Some film music fans feel that this new style is going to displace orchestral scores because it is generally cheaper than hiring an orchestra.

Chris,
That looks like a Klu Klux Klan head, I'm getting the heck outta here!

NP- The North Star (John Scott)

Gladiator I believe had 4 composers credited.
MI:2 had 2

Whatever you may think of MV (I always call them The Sweatshop Boys)scores there is no denying thier success. And nothing suceeds like that.

I find it utterly grotesque that it only takes one John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith to score a film -- but give the project to Media Ventures, and suddenly it takes a factory.

NP- From the Beach, Silently Weaping. (Christopher Gordon) 5/5

When multiple artists, with equal control, work on a project compromise is inevitable. No single artistic vision can drive the project.

When a single composer composes a project, it is his vision that drives (inspired by the movie, one would hope) it. He may have mixers, copyists, arrangers, QC people or even virtuoso performers, but his vision drives it.

Their approach to scoring films is simply different that the "traditional" approