 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composers and music don't get 'better', but tastes change, technology changes, styles turn over and people like what's new.
Is John Williams greater than Max Steiner?
Probably not.
Is John Williams the 'new' Max Steiner?
No. Although if FSM forum was around back in the 60s, someobody would probably have been asking who the next Max Steiner is going to be and maybe it's this new kid Johnny Williams.
But John Williams is the sound of today and our youth.
Max Steiner belongs to another generation and while definitely not forgotten or unloved, he's relatively in the shadows compared to Williams and not the 'in' sound.
One day some other folks are going to be the 'in' sound—not necessarily better or greater, but will be to that generation what Williams is to this; and Williams will be to that generation what Steiner is to this.
It's happened before and it'll happen again.
And that future generation won't think of their 'in' composers as the 'new' John Williams or the 'new' Hans Zimmer, just as we don't think of John Williams as the new Max Steiner.
They'll think of their composers as originals, just as we think of ours.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spot on Mr.W
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, the way film composers are trained now is different than the past. Also, the first generation of film composers were establishing the craft, transitioning it from classical music to original orchestral scores. The John Williams generation learned from those masters and added their own flavor and evolved the artform further with their own identity. However, now, I think too many composers idolize previous film composers and copy them instead of learning and establishing their own identity. So film scores have stagnated, so that’s challenge number one.
Number two is that John Williams is just an overall outstanding composer who has composed a variety of iconic film scores during a time when even film itself was evolving. Consequently, he has gotten to score for a film industry that was maturing through many phases and thus his output is widely varied and attached to really incredible films. Now, the film industry is a bit more mature and stable and there is less innovation coming from it, which means there is very little in the industry to push another composer to be as innovative as John Williams, which would be hard anyway because he has put a tremendous amount of work into his craft from different musical styles to different teaching experiences to different skills orchestration, arranging, performing, conducting, composing.
Number three is the industry itself - it has indeed matured and now completely stagnated. Most movies aren’t even stories now, they’re just IPs/brands. So there is nothing innovative from the music, save for a few scores on independent films here and there. Status quo rules and now music all sounds the same. Until the industry is shaken up, that will remain the same.
Finally, that last point is why Hans Zimmer thrives. His whole business structure deserves praise because it’s so rare and one-of-a-kind - a glorified production house that scores the vast majority of films out there. But in terms of musical quality, it’s just homogenous. That was always his business model. Once his studio loses control a bit it will be very easy for any other composer to surpass him in popularity. But his mission statement was always to churn out for the masses, so until the industry demand changes, that will remain the same.
Let’s put it this way - in 4 decades Hans Zimmer has been credited on 139 films. John Williams, in 6 decades, is credited on 113. Hans Zimmer has way more credits in way less time than John Williams because Zimmer cranks them out, and in fact doesn’t even always score the films much to begin with. Zimmer as a genius composer is a marketing facade - he is the producer of a production house. Now, the more he is continually propped up by a stagnated industry the more bad music will be made. People love Zimmer because he is self-taught and composes with DAWs, so that means ANYONE can make music! Right?...
If you don’t believe people can best Zimmer, then ask yourself why he is able to run a production house of over 100 composers, all of whom are taught to sound EXACTLY THE SAME. And don’t take my word for it, take Zimmer’s himself as he has even praised his own protégés for composing better than him (looking at you Mark Mancina and John Powell). Hans Zimmer is a reflection of the industry that has been making non-stop superhero movies for the past 20 years - vanilla and the same.
The question is really about whether the industry will continue to stagnate in play-it-safe brands/IPs or if it will return to the heart of original storytelling which will require original music. Only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although if FSM forum was around back in the 60s, someobody would probably have been asking who the next Max Steiner is going to be and maybe it's this new kid Johnny Williams.
But John Williams is the sound of today and our youth.
Well, there’s a rebuttal to this which is that composers themselves do generational handoffs. Waxman and Herrmann both worked with Williams because he was a good orchestrator. And Williams had a close relationship with Alfred Newman who liked his work as well.
