 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I would say I'm ostensibly an idealist trapped inside a very practical world, which leads to frustration. Zimmer did start off quite promising. I won't argue that. I liked what he did with synths, I liked how he approached films...
Just so ya know which post I'm responding to. :-)
David, I very much enjoyed your post. I lean toward your view, myself. I tend to run hot and cold with Zimmer, but have enjoyed some recent output.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 21, 2009 - 3:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
antipodean
(Member)
|
Just because I can analyze why it sounds bad in some cases doesn't negate the initial reaction of mine on a visceral level. The cerebral always comes secondary when I hear music. I like the uncover the mechanics of why something illicits a good or bad response in me.
Exactly. I think it's perfectly natural that when someone has decided that he or she doesn't like a particular composer or work, it becomes so much easier to "find reasons" to criticize it, even if many of these are purely subjective opinions, e.g. "oh, the use of horns there was banal", "if I hear that trumpet motif one more time..." etc etc.
It's true that some of the Media Ventures-produced scores end up sounding rather homogenized, which I sometimes also find irritating: you could take an action cue from "Pirates of the Caribbean" and drop it into a Jerry Bruckheimer military techno-thriller, and probably nobody could tell the difference. I don't necessarily see that Zimmer's mentoring and helping up-and-coming young composers get a foothold in the industry as necessarily a bad thing, even if many of them are roped in to co-compose and orchestrate and collaborate on his projects.
On the other hand, when you listen to each of them on their own terms (and leave all that MV baggage behind), you can hear the individual composer - Gregson-Williams's music for the Narnia films, Jablonsky's music for "Transformers" and "Steamboy", Geoff Zanelli's "Outlander" and "Hitman", Blake Neely's "The Wedding Date", and in particular, the TV series music by Michael Levine's "Cold Case", Jim Dooley's "Pushing Daisies", Trevor Morris's "The Tudors" - none of which sound like Zimmer at all. (But that's just me. I can't say that any of the above won't sound banal or formulaic to others, of course.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 21, 2009 - 4:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
That said, I obviously do not agree with the majority of it. I don't think Zimmer has EVER done an orchestral score based on traditional symphonic rules, nor has he ever aspired to. That's not his thing. That's not what he does. Sure, there are orchestral elements, but they're only used for colourization in an idiom that is basically rock-based (prog rock, mostly).
So I am guessing you have never seen RADIO FLYER, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, or THE LION KING? If you would not classify those as orchestral in the more traditional sense, what would you classify them as? There was a Hans Zimmer before THE ROCK or GLADIATOR.
I haven't heard RADIO FLYER, but neither A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN nor THE LION KING are orchestral in the traditional sense. Orchestra (and chorus) is used as colourization. Just listen to the simultaneous chord shifts or the percussive beat in "Stampede". This is basically ROCK with orchestral flourishes, not that unlike what King Crimson, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Pink Floyd or The Alan Parsons Project did in the 70's and early 80's (only with Zimmer's whole "power anthem" approach).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well at the very least it's been an interesting thread. Thanks for the input gents!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I gotta be very honest that I do not understand your point here. So the classification of an orchestral approach has less to do with the instruments and more to do with the chord progressions?
Exactly (among other things). It is crucial to ask oneself HOW the orchestra is being used, not only that there is an orchestra present. You wouldn't judge Metallica's S&M album or Pink Floyd's THE WALL (even just the instrumental orchestral bits) on criteria that you also use to judge a work by Bach, Prokofiev or John Williams.
Ah but Kamen employed orchestral devices that are consistent with principles set up by Bach or Beethoven or Prokofiev even if it's not their stylistic idiom. This is the difference. Something like "Comfortably Numb" with it's sustained horns and descending violin line still adheres to the fundaments of orchestral writing (nice voice leading, proper placement of harmony within the instrument's range etc). Same with S&M. I'm a big fan of various styles of music, don't get me wrong. It's not the stylistic approach that I take issue with whether it's Zimmer, Tyler, Bates, whomever. It's their application of the idiom they are working in, and the music language that I appreciate or don't appreciate. Things like voice leading may seem arbitrary but if it's not observed, the music lines sound clunky, odd, out of place. A composer who writes everything on samplers will end up with something like that god awful trumpet line from X-2 (Ottman) which clearly goes way out of the range of what a trumpet player can handle- that and the rhythmic figure that Ottman assumes the french horns can play- it sounds like muck because that tuplet figure cannot be played by them. This is very different from a composer who knows his/her way around the orchestra. If you ask any composer, like John Williams, or heck, this came up in my interview with James Peterson, they aren't conscious of employing these techniques- they are learned and become unconscious. It's like someone who studies english and reads a lot of great literature- they will articulate themselves pooling from a larger vocabulary. Same applies to music. The more you know, the more you can bring to the table.
