I Miss the Gold Ole Days...

Actually the Rite of Spring came before The Planets. Oh and guess what, in Saturn the bit with bells.... sounds a hell of a lot like a bit in The Rite of Spring. But really it doesn't matter if the overall effect is something completely different. I would say that it's possible to subconsciously write something very similar to music you have already heard, which is why a lot of music sounds similar...

I lurked for a while

That's actually kind of creepy... :huh:

But really it doesn't matter if the overall effect is something completely different.

That's not really the point of the thread. Mozart's 2nd movement of his piano concerto no.23 sounds an awful lot like one of the movements from Bach's English Suites (can't be bothered to find out again which one, but I bet you can google it). So what? It's got nothingto do with what film composers do some times (or most of the times, depending on the composer), as Qccowboy very effectively pointed out (some Pirates of the Caribbean also sounds like Mars from the Planets - Klauds Baudelt was working under a company runned by Zimmer, I think?).

Anyway, on the topic now:

I have nothing against atonal or contemporary classical. I enjoy jazz, jazz fusion, rock, metal, pop, world, techno, electronica, spiritual, opera... you name it.

That's almost analogous to saying "I have nothing against dairy products. I enjoy tomatoes, vegetables, fish, boats, sailing in the atlantic, playing n64... you name it."

Thus, irrelevant to what you're trying to say.

(We currently coexist with John Williams, Alan Silvestri, James Newton Howard, John Powell etc.)

We also currently coexist with Boulez, Birtwistle, Carter, Crumb, Sciarrino, Norgard, Vasks, Gorecki, Penderecki, and quite a few other people who deserve a mention in the list of internationally highly acclaimed contemporary (i.e. living - although I guess Stockhausen would still be in the list of contemporary composers) composers. From the style of your post I assume you know less than half of these names?

So, if you ask me, last time I said "I LOVE this piece of music. That artist is a true master.", that was hm.. when I listened to most of Varese's works, to Feldman's works (especially Coptic Light - incredible piece), when I listened to some works for piano and strings by Takemitsu (I totally loved Hika), when I listened to the Turangalila Symphonie by Messiaen, when I listened to his Quartet for the End of Time, or when I listened to Boulez's "Rituel in memoiriam Bruno Maderna". When I was listening to all the pieces mentioned, I was literally hooked on the music, fascinated by the soundscapes created (especially by Varese) and I instantly loved the pieces, set off to find what else a genius composer like them had composed.

So what am I? Am I a parasite in your little world? Am I the psychotic "modernist" who "pretends to like modern and contemporary music"? (I've heard people go that far... it's sad..) How come there are people like me, who can enjoy listening to, and can find "true masters" in contemporary music? Are we a huge mistake in the evolution of mankind? Are we supposed to naturally like Mozart and Bach, but dislike Schoenberg's atonal works or Scriabin's highly chromatic pieces?

To sum up,

Music isn't relative,

Well, it definitely isn't absolute. Music (art) is written (created/thought) within a historical and cultural context, and thus must be understood and heard in such.

...music is a life source.

That's at least debatable, as I replied to this other guy who said that Fluxus music is the art of all arts.

You know what, this topic further drives home my belief that the best music is balanced. Modern film music is too simple, modern concert hall music is too complicated. The balance is the hallmark of a timeless classic.

I agree with williamsfan in one respect; that people have forgotten the importance of a good melody. However people have also forgotten the importance of properly supporting the melody, which is why generally I am constantly dismayed by modern film music.

Edit: Zimmer got sued by the Holst foundation :D

I think it's hilarious how inevitable cat fights are on this site! LOL We're supposed to be intelligent young adults discussing musical topics... If we can't do that with respect for each other I may have to find a music site where people do... : (

Modern film music is too simple, modern concert hall music is too complicated.

That's blatantly biased and not representative of either genre (not so much on the film music, although most film music is not simple, it's just that it's a recreation of what has happened in the past, because that's what people buy and expect/want, including directors and producers). If I wrote a fugue in the style of Bach, it would still not be simple.

I think it's hilarious how inevitable cat fights are on this site!

To be honest, I think the rate of active fight-threads has been increasing lately, but I don't know why... I can't even remember seeing such huuuge threads with loads of people in both argueing sides, but unfortunately only one side has people with strong arguments, which is why after a while the only replies you get are of the "uh.. you're stupid, you're wrong, john cage sucks anyway" kind.

LOL We're supposed to be intelligent young adults discussing musical topics...

