crazy combination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too recall reading an interview where he said the film was overly patriotic garbage or some such thing. I couldn't re-locate the interview.
Interestingly enough I found another where he said he had no idea what happened because nobody told him what was wrong when he was scoring it*, which is at odds with what SchiffyM said. I happen to believe SchiffyM's story, so I am forced to conclude there was a certain amount of bitter B.S. coming from Randy in public interviews back then over it.
(* = Except one scene where he kept the music quiet so it wouldn't interfere with the dialogue; the director told him the dialogue wasn't important)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