Thor I know you have been pretty cordial in this thread so I don't wish to offend but I would offer that I have perhaps a wee bit greater perspective on this than you only because I started off as a fan and lover of music, then learned it (and I'm still learning). This gives me the vantage point of approaching music viscerally (which doesn't require any music education) as well as analytically (which does benefit from some education). You, from all accounts, are firmly affixed in the first camp and while there's nothing wrong with that (I applaud anyone who loves music as passionately as I do), from a argumentative standpoint, you cannot draw upon both perspectives to make assertions about music technique which you kind of eluded to in the thread above when you declare that Zimmer is only doing for A League of Their Own what Kamen did with Metallica or Pink FLoyd.
Like I said, I don't wish to attack to berate- just to offer this perspective and why I do think you are constrained in certain ways when it comes to arguing this particular topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 22, 2009 - 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Ah but Kamen employed orchestral devices that are consistent with principles set up by Bach or Beethoven or Prokofiev even if it's not their stylistic idiom. This is the difference.
I don't see that difference, to be honest. The orchestral elements are used as colourization for an idiom that is primarily driven forward by the beat and by the chord progressions that are inherent in the songs' compositions. Although Zimmer's music sounds a bit different, it's the same principle at play. He's basically playing rock (or pop) music, but using the instruments of the orchestra (sometimes sampled, sometimes acoustic) as a way to "flesh out" the pallette, so to speak. Orchestral music, in the traditional sense, simply doesn't "move" and progress the way he uses it. So it is very wrong to judge the music on those terms, IMO.
Zimmer has never really composed an all-out traditional orchestral score, nor do I think he ever will (although I'm open to hear his take on it if he decides to do so).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 22, 2009 - 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
A lot of Zimmer's music has that modern type of sound that Thor is talking about but it is combined often with something kind of quasi-classical in the way he structures the chord progressions (at the risk of insulting the great classic musicians). In some ways it’s a more natural combination than one would think because both elements, in their own way, employ a lot of structure that can easily combine with eachother. Its also understandable from the point of view of where films have gone where you get the glossy, hip (for a lack of a better word) aspect with the dramatic, emotive aspects of his “classical” chord progressions. There’s certainly a lot more thought and intelligence that goes into it then he’s sometimes given credit for, though I’m not a big fan of his music personally. And this is all separate from how he should be evaluated in his business practices, which, I’d probably agree have contributed to comprosing the art though there are a lot of pressures doing that, not all of which are new.
- Adam
To me, the favourite Zimmer sound is where he can "paint" an ethnic ambiance with synths augmented with certain acoustic instruments (and perhaps soft tinges of strings), like BEYOND RANGOON or LION KING or LAST SAMURAI. Or when he literally adds the MUSCLES of an action piece with a rocky beat and powerful, minormoded "power anthem". Both of these are goosebump-inducing to me, especially if they're mixed loudly on the soundtrack and are able to stand out. These are the kind of soundscapes we could never get with a straight-out orchestral approach, and I'm just very thankful that we have this available to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 22, 2009 - 2:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Alfachrger
(Member)
|
Ah but Kamen employed orchestral devices that are consistent with principles set up by Bach or Beethoven or Prokofiev even if it's not their stylistic idiom. This is the difference.
I don't see that difference, to be honest. The orchestral elements are used as colourization for an idiom that is primarily driven forward by the beat and by the chord progressions that are inherent in the songs' compositions. Although Zimmer's music sounds a bit different, it's the same principle at play. He's basically playing rock (or pop) music, but using the instruments of the orchestra (sometimes sampled, sometimes acoustic) as a way to "flesh out" the pallette, so to speak. Orchestral music, in the traditional sense, simply doesn't "move" and progress the way he uses it. So it is very wrong to judge the music on those terms, IMO.
Zimmer has never really composed an all-out traditional orchestral score, nor do I think he ever will (although I'm open to hear his take on it if he decides to do so).
I guess you never heard Zimmer's score to the Simpson's Movie. I very nicely done traditional orchestral score. I liken it to Goldsmith's work for Comedy (Dennis the Menace pops in my mind.) It even had a very old fashioned Theme and Variations on Elfman's TV series opening theme.
A fun score.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