Go to Composer's Headquarters if you want to be part of the elite that doesn't fall to the level of having this kind of discussions :P

With respect to this whole "Williams copied Holst" and "Zimmer copied everyone under the sun" business, I'd like to offer a quotation from over at another forum which provides an interesting look at the issue. This was in response to someone asking whether a particular 4-note motif had already been used in a soundtrack somewhere:

"Assume everyone's got at least one "original" piece of music in them. That's 6 billion right there. With every generation going back to when music began circa 4000 B.C. integrating the average human generational period over that interval we get about 50e9 unique pieces of music ever hummed' date=' whistled or plucked on a Kazak dongbula.

http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/People.html

Ignoring that the Western scale and copyright did not appear until an insanely recent part of that period, I estimate your 4 note sequence appears in roughly a few million pieces of music, of which a few tens of thousands are still in copyright."

I actually find the whole "this 4-note motif was used elsewhere" argument pointless. Similarities in melodic outline can't help but happen over time.

My only issue is with any composer who lifts sections of another work to "fill in" a film score, in much the way that Horner has done repeatedly.

The problem with that approach, putting any questions of originality aside, is that it doesn't make for a filmscore that is homogenous and well integrated. It makes for a piecemeal, jigsaw, paint-by-numbers score with snippets of multiple styles stacked together in no real relation to each other.

One of the reasons I love the score to Close Encounters of the Third Kind so much is that in it Williams included a multitude of compositional techniques, yet integrated them completely into a single soundscape. the "ligeti-ish" moments don't feel out of place next to the more romantic music, nor next to the "action music".

What I despise about, for example, Horner's "borrowings" is that he lifts entire passages of other pieces, like that extended excerpt from Alexandre Nevski he used in Star Trek II, or the collage of quotes from Schostakowitch and Khatchaturian in Aliens. The problems arise when the music turns to "pure Horner". We suddenly are faced with a stark contrast of rather insignificant and repetitive background noise rather than anything that bears any relation to the previously mentionned quotes.

My attitude is: go ahead, quote all you want, but INTEGRATE it meaningfully into the score.

Well said, QC. I think one of the biggest annoyances with Horner in particular is not necessarily how he quotes others, but how he incessantly quotes himself in his scores...I hear that complaint a lot.

I personally think people are making a really big mistake by writing off John Williams' entire repetoire due to the fact that part of the star wars soundtrack sounded like the planets and the rite of spring.

It's not just that the Star Wars soundtrack sounded derivative of the Planets or the Rite of Spring, all of John Williams' film scores sound derivative of other composers' works. His entire output is just one big recycling of things already done before by (among others) Wagner, Mahler, Copland, Stravinsky, Holst, Korngold, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. The reason why John Williams is so popular is because his music (like most Hollywood film music) is so terribly clich

gianluca, honestly:

Are you not tired of pissing about every corner you find? On every street? On everything apart from your self and what you like? It's so boring, it's SO RUDE, it's so bloody awful for gently caresses shake!

I mean usually you do get thread talking about how beautiful are things. You usually get "I met this lovely girl", you don't get thread like "Woah! What an ugly girl this is". Why do you feel so inclined to say the worst about everything? To piss about anything? To reduce everything to rubbish?

Does it make you feel better? does it make you feel higher? Like you know what you're talking about? Like you are better?

Just get off, reduce that huge hostility against everything and you might even start enjoying a few things. You don't see me going around that I hate Boulez and Takemitsu, etc, why do you do the opposite? In fact I complain all the same to people that say they don't like contemporary music and people who piss on Cage, Boulez, Messiaen, etc (you can check with alcamg or whatever his nickname is for this. ;))

But really this tendency to declare publicly what We don't like, especially in YC forums, apart from ridiculous is also disgusting and it is the one thing that turns me away from many discussions.

But really this tendency to declare publicly what We don't like, especially in YC forums, apart from ridiculous is also disgusting and it is the one thing that turns me away from many discussions.

gently caress. Yes.

Seriously.

But really this tendency to declare publicly what We don't like, especially in YC forums, apart from ridiculous is also disgusting and it is the one thing that turns me away from many discussions.

Well, I for one don't like things that are ridiculous and also disgusting!

There!

I said it. I don't care.

And I also REALLY hate being turned away from many discussions!

So, yeah! what he said.

I SO totally understand your frustration Niko.

I'm right there with you.

Just get off, reduce that huge hostility against everything and you might even start enjoying a few things. You don't see me going around that I hate Boulez and Takemitsu, etc, why do you do the opposite? In fact I complain all the same to people that say they don't like contemporary music and people who piss on Cage, Boulez, Messiaen, etc (you can check with alcamg or whatever his nickname is for this. ;))

I still maintain I made a critique, rather than pissing on them, but... I've learned my lesson!!!

Less chatter, more composition. When y'all are done writing, put your pieces up for criticism; consider it; learn from it.

Learning is what this site is about, not posturing.

In the real world of music, you need to be flexible and diplomatic, or you simply won't work or have your works played. I've met a lot of fantastic musicians (and composers) who don't get much work simply because they don't know how to keep their mouths shut, or how to ask questions/have discussions without offending everyone. Sometimes music, like life, is 90% attitude, 10% aptitude.

