 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depressing, but clearly the states of things. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article and thanks for bringing it to our attention. Jon's right on all the points, music is not what it used to be. Horner's comment was of course head on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vangelis. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Burlingame and everyone else:
Stop whining!!
Geezes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For my tastes, it seems like there was a cut-off point in film music where nothing past that date is truly registering with me anymore. That cut-off point is in this past decade.
Even Horner, who I've been critical of, still has better scores here and there than the vast majority of new composers who've started composing within this past decade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2009 - 4:38 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Thankfully, not ALL film music should be orchestral, nor should ALL film composers be orchestral film composers.
Gee, I don't think that was the point of the article at all. Where does it suggest such a thing?
What the article bemoaned -- and reasonably so, I think -- was not a lack of orchestra but a lack of dramatic instincts, a lack of understanding of what music (any kind of music) can do for a movie, a lack of patience and artistic freedom given to a composer. Technology can make anybody a composer these days, and that's fine, but it hardly makes everybody a good composer. (Of course, there have always been lousy composers.)
I think it's a shame. It's a shame for these composers, and it's a shame for movies. Not all movies. But enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2009 - 4:40 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Adam S
(Member)
|
To Burlingame and everyone else:
Stop whining!!
Geezes...
Gotta agree with you there, FB. Thankfully, not ALL film music should be orchestral, nor should ALL film composers be orchestral film composers.
Thank God for versatility, that's what I say!
Let's see, Burlingame is describing a trend in film music which is either true or untrue. It rings true to me in which case I'm glad he's reporting it. And the article isn't about non-orchestra necessarily though that's part of it, its about the expectations directors impose on the composers, schedules shrinking, marginilization of the music in relation to the movie, etc. Its "whining" to report the differences that film music has gone under and the reaction of somebody like Horner? There's nothing wrong with the article and I don't see any reason to be in favor of film composers being marginized, of film composers having more impositions put on them and other things trends that one could talk about. Yes, there's room for other approaches besides orchestra but that's hardly the point of the article.
- Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All very true, but then again there are many thousands of films with great scores for me to enjoy, so I'm not bothered. I hardly see any new films anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2009 - 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
antipodean
(Member)
|
Jon's right on all the points, music is not what it used to be. Horner's comment was of course head on!
There is still a lot of good, interesting music being written for film (and elsewhere). You just need to know where to look and how to listen, rather than flogging that dead horse over and over.
As for composers "losing prestige", I don't know that using Korngold, etc, is a good example because Korngold was Korngold - few composers (in any era) ever reached that level of name recognition. In any case, I doubt if that many casual audiences pay attention to a film's music credits any more than they do other members of the crew. I mean, can anyone name the casting director(s) or second-unit director from the last five films you saw?
Using a "name" is also sometimes a matter of marketing. Two big movies were released in 1994: everyone knows about Quentin Tarentino's "Pulp Fiction", but I doubt if many people could name the directors of "The Lion King" (whose $771 million box office takings, in fact, thumped "Pulp Fiction's" $213 million.)
(But then again, I do understand that columnists and journos sometimes need to find something to write, especially on a slow news day.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 7, 2009 - 4:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Let's see, Burlingame is describing a trend in film music which is either true or untrue. It rings true to me in which case I'm glad he's reporting it. And the article isn't about non-orchestra necessarily though that's part of it, its about the expectations directors impose on the composers, schedules shrinking, marginilization of the music in relation to the movie, etc. Its "whining" to report the differences that film music has gone under and the reaction of somebody like Horner? There's nothing wrong with the article and I don't see any reason to be in favor of film composers being marginized, of film composers having more impositions put on them and other things trends that one could talk about. Yes, there's room for other approaches besides orchestra but that's hardly the point of the article.
Maybe so, but it's grounded in a very Hollywood, traditional mindset, not accounting for the many impulses from other musical arenas (often requiring less means and instrumental forces) that have popped up everywhere, with superb dramatic impact in the type of films they're accompanying.
I guess I just don't see the stuff Burlingame is pointing out; at least I don't see that many end results suffering from the marginalization he describes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