While styles might evolve, earning the respect of your predecessors is a pretty clear indicator that things are not just the “flavor of the month”.
Similar things happened with Goldsmith and Joel McNeely, but McNeely unfortunately hasn’t become a massively popular, enduring success. I agree styles change, but people know quality when they hear it. Which is why we can rediscover scores from the past and be blown away by how good they are.
Again, I think the problem is the film industry being stuck in a state of stagnation. How did Danny Elfman take off? He was encouraged by a new, innovative filmmaker in Tim Burton, despite Elfman’s own reservations about transitioning into film music. Alan Menken has a similar backstory and was encouraged by his lyricist to score the Disney movies that went on to define a new Disney sound and refresh musicals. Hans Zimmer wasn’t far off either, but his pursuit of Remote Control Productions has turned him from an interesting up-and-coming composer to a dull, repetitive factory press. And we now have an industry that clones itself in story and music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the old days, composers were hired by music departments, which were run by musicians who could recognize talent and technique -- and only hired people who excelled in both.
Today, if you are a musical illiterate in a garage band, but your good buddy is a director, you can be a film composer (and use the film's large budget to hire orchestrators and co-writers to help bring "your" score to life).
I'd love to see a return to the days where talent and technique (to say nothing of melody and adroit orchestrations) were valued.
Unfortunately, with the way film music has been getting more and more streamlined and watered-down (melodically, timbrally and dramatically), I predict in 20 years most "scores" will consist of un-harmonized single tones and maybe some simplistic thumping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the old days, composers were hired by music departments, which were run by musicians who could recognize talent and technique -- and only hired people who excelled in both.
Today, if you are a musical illiterate in a garage band, but your good buddy is a director, you can be a film composer (and use the film's large budget to hire orchestrators and co-writers to help bring "your" score to life).
I'd love to see a return to the days where talent and technique (to say nothing of melody and adroit orchestrations) were valued.
Unfortunately, with the way film music has been getting more and more streamlined and watered-down (melodically, timbrally and dramatically), I predict in 20 years most "scores" will consist of un-harmonized singe tones and maybe some simplistic thumping.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Alfred Newman ran Fox’s Music Dept. I believe and that definitely created the environment for nurturing talent and sharing knowledge.
If anyone watches Rick Beato’s videos on YouTube, there was one where he was holding a Q/A and saying anyone can compose film scores and one commenter brought up Danny Elfman and made the case that you need experience, talent, etc. Rick became really defensive and argued against that point, but I think the commenter was right. Rick is teaching musical concepts to any composer to make their music more interesting, but that won’t result in an amazing film score. It WILL result in one of the many passable film scores that are in films like you say, but you can’t fast track years of learning, experience, and studying. That’s kind of what’s missing right now in the DIY environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 12, 2019 - 8:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Broughtfan
(Member)
|
Not only did guys like Williams, Elmer Bernstein, Goldsmith, Barry, Mancini, George Duning, Rosenman (and other post-GA era composers) have incredible role models/examples in Steiner, Newman, Waxman, Korngold, Webb, Raksin, Herrmann, Rozsa, Copland (composer, among other achievements, of five great Hollywood scores), Walton, North, RVW, mentors like Stanley Wilson, Joseph Gershenson, look at from whom they received music training: Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco (list of successful Hollywood composers taught by this man is astounding), Aaron Copland (taught North, helped Bernstein), Bill Russo (taught Barry jazz composition and advanced arranging), Arnold Schoenberg, Stefan Wolpe, Roger Sessions, Darius Milhaud, Ernst Krenek, Ernst Toch (taught Earle Hagen), Joseph Schillinger (Barry, others, via "Music By Maths" study), Jakob Gimpel, in other words, some of the greatest European and American musicians of the first half of the twentieth century (also people such as Cyril Mockridge, Conrad Salinger, Herb Spencer, Arthur Morton). James Horner studied (for a time) with György Ligeti, one of the great musical minds of the latter half of the past century.