Keep in mind that everything you write on the internet can be found by anyone else - and behave accordingly. After all, if employers can check out your FaceBook/MySpace/"insert pointless dramajournal site here" and find out all about you (and fire you...), your audiences can read up on you as well.

I still maintain I made a critique, rather than pissing on them, but... I've learned my lesson!!!

I was NOT talking to you mate! :) I "know you".

In your case, my initial post to you was "Have you studied them?", because most comments were completely off, at least it seemed to me and thus made an impression to me. Then the rest appeared and the whole thing went to hell! :) No worries from me, mate, no worries!

I actually find the whole "this 4-note motif was used elsewhere" argument pointless. Similarities in melodic outline can't help but happen over time.

My only issue is with any composer who lifts sections of another work to "fill in" a film score, in much the way that Horner has done repeatedly.

The problem with that approach, putting any questions of originality aside, is that it doesn't make for a filmscore that is homogenous and well integrated. It makes for a piecemeal, jigsaw, paint-by-numbers score with snippets of multiple styles stacked together in no real relation to each other.

One of the reasons I love the score to Close Encounters of the Third Kind so much is that in it Williams included a multitude of compositional techniques, yet integrated them completely into a single soundscape. the "ligeti-ish" moments don't feel out of place next to the more romantic music, nor next to the "action music".

What I despise about, for example, Horner's "borrowings" is that he lifts entire passages of other pieces, like that extended excerpt from Alexandre Nevski he used in Star Trek II, or the collage of quotes from Schostakowitch and Khatchaturian in Aliens. The problems arise when the music turns to "pure Horner". We suddenly are faced with a stark contrast of rather insignificant and repetitive background noise rather than anything that bears any relation to the previously mentionned quotes.

My attitude is: go ahead, quote all you want, but INTEGRATE it meaningfully into the score.

You have to admit though, Horner has written some crazy brilliant music. Take "Braveheart" or "Legends of the Fall." Gorgeous, beautiful stuff.

Or "Mask of Zorro" for that matter. Horner, while he repeats himself often, is in my top five favorite film composers for sure. ("For the Love of A Princess" from Braveheart actually brings tears to my eyes every time.)

Many people think John Williams is over-rated, that his early success fueled an overly busy career.

I say John Williams is one of the most versatile and convincing composers out there.

True, there is some perdictability in his themes, some repetition, but-

show me one composer who doesn't repeat himself occasionally.

My personal favorite composer alive today is Howard Shore.

His works are often minimalistic and arcane, but he has shown with "Lord of the Rings" that these words can infact coexist with "Epic" and "Accessible".

Omri.

It's not just that the Star Wars soundtrack sounded derivative of the Planets or the Rite of Spring, all of John Williams' film scores sound derivative of other composers' works. His entire output is just one big recycling of things already done before by (among others) Wagner, Mahler, Copland, Stravinsky, Holst, Korngold, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. The reason why John Williams is so popular is because his music (like most Hollywood film music) is so terribly clich

Takemitsu rules, but I really like his electroacoustic/electronic pieces more. For example: Vocalism AI, or Water music.

John Williams seems fairly original to me. Especially with the brass, Williams brass sections are quite recognizable.

I'm not saying he's ont original- but there is a difference between recognizable and original.

He has created a very unique style, and his versatility is amazing to me.

His most unique works are on films like Schindler's List, Memories of a Geisha or Jaws, he really has space to use the orchestra and non-orchestral instruments in ways that have not been heard before.

Never mind that now it's cliche because pretty much every aspiring composer imitates his style...

(or that of Hans Zimmer)

Takemitsu is a scallop (Rain Tree)

Williams is a good composer. Check out the score to Catch Me if You Can.

Takemitsu is a scallop (Rain Tree)

Williams is a good composer. Check out the score to Catch Me if You Can.

I wouldn't go so far as calling Takemitsu a scallop, mainly because I only know a few of his works, and while I liked them to a degree I found no brilliance in them, and not even a shadow of the interest in the music of John Williams.

And yes, "Catch me if you Can" is a brilliantly elegant, clever orchestral Jazz score - a delight.

Catch me if you Can!! Love it. Same whimsical charm as "The Terminal."

The Terminal has got to be one of my absolute favourite main themes. Just the clarinet and orchestra thing - it's fantastically entertaining to listen to. Just plain charming music.

I wouldn't go so far as calling Takemitsu a scallop, mainly because I only know a few of his works, and while I liked them to a degree I found no brilliance in them, and not even a shadow of the interest in the music of John Williams.

And yes, "Catch me if you Can" is a brilliantly elegant, clever orchestral Jazz score - a delight.

I just meant that from a percussionists perspective, Takemitsu is a scallop for Rain Tree in the same way Maslanka is a scallop for My Lady White.