Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 6:40 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

I hate to say this but nothing personal I feel the problem with the ZIMMER HATERS, is with picking on Hans, they are along side him picking on modern film scores in general which will prevent a lot of people from becoming fans of film scores in this era. They don't realize, for sure with the young ones you can't start them on scores 40 , 50 years ago and then get them interested in the art form of film music. You have to get them on fairly recent stuff, then they might expand their interest to the past. I think a wise person like MR LUKAS KENDELL knows this. Styles will change again but will there be anyone left in you guys have it your way by having such a negative attitude towards this art form?

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 7:16 PM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 7:50 PM   
 By:   Other Tallguy   (Member)

This is a very good post.

It makes me believe the filmmakers are behind the surge of this generic RCP sound. It worked in one or two blockbusters (TDK, Transformers), and they have been trying to replicate it ever since. Zimmer can do good work. We all know Horner can do good work. We all know Tyler can do good work. Bottom line is that the studios want a sound that is cheap, fast, and that sells.


Thanks.

But really, is it cheaper? Or really, faster? (Especially if you higher the best selling film composer OF ALL TIME first?) I hear many things about the Zimmeratti, but fast and cheap are not them. Popular, sure. Oh heavens, so popular. But I can't imagine for a moment that Zimmer is cheap.

Here's an interesting bit of tinder for the fire: I seem to recall Spielberg talking around 1996ish about how much he loved Crimson Tide. But he still goes with Williams and Williams sounds not even a little bit like Zimmer. This would be much less significant except in 1993 Spielberg got Williams to sound a whole lot like Patrick Doyle in (small) bits of Jurassic Park.

Mr. Phelps: BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 8:52 PM   
 By:   BackToTheFutureFan   (Member)

Thanks.

But really, is it cheaper? Or really, faster? (Especially if you higher the best selling film composer OF ALL TIME first?) I hear many things about the Zimmeratti, but fast and cheap are not them. Popular, sure. Oh heavens, so popular. But I can't imagine for a moment that Zimmer is cheap.

Here's an interesting bit of tinder for the fire: I seem to recall Spielberg talking around 1996ish about how much he loved Crimson Tide. But he still goes with Williams and Williams sounds not even a little bit like Zimmer. This would be much less significant except in 1993 Spielberg got Williams to sound a whole lot like Patrick Doyle in (small) bits of Jurassic Park.

Mr. Phelps: BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA!


I guess I wasn't clear enough. I agree with you. When I say cheap, I meant it doesn't require a full orchestra performing take after take to create. When I say fast, I suppose it I mean a score can be churned out quickly with synthetic instruments. If the score isn't working, it's easy to replace.

I wouldn't have as many Zimmer scores as I do if I thought his work was cheap. Can't get enough of Zimmer/Mancina/Powell of the 90s.


Still waiting for Face/Off...

 
 Posted:   Oct 14, 2013 - 10:34 PM   
 By:   Loren   (Member)

Zimmer haters?
Ah yes, those sober people living in the past, telling you what your favourite music should be.
They just bark but can't bite.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 2:22 AM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)

I hate to say this but nothing personal I feel the problem with the ZIMMER HATERS, is with picking on Hans, they are along side him picking on modern film scores in general which will prevent a lot of people from becoming fans of film scores in this era. they don't realize, for sure with the young ones you can't start them on scores 40 , 50 years ago and then get them interested in the art form of film music. You have to get them on fairly recent stuff, then they might expand their interest to the past. I think a wise person like MR LUKAS KENDELL knows this. Styles will change again but will there be anyone left in you guys have it your way by having such a negative attitude towards this art form?

I suppose you're making what seems like a good point, but I don't believe for a moment that anyone coming into film music on the strength of today's scores is ever going to develop an interest in the scores of the Golden or Silver age. The Golden Age certainly, and Silver age mostly, are rooted in the classical tradition of the symphony orchestra (with additions) and themes, sometimes leitmotifs. Rhythm is there but is never the be all and end all as so often today. It's simply the difference between composition, however contemporaneously expressed, and sound design; between a kind of art, or at worst quasi art, and pure function, like the persistent droning that often accompanies scenes in TV shows like Law & Order. To take a typical example, for a car chase scene in the 40s or 50s most composers would write a fugue with recognisable motifs, or motif if they were hacks. It might not be Wagner, but it was in the tradition of Wagner. Today it often seems nothing can elicite actual composition from..er..composers. They bang and crash, they groan and drone, and then at the climax they might with luck rise to a totally bland, generic, sentimental swell that they hope will pass for a theme, even though it's related to nothing else in the movie. But to write a score, an actual score with aptly recurring themes that help tell the story, it's either not in them or it's not in the budget (or the producer's instructions). And as for drawing young enthusiasts back to a more artful age...ain't gonna happen.

