 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Choir is always used as another instrument, or to bring a human touch to the music. These last two Star Trek films have in common a villain threatening to destroy humanity, so the use of choir makes some sense. But most of the time, it's used as another instrument.
Desplat used male chorus in Moonrise Kingdom, and female ones in Reality, but they weren't big blockbusters, but small films, but they add colour to the score. Giacchino used them in Speed Racer, which it worked like if there we're people cheering for Speed to win. Williams used dissonant female voices to represent the people being killed in War Of The Worlds. And male ones for the aliens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 4, 2013 - 8:03 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
Ok, this sounds almost completely like from the first film, I am a bit surprised it is just slightly differently arranged, choir just pasted in. Hopefully the entire score reveals his ability to shape new constructions with his origjnal material, more than those vids apparantly reveal, where there is nothing substantially new to the old music
That's the point of the videos. He wanted to share some footage but he's not going to let us hear anything new until we see the film or hear the album or go see the suite being performed during the Varese 35th anniversary concert.
You're out of your mind if you think Giacchino's isn't writing anything new for this score.
-Erik-
well, that is not what I said, anyway...
Even in those end credits music pieces etc I would like to hear some more substiantial alterations.
I love Giacchino's music very much, but some parts of the end credits from star trek need are not among the best musics he wrote for my taste, so that's why this "paste-into-the-sheets-some-choir-and-rhythm-loop"-approach does not give me goosebumps.and what somebody wrote I agree with, one of the transitions is very clumsy from a composer-craftsman-point-of-view. I am pretty sure that's because MG is working with computers to compose. It's all about layers in his approach. I am sure if he would use pencils and paper and start doing it more with his imagination instead of going the faster way of trying-out with computers which play everything at once he would write even better music. Too often who can hear layer1, check, layer2, check, layer3, check etc. But he actually never impressed by complex music where all parameters and elements are interlocked forming a new entity the way Williams is able to compose. It is either very simple on purpose or it is more complex with parameters and elements combined in a very block-like way.
Well this is complaining on a very high level and the point of view of a real composer and conductor.
Giacchino is a genius, no doubt about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 4, 2013 - 8:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
well, that is not what I said, anyway...
Even in those end credits music pieces etc I would like to hear some more substiantial alterations.
It's one minute of music, which I presume is the first minute or so of the end titles. I mean, even John Williams began his end credits suites from the Star Wars films the same way. There's no doubt in my mind that once you get through the first section of the end credits then Giacchino will unleash his new music and themes from Into Darkness in yet another exciting and lengthy end credit cue.
I am pretty sure that's because MG is working with computers to compose.
Oh Rubbish. The computer is his tool the write the music down. He still composed on a piano but instead of using a pen and paper he writes the notes into the computer.
-Erik-
I edited some of my post, maybe read again please. Well, of course that is probably impossible to understand if you never composed by yourself and experienced everything necessary to become able to do it. So it was clear to me you would not understand, and probably only very few guys here. I can assure you, the tools you use have so much influence on the result, you have no idea. Maybe in real life I could convince you because of my expertise, but anyway, what for.
Anyway, I like your show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 4, 2013 - 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
You're right. I'm not a composer so as a composer help me understand this.
Let's use the following as an example.
John Williams after all thesee years decides to compose The Adventures of Tintin with the assistance of a computer. Instead of sitting at his piano with a pen and paper he sits at his piano with his new computer. He still composes everything exactly the sameway but instead enters the notes into a computer.
Does the sound, style and orchestration of the Tintin score change from what we eventually got?
-Erik-
Well, you know, it is not black or white, this is really hard to verbalize and even for a craftsman in the same field hard to express the instincts which make you realize how it becomes obvious. It is way more complex than your example suggests.
The tools and the process have impact more in the long-term, in the long run, combined with immideate influences.
Williams youngest output is different in style and orchestration mainly because his own style changed over the years poco a poco into a slightly different way of writing. Hard to show that and probably even to detect those nuances in that slow process over many years. If there are also "short-term traits" in Tintin coming from him using a computer I don't really know, certainly not that obvoius than in Giacchino's music. Are you sure JW did that on Tintin? Maybe there are traces of it in the later tracks on the cd.
When you for yourself compose dozens of complicated pieces in your head using paper, and than dozens of pieces using computers (particularly when you have to be fast) , you'll experience the difference in process and result. forcexample the computer "accomplishes"every inter-step at once, so you don't necessarily have to question every small step and you maybe develop a tendency to stop thinking-over a few of that small steps and walk them the way the computer can walk them quick. That's an aspect of it.. the computer demonstrates probably faster than you can imagine (and also not as accurate than you can imagine speaking of performed music), so if you have to use that you tend to rely on it, especially when you have to deliver results quickly. And so you don't train your imagination.
I have the feeling Giacchino's music could be way more sophisticated and greater with more time and less computers, there is a tendency of formalisms in his music sometimes. But again: he is brillant. This is complaining on the highest level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I have the feeling Giacchino's music could be way more sophisticated and greater with more time and less computers, there is a tendency of formalisms in his music sometimes.
(The following post is made about personal preference and makes no greater overture to quality or value of anything.)
On one hand, I agree with you. Something happened to Giacchino's music at some point (the first Call Of Duty score comes to mind) where its become "sour" to my ears. Much more simple, much more lackadaisical and simply "comments action on the screen" instead of "emotionally resonating".
Goldsmith said you don't score the gallop of the horse, you score the fear of the rider. And Giacchino seems to do the opposite.
He still has some gems - John Carter and Speed Racer come to mind - but they still seem "thin". However, I think this has to do with simply being burned out writing so much music for Lost and then taking on movies and just having "little ink left in the pen". Every creative person hits that point where its just too damn much, you know?
And then, if you look at the scores you say "lack sophistication", they seem to be all by the same people, for the same genre, in a movie written in the same way. So I think the other thing is that Giacchino is giving those people exactly the kind of score they want... and it works as "movie music" and less as "music music".
I hope some of that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the feeling Giacchino's music could be way more sophisticated and greater with more time and less computers, there is a tendency of formalisms in his music sometimes.
(The following post is made about personal preference and makes no greater overture to quality or value of anything.)
On one hand, I agree with you. Something happened to Giacchino's music at some point (the first Call Of Duty score comes to mind) where its become "sour" to my ears. Much more simple, much more lackadaisical and simply "comments action on the screen" instead of "emotionally resonating".
Goldsmith said you don't score the gallop of the horse, you score the fear of the rider. And Giacchino seems to do the opposite.
He still has some gems - John Carter and Speed Racer come to mind - but they still seem "thin". However, I think this has to do with simply being burned out writing so much music for Lost and then taking on movies and just having "little ink left in the pen". Every creative person hits that point where its just too damn much, you know?
And then, if you look at the scores you say "lack sophistication", they seem to be all by the same people, for the same genre, in a movie written in the same way. So I think the other thing is that Giacchino is giving those people exactly the kind of score they want... and it works as "movie music" and less as "music music".
I hope some of that makes sense.
That is *exactly* how I feel about his music since he became exclusively a film composer. Thin is exactly the word to describe how his music sounds these days, even in the scores of his I've liked (Up and the non-action sections of Star Trek come to mind). It's a huge bummer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