All the people I mentioned (and I mean probably without a single exception) were they starting out today, with that kind of complete training (able to compose, arrange, orchestrate, conduct entire scores without benefit of sequencer click, doing all the work themselves) would likely find people to champion them (because talent on this scale is rarely not given a chance). Just as people like Goldsmith and Mancini did throughout their careers they would adapt to changing styles and tastes, creating, in this new reality, music that (still) would be remembered long after they were gone (who here is ever going to forget Goldsmith's work? Mancini's? Williams's? Barry's? Bernstein's? Horner's?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 13, 2019 - 12:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
First off, the way film composers are trained now is different than the past. Also, the first generation of film composers were establishing the craft, transitioning it from classical music to original orchestral scores. The John Williams generation learned from those masters and added their own flavor and evolved the artform further with their own identity. However, now, I think too many composers idolize previous film composers and copy them instead of learning and establishing their own identity. So film scores have stagnated, so that’s challenge number one.
Number two is that John Williams is just an overall outstanding composer who has composed a variety of iconic film scores during a time when even film itself was evolving. Consequently, he has gotten to score for a film industry that was maturing through many phases and thus his output is widely varied and attached to really incredible films. Now, the film industry is a bit more mature and stable and there is less innovation coming from it, which means there is very little in the industry to push another composer to be as innovative as John Williams, which would be hard anyway because he has put a tremendous amount of work into his craft from different musical styles to different teaching experiences to different skills orchestration, arranging, performing, conducting, composing.
Number three is the industry itself - it has indeed matured and now completely stagnated. Most movies aren’t even stories now, they’re just IPs/brands. So there is nothing innovative from the music, save for a few scores on independent films here and there. Status quo rules and now music all sounds the same. Until the industry is shaken up, that will remain the same.
Finally, that last point is why Hans Zimmer thrives. His whole business structure deserves praise because it’s so rare and one-of-a-kind - a glorified production house that scores the vast majority of films out there. But in terms of musical quality, it’s just homogenous. That was always his business model. Once his studio loses control a bit it will be very easy for any other composer to surpass him in popularity. But his mission statement was always to churn out for the masses, so until the industry demand changes, that will remain the same.
Let’s put it this way - in 4 decades Hans Zimmer has been credited on 139 films. John Williams, in 6 decades, is credited on 113. Hans Zimmer has way more credits in way less time than John Williams because Zimmer cranks them out, and in fact doesn’t even always score the films much to begin with. Zimmer as a genius composer is a marketing facade - he is the producer of a production house. Now, the more he is continually propped up by a stagnated industry the more bad music will be made. People love Zimmer because he is self-taught and composes with DAWs, so that means ANYONE can make music! Right?...
If you don’t believe people can best Zimmer, then ask yourself why he is able to run a production house of over 100 composers, all of whom are taught to sound EXACTLY THE SAME. And don’t take my word for it, take Zimmer’s himself as he has even praised his own protégés for composing better than him (looking at you Mark Mancina and John Powell). Hans Zimmer is a reflection of the industry that has been making non-stop superhero movies for the past 20 years - vanilla and the same.
The question is really about whether the industry will continue to stagnate in play-it-safe brands/IPs or if it will return to the heart of original storytelling which will require original music. Only time will tell.
The Zimmer discussion is interesting because my original question isn't whether or not someone will be more popular than Zimmer one day, that is given. Zimmer will get older and he will be less influential over time. I think my question is, can someone else reach the height that Zimmer reached in his prime. It is interesting to me because I wonder whether or not Zimmer is a one hit wonder or his blueprint can be mimicked.
I am also not sure if I agreed with your other points. Zimmer scored around 150-200 films in 4 decades. That is quite prolific but Alexandre Desplat and James Newton Howard for example, scored around same number of films and they have not achieve the same level of success. In terms of box office success, Michael Giacchino actually average a higher gross dollar amount per movie than any composer, including Zimmer. Whether or not Zimmer is a genius is debatable (I think he is because he definitely overachieve relative to his training level), but it is undeniable that his music has touched a lot of people. Just because he has the capacity to produce music doesn't mean people have to care about the music that he produces. A lot of composers has the financial means to do what he is doing. Marco Beltrami for example, is following the same model. But it is Zimmer who set the tone for the film industry for decades.