Please, Williams, Shore and Newton Howard lovers, don't jump on me. You know I'm not talking about those who invest real effort.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 2:51 AM   
 By:   OnlyGoodMusic   (Member)

I hate to say this but nothing personal I feel the problem with the ZIMMER HATERS, is with picking on Hans, they are along side him picking on modern film scores in general which will prevent a lot of people from becoming fans of film scores in this era. they don't realize, for sure with the young ones you can't start them on scores 40 , 50 years ago and then get them interested in the art form of film music. You have to get them on fairly recent stuff, then they might expand their interest to the past.

You're wrong, Dan. First off, we don't pick on """"modern"""" film music in general, only on the insipid, cookie cutter, lamebrained typical RCP products(! - and the recent Lorne Balfe comments in that docu on """""modern"""" film music are really telling in this matter!) and their clones. I don't think many intelligent listeners of yesteryear's film scores have a problem with Desplat, Korzenowski, Beltrami, Doyle (most of it), Howard (most of it), Giacchino (most of it) either. It's a SPECIFIC kind of """"modern"""" film scoring we're criticizing. The one that dumbs down the art of film music.

As a consequence, I really don't think that people who are infatuated with the RCP diet will ever be able to truly appreciate the wonders of what came before, nor the wonders of what's going on around the manufactured RCP product.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 3:46 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)


I don't believe for a moment that anyone coming into film music on the strength of today's scores is ever going to develop an interest in the scores of the Golden or Silver age.


If they have an interest in film and music, who is to say they wont? That's a very narrow minded statement there and I've been reading a lot of that lately on this board; stop placing people's preferences in 'boxes' or labeling them, it doesn't work that way. Like Goldsmith said "If the music is good it will stand the test of time". Stop projecting!

The problem with Zimmer haters on these boards is not that they hate Zimmer, but that they hate most everything about film music today. And I get that they want to be part of a community that celebrates film music, the genre they once loved, but instead of discussing the scores they like, they focus solely on the scores they dislike and make an enemy out of the composer and fans. To what purpose I'm still baffled because these boards have zero influence on the state of film music nor the industry/artists that produces them. It's clearly done out of frustration. I personally do find these people narrow, close minded because there is no middle ground, it's either their music or the highway. As if any age/style/instrumentation of film music is a 'belief system' you chose for exclusively and you can't enjoy them all.
How many scores get scolded and trashed on here before people even get to hear them properly? Because of their genre or the people associated with them? Because they are not what they expected? Sometimes people will have a preconceived notion of what an upcoming movie or score will be like based on what they want to hear or think is right for the picture without having seen it. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment.

Maybe therapy can help, you could try and convince your shrink why you think that era/composer/style of film music is better and get it out of your system.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 4:09 AM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)

I don't believe for a moment that anyone coming into film music on the strength of today's scores is ever going to develop an interest in the scores of the Golden or Silver age.

If they have an interest in film and music, who is to say they wont? That's a very narrow minded statement there and I've been reading a lot of that lately on this board; stop placing people's preferences in 'boxes' or labeling them, it doesn't work that way. Like Goldsmith said "If the music is good it will stand the test of time". Stop projecting!


Who's to say they won't? They won't because there's no logical or aesthetic bridge. I came to classical music through film music because there WAS such a logical bridge. Can you not see that the contemporary film music we're talking about, and we all know the kind we're talking about, leads nowhere except round and round on itself. You can make all the pleas for tolerance you like, label me narrow minded all you like, but I simply refuse to be tolerant of what is so clearly trash.

Maybe therapy can help, you could try and convince your shrink why you think that era/composer/style of film music is better and get it out of your system.

I need no more convince my shrink of that than I need to convince him that Mozart or Beethoven are superior to gangsta rap. And if he doesn't already accept that premise, he should be seeing a shrink himself.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 4:16 AM   
 By:   Thomas   (Member)

I don't believe for a moment that anyone coming into film music on the strength of today's scores is ever going to develop an interest in the scores of the Golden or Silver age.

I'm not sure...my 11 year old daughter really likes the music for the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' films. And yet, she also loves the music from 'Indiana Jones' and 'Jurassic Park'...

