Yes Herrmann was one of a kind among filmcomposers. But itīs not his style or his "sound" I am talking about. I am talking about his influence on how composers today work with filmmusic, the approach, some might say. I am not saying that Steiner is a lesser composer than Herrmann, they just had diffent ways of scoring films. Steiner had a very "intellectual" approach to the job, while Herrmann was more emotional.

SFT

Do you really think so, SFT? I've always thought that it was the other way around. One of the reasons why I've never really fancied Herrmann is the fact that he keeps using these small "clusters" or "motifs" that I like to call them that he repeats constantly (minmalistic, if you will) - that is, small pieces of "cold" instrumentations, such as a string motif. Furthermore, his constant use of crescendo and dimminuendo makes for a somewhat tiring and "intense" listening experience (what I like to call "subdued intensity") Patrick Doyle has much of the same, although far more romantic. There is a certain lack of thematic or melodious "core" in much of his music, as opposed to the grand (and by current standards clichéed) and emotional scores of the golden age (Steiner etc.)

I've always placed Herrmann in an academic tradition, bypassing the direct appeal of emotional response (such as Williams). But by all means, I'm open to any suggestions that can make me change my mind (I think GHOST AND MRS. MUIR is a perfect example that he IS capable of emotional writing).

There is a difference between the compositional techniqe (???) of scoring a film and which way you approach the job. A composer may write a very complex, or a very simplistic score, but have it fail all together because he didnīt have the right approach.
It is true, as you say, that Herrmann often re-used different motifs or melodic fragments in his scores (The Psycho theme in Taxi Driver etc.)Iīve never really figured out why he did that, and if someone knows, please tell me. Maybe he just liked certain things he wrote, and thought they would work for different films, scenes etc, and didnīt really care whether people recognized it or not.
However, that he did this, should not lead you to belive he was less emotional in his writing.
I will admit that I am not the biggest collector of Steiner scores, but thanks to Gae, I have gotten a few, plus seen several films that he scored. So, while I can not go into the more technical aspects of his works, I can speak of his approach.
When Herrmann worked on a film, I believe he put alot of effort into givng each score an individual sound, and more importantly, he took into consideration the different psychological aspects of the characters, situations etc, plus the symbolic meanings of different things displayed in the films. His music worked together with every element of the film: Soundeffects, voices, movements and gestures. He tried to make the music a "part" of the film in a very subtle way.
Steiner on the other hand I belive had a more simplistic way of scoring a film, which is not to say that his scores where inferior to Herrmanns in any way. They worked just as well for the films, which is why both Steiner and Herrmann where very succesfull in their own way. They worked on different levels.
Compare a film like Vertigo to a film like King Kong: Could Steiner have scored Vertigo? No chance in hell. Could Herrmann have scored King Kong? Not on your life.

There are many people who can explain this to you much better than me, but I hope you understand what I am trying to get at.

SFT

NP: Instinct, Danny Elfman ****/*****

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 26 January 2000).]

Why is it that we like to put people in a box and limit their potentials?

Scott

I never meant to say that Herrmann is too repetitive in the sense that he reuses many of his themes and motifs in various films. I think he's a versatile composer who's had an enormous impact on film music (although perhaps not the "father" as such, then definitely one of the most important groundbreakers - he artistically COMPLICATED the film for the better). What I meant was that I'm not too keen on his general "style". You may have noticed my comment that I like film MUSIC, not so much FILM music. So I like what's on the CD. In Herrmann's case, I've so far mostly been exposed to his Harryhausen and Hitchcock scores, which haven't really grabbed me on disc.

In order to explain this further, let me forward you to two threads I've posted at the FSM board some time back:
http://209.153.226.49/messageboard_html/Forum1/HTML/001927.html ("Elfman, but not Herrmann?")

and also this:
http://209.153.226.49/messageboard_html/Forum1/HTML/002510.html ("Subdued Intensity - What is It?")

Thanks,

However, I do think that Steiner could not have created a score for Vertigo, as good as Herrmanns. And also, that Herrmann could not have scored King Kong better than Steiner.
I belive Steiner would have "simplified" Vertigo, and that Herrmann would have "overdone" King Kong (does that make sense?).

I could be wronge of course, infact I very likely am. Maybe itīs just because both films are such classics, that it is impossible for me to imagine them with different scores. But in all honesty, I just donīt see it happening.

SFT

NP: The Hand That Rocks The Cradle, Graeme Revell ***/*****