So am I convinced that Zimmer can be bested? Sure. Leaders are meant to be replaced. But I don't really see anyone in the current generation doing it. I think it very hard to to write popular music, have enough industry connections to give yourself the chance to showcase your music, AND have enough business sense to start your own production company to proliferate your music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 13, 2019 - 12:26 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
In the old days, composers were hired by music departments, which were run by musicians who could recognize talent and technique -- and only hired people who excelled in both.
Today, if you are a musical illiterate in a garage band, but your good buddy is a director, you can be a film composer (and use the film's large budget to hire orchestrators and co-writers to help bring "your" score to life).
I'd love to see a return to the days where talent and technique (to say nothing of melody and adroit orchestrations) were valued.
Unfortunately, with the way film music has been getting more and more streamlined and watered-down (melodically, timbrally and dramatically), I predict in 20 years most "scores" will consist of un-harmonized singe tones and maybe some simplistic thumping.
My problem with this type of thinking is who defines what is talent and technique? A jazz artist shouldn't be graded the same as a rock artist. Likewise, electronic music won't be graded the same as orchestral music. I would caution against judging film composers mainly on talent or technique. At the end of the day, they are telling a story, a story that is spearheaded by the director. They are not creating symphonies. I think encouraging diversity of style and execution is a good thing not a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is really interesting. Pointing out numbers of Williams' output vs. Zimmer's was to propose the hypothesis that a lower output (within a certain level) is indicative of higher quality/mastery/craftsmanship of music whereas higher numbers would be an indicator of factory-level work. In counting Newton-Howard and Desplat's work, they are shockingly on pace with Zimmer. I personally have not found Desplat to be that good, his music is facile. Newton-Howard I loved some of his earlier works but find his newer stuff to be quite bland. The jury is still out on the correlation to output I guess.
When it comes to Zimmer, I don't think he is that great. I liked some of his earlier stuff as popcorn-fun music, and that pretty much died after Gladiator. I think though that while he personally can and is surpassed by his peers, he has created a behemoth company that is very unusual in this industry - it's essentially a monopoly on music scoring in its scale, and I don't think anyone can compete with that. When he retires, is that studio bought out? Who then becomes the musical voice that everyone copies then?
The Beltrami vs. Zimmer comparison is fascinating though. I think Zimmer just had a very aggressive producer's strategy from the beginning, and he basically learned this all from Stanley Myers who he joined as a music producing partner in London in basically the prototype of Remote Control. Within that model he sought out prestige projects like "The Last Emperor", "A World Apart", etc. where he engages with content that is topical to the time as well as sounds topical to the time ("world" music), enlisting the help of other talented musicians. "A World Apart" is repeated again in "The Power Of One" for which he worked with Lebo M who did a lot of the heavy lifting for him, and from that he was able to get hired on "Lion King" (another topical movie) and work with Lebo M again. Allying himself with the Davis+Bruckheimer combo that began in the 80s and pretty much dominated mainstream action throughout the 90s was a huge win.
Finally, he's starts cribbing very obviously from other composers - as far back as "True Romance", from Carl Orff's marimba piece used in "Badlands", and this continues throughout his career. "Gladiator" not only ripped off Holst (and Wagner), but Zimmer also claims that writing the action music in an "unconventional" 3/4 was something he'd never heard before when AT LEAST Trevor Jones had done that with his period-piece "Last Of The Mohicans", almost a decade prior (listen to "Fort Battle" for the best example). The obsession with "unconventional" crops up again and again - horn blasts in "Inception" that had already been popularized by Don Davis' "The Matrix" over a decade prior, metallic percussion in "Man Of Steel" which had already been done by Jerry Goldsmith but more so the works of Lou Harrison and other modern percussionists of the 1960s (who influenced Goldsmith), "Interstellar" is the organ from Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" on steroids, etc. The basic formula is: generic music + virtuoso soloists + "unconventional" soundscape = Zimmer score.