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 4:19 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I can only speak for myself, but when I became interested in film music in the 90s, I was very much into the music of that time and of my formative years in the 80s and 90s. Since then, I've branched out into all time periods and styles. I assume I'm not alone in this "voyage of discovery". So I wouldn't be so quick to judge how other people's tastes develop. And even if they DON'T branch out, that's fine too -- if they're comfortable with that. God knows, the opposite is also true -- many fans of Golden Age cinema refusing to listen to anything, say, post-1980s.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 4:23 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)


Who's to say they won't? They won't because there's no logical or aesthetic bridge. I came to classical music through film music because there WAS such a logical bridge. Can you not see that the contemporary film music we're talking about, and we all know the kind we're talking about, leads nowhere except round and round on itself. You can make all the pleas for tolerance you like, label me narrow minded all you like, but I simply refuse to be tolerant of what is so clearly trash.


No, I can not see this. By the way, I'm a fan of film music, I'm mostly unfamiliar with classical music so you must think less of me already. I believe people cherry pick genres and styles of music nowadays and aren't confined by them. I just don't buy into the notion that one genre is 'superior' to another, especially in the context of film scores where the music supports the visuals and is a reflection of modern music and not limited to concert hall music.

Maybe therapy can help, you could try and convince your shrink why you think that era/composer/style of film music is better and get it out of your system.

I need no more convince my shrink of that than I need to convince him that Mozart or Beethoven are superior to gangsta rap. And if he doesn't already accept that premise, he should be seeing a shrink himself.


Good luck on that superiority complex! You have at least that in common with gangsta rappers. wink

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 5:34 AM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)

Good luck on that superiority complex! You have at least that in common with gangsta rappers. wink

No, you see here's the twist, and in a way it's my point: I don't actually like Beethoven and Mozart. So it's not a question of championing my particular taste and claiming superiority because it's so highly developed: it clearly isn't. It's a case of recognising excellence even when you're not sufficiently developed to fully appreciate it. I don't and never have believed in the it-all-comes-down-to-what-you-like theory. I believe there are ultimate standards. Who sets them? Nobody, but somehow we all know when we encounter excellence and when we're confronted by something rather less, just as we all know--well, most of us--when we've done something bad even when we try to rationalise it. I believe in an inate memory of the good and the great, strong in some and weaker in others but there in almost all. I know this isn't a popular theory and some here will be looking around for their (high) horses to charge into battle, but there it is. This is a forum for the expression of ideas and there's mine for what it's worth.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:09 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I have been around this issue before, but as I said before, I think it is nonsense when people say it is narrow minded or something when a poster says Beethoven is superior to gangsta rap. Having subjective opinions, and strong ones about a kind of art, be it painting or music, is not stupid or narrow minded. There are also defensible reasons to make a claim that something like Beethoven is superior to gangsta rap. Likewise there are credible reasons to say that John Williams or someone like that is superior to Hans Zimmer. If you say that that it is narrow minded that is just silly. Hans Zimmer himself would admit that John Williams is a superior composer.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:17 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I don't think you can make those kind of arguments. John Williams may be superior to Zimmer when it comes to orchestral writing, but not in terms of, say, electronic music.

In making such comparisons and evaluations, there will a) always be subjective elements and b) even in the case of more 'objective' criteria, always depend on what parameters you set up. We did a topic about this before, where I tried to put up some wide criteria in judging music. Note that these criteria have little to do with the actual MODE or STYLE of music being employed; they can be employed to all kinds of music:

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=1842&forumID=1&archive=1

Personally, I've never understood the need to create dichotomies between musical genres, or to assert the superiority of one over the other. Every single musical genre deserves to be judged according to their own standards, and none is more valid than the other. There are good and bad examples of every style of music, including orchestral music.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:32 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I don't think you can make those kind of arguments. John Williams may be superior to Zimmer when it comes to orchestral writing, but not in terms of, say, electronic music.

In making such comparisons and evaluations, there will a) always be subjective elements and b) even in the case of more 'objective' criteria, always depend on what parameters you set up. We did a topic about this before, where I tried to put up some wide criteria in judging music. Note that these criteria have little to do with the actual MODE or STYLE of music being employed; they can be employed to all kinds of music:

http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=1842&forumID=1&archive=1

Personally, I've never understood the need to create dichotomies between musical genres, or to assert the superiority of one over the other. Every single musical genre deserves to be judged according to their own standards, and none is more valid than the other. There are good and bad examples of every style of music, including orchestral music.