So, compared to Beltrami, Zimmer has just been way more strategic about producing and developing a formula for every project - he has even stated this goal many times in his early career that it was the only way he could give filmmakers what they wanted. I think the difference is that Zimmer approaches film scoring like a producer whereas all the other composers view it as composing. Beltrami was pigeonholed into thriller/horror early in his career.
Zimmer is interesting in that he completely sells this image of himself as an avante-garde European composer who has an affinity with the Great European Classical Composers yet "oh!" so surprisingly he doesn't have any formal training and is just a unique rock band musician. He will simultaneously build himself up and then use self-deprecation to reverse that, with heaps of praise for the people who help him. Then he'll jump back into the hype of the project and present himself as a mad genius who locks himself away in rooms to obsessively figure out the right organ sound for "Interstellar" or whatever other "crazy" (ahem, special and avante-garde) sound he wants for the film, then counter that again by "admitting" that he constantly worries he's going to fail. It just comes across as massively disingenuous.
Yet he still composes some interesting stuff, and it's pretty clear he's genuinely grateful to all the musicians he works with. I think he can be both that and also completely self-aware of his perpetual sales pitch, which is manufactured authenticity and legitimacy.
I think that's why Williams appears more palatable in personality than Zimmer because Williams doesn't really sell himself - he's obviously self-assured in his experience but has the persistent pursuit of artistic perfection that would have been embedded in him through the formal education and mentorship that he received. Zimmer will forever be caught in the "fraud" mindset of feeling like he is a fraud (which in certain ways you could say he is), so he'll constantly oversell himself. I think people (myself included) would accept his work more readily if he did less promoting and just accepted his work for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 13, 2019 - 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mephariel
(Member)
|
I am always curious as to how Zimmer was able to stay ahead of the game because I agree none of his stuff is really "innovative." Even though he was known for electronic music integration, guys like Silvestri and Vangelis were doing it before. I grew up in the 90s, so Williams, Horner, and Zimmer were icons to me. I love them almost equally. Compare to his peers, Zimmer's music was unquestionably simplistic, but undeniably powerful. His focus on power anthems, guitar riffs, and epic chord progression really bared the emotional aspect of each score. But it is not like Zimmer had a secret formula that no one has. His blueprint was reproducible, and many has done it. How then, was he able to maintain his marketshare?
Which brings us to the discussion about him as a producer. It think it is absolutely true that Zimmer's business sense allowed him to gain connection and won projects that brought him to the forefront of the industry. I also think timing matters a lot. By completing some of his most popular scores like Gladiator, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Thin Red Line, Batman Begins, in the early 2000s, he was able to gain massive exposure since internet usage was maturing.
How much of his success is due to his producing vs composing skills remains an interesting question. If Zimmer never existed, would someone like Beltrami have filled the void? Using the same producing strategy, could Beltrami or another composer have built a fanbase that would flock to his concerts by the 10s of thousands and break mainstream popularity? Or is the winning formula a combination of composing a specific type of attractive music along with production sensibilities?
Regarding Zimmer's self-promotion, I think he has to do it to sustain what he has built. You can't build a production company that enlist dozens of musicians and protege composers and not promote the brand. That comes with the business side of things. Look at Benjamin Wallfisch for example. Wallfisch is very talented composer who was the orchestrator for Dario Marianelli. But within 2 years collaborating with Zimmer, he has gotten blockbuster projects that he never got before like Shazam!, IT, Blade Runner 2049, etc. There is more at stake for Zimmer than just Zimmer. Promotion is require for talent acquisition and retention. If Zimmer doesn't promote and RCP is not prominent or successful, how could he attract others to join him?
Ultimately, RCP is a double edge sword. On one hand, the influence of RCP homogenized film music in a way that is not always healthy for the industry. On the other hand, it provides a platform for many upcoming composers to very quickly learn the craft and gain prominence in the industry. John Powell himself said that he wouldn't be where he is today without Zimmer. I don't think Djawadi, Wallfisch, Gregson-Williams would be either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m right there with you, I love Hans Zimmer’s 90s stuff because it’s so melodic and unabashedly fun. But again, there was no pretense of genius there, it was just “dumb” action music, not a work of “pained” “suffering-artist” art like everything now is marketed. I still listen to “The Rock” and “Broken Arrow” because they have awesome melodies and musical structure, and I love the clones like “Armageddon” and “Man In The Iron Mask”.
To your point about electronic music, I think it goes beyond just the technology. I think where Zimmer outranks Silvestri and Vangelis is in his sense of melody with electronics. Zimmer was an “electronic” musician but his role was as a keyboardist who is coming up with melodic supporting material.
Alan Silvestri on the other hand was kind of following the more traditional Hollywood composer route, with “pop” music for the tv show CHIPS which had nothing to do with electronic music. “Romancing the Stone” was basically just an extension of that “pop” television-scoring sensibility but with electronics to update the sound to the 80’s. So his integration of electronics feels less integrated with his composing style and more just reflecting the fad of the times.
Vangelis I think was on a totally different level because he was really more of a solo musician than a film composer. His early scores were mainly acoustic Greek folk music and his solo work throughout the 60s/70s was more proggy and psychedelic rock than anything. His floating between folk music, solo music, random film scores, documentaries here and there I think contributed to him just being an experimental composer artist, and that’s it.
Zimmer wasn’t necessarily far off, but he really stuck gold with Stanley Myers, who was a film composer. Without that formalized business approach from Stanley, I’m not sure Zimmer would be anywhere close to what he is today. But that gave Zimmer an experienced mentor and producing partner, with a singular focus on films. And that producer mentality of bringing in other talented musicians to “collaborate” was essential. Neither Silvestri nor Vangelis had their “Stanley Myers”.
Then the 90s really cemented Zimmer’s legitimacy, and I think it was the luck of the film projects. Simpson/Bruckheimer/Tony Scott had already established themselves as powerhouses in the 80s with Flashdance, Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun - so getting Black Rain and then Days of Thunder basically cemented his position with them. And that wasn’t all him - he got a lot of help from Shirley Walker, Mark Mancina, etc. as modeled after his working relationship with Stanley Myers. In many ways, Media Ventures was almost an insurance policy for Zimmer against his own lack of experience.
But imagine for a second that instead of scoring Simpson/Bruckheimer movies it was all Jean Claude Van Damme movies, but the same music. I doubt Zimmer would be as successful today - so Stanley Myers paved the road, experienced collaborators (Walker, Mancina, etc.) saved his ass in the early days and the luck of good projects with higher-profile directors/producers cemented his legitimacy.
I can’t think of any other composer that had such luck. Again, Danny Elfman is kind of similar which is why people sometimes criticize him as a one-trick pony (I disagree) - but Elfman and Burton are a lucky combination. Burton would probably still have had a career without Elfman, but probably not as good. And Elfman probably wouldn’t be as good if he hadn’t been pushed into film scoring for the uniquely quirky films of Burton.
With Remote Control, I think where it doesn’t succeed is with the composers copying Zimmer. Some of that might be the industry demands, or Zimmer’s own direction, but I think its biggest weakness is its inability to cultivate the unique voice of individual composers. But I agree that it’s a high-profile platform. John Powell’s endorsement I think speaks less to the quality of the work and more to the scale of the platform - it probably is true that Powell would have a much smaller career without the Remote Control platform. Even John Powell, now that he has ostensibly struck out on his own, is not doing as much as with Remote Control. His output for the 2010s is a fraction of his Remote Control peak.
There are a million Djawadis, Gregson-Williams, Powells out there and I think Remote Control kind of acts as too much of a crutch. I think it stifles the individual creative voice and that’s the only thing that can push the industry forward. Otherwise it’s going to continue down the route of popular complacency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