Composition skill is composition skill.

I was also predominately discussing film score in the traditional orchestral mode versus the synth / sample wash and repeat mode of composition that Zimmer uses. I was doing this to try to illuminate what Zimmer defenders have a hard time accepting.

Traditional scoring like Williams does is more complex, uses more real instruments and uses more themes and melody whereas Zimmer composes more for impact with sound and immersion like a wall-of-sound approach.

If we are talking about orchestral composition I can compare Williams to Zimmer and say the first is better, while the second is certainly more popular and digestible nowadays.

 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:34 AM   
 By:   OnlyGoodMusic   (Member)

I don't think you can make those kind of arguments. John Williams may be superior to Zimmer when it comes to orchestral writing, but not in terms of, say, electronic music.

I don't think John Williams cares about the latter even a little bit. If he did, he would be superior to Hans Zimmer in this field, too. wink

There IS a superiority of acoustic over electronic music, because it is WAAAAYYY easier to camouflage one's "charletanerie" in the latter field. Composing is a craft.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:41 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Well, I don't agree with your descriptions at all, and although I'm tempted to say that it comes off as a bit arrogant, I'll refrain from doing so to have a fruitful debate.

Zimmer's music can be quite sophisticated in its own way -- whether it was in the 80's, 90's or 2000s and the various styles he explored throughout. Not orchestrally sophisticated, necessarily, but that's not what he's about at all. He can create textures and sounds that someone like Williams could never be able -- nor really willing -- to create, as he's about something else altogether.

I wish people would stop making such comparisons -- apples and oranges, really! -- and instead focus on the individual expressions, and then evaluate based on that. Otherwise, it's a bit like evaluating Bob Dylan based on the criteria you would use for, say, Krzystow Penderecki. Each have their unique values and should be judged accordingly (whether positively or negatively). I think there could be some very interesting discussions if people focussed their arguments on specific sounds or approaches in, say, Zimmer's music that they have issues with.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:46 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

Well, I don't agree with your descriptions at all.

Zimmer's music can be quite sophisticated in its own way -- whether it was in the 80's, 90's or 2000s and the various styles he explored throughout. Not orchestrally sophisticated, necessarily, but that's not what he's about at all. He can creates textures and sounds that someone like Williams could never be able -- nor really willing -- to create.

I wish people would stop making such comparisons -- apples and oranges, really! -- and instead focus on the individual expressions, and then evaluate based on that. Otherwise, it's a bit like evaluating Bob Dylan based on the criteria you would use for, say, Krzystow Penderecki. Each have their unique values and should be judged accordingly.


You would have better success with that if these guys were not in the same field of music, genre, line of work, whatever you want to say. The reason that the Bob Dylan versus Penderecki comparison is not valid is one was a orchestral composer and the other a rock folk singer. So it makes very little sense. On the other hand Hans Zimmer and John Williams are both film composers. Admittedly they have covered different eras of film with some years of overlap. I think you will find the effort to encourage people not compare one film composer to another is a really fruitless effort.

I would like to note also that your defense refers to Zimmer making sounds and texture, which are not composition, merely sounds, which goes back to what I said. Zimmer works toward impression and immersion, which are not composition.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 15, 2013 - 6:51 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

You would have better success with that if these guys were not in the same field of music, genre, line of work, whatever you want to say. The reason that the Bob Dylan versus Penderecki comparison is not valid is one was a orchestral composer and the other a rock folk singer. So it makes very little sense. On the other hand Hans Zimmer and John Williams are both film composers. Admittedly that have covered different eras of film with some years of overlap. I think you will find the effort to encourage people not compare one film composer to another is a really fruitless effort.

But your argument rests on an assumption that film music is ONE genre. It really isn't. In fact, it's not really a genre at all. It's an umbrella category of all imaginable musical genres; the only thing they have in common is that they're being used in a film.

The parallell is valid, I think, because Williams and Zimmer operate in two different worlds, musically. One is a composer steeped in traditional orchestral writing (and some jazz!) while the other comes from electropop and utilizes these sentiments in his music. For Zimmer, orchestra is about COLOUR in an otherwise prog rock/electronic-oriented soundscape, it's not an end in itself. You can compare approach to the film, maybe, but not really the intrinsic musical values. At least not beyond mere preference.

It's probably a difficult request to ask people to stop comparing apples and oranges, but at least it's a wish of mine to some day have a discussion about the specifics of a sound or approach that does just that -- goes into detail about it without pulling in what I perceive are incompatible comparisons.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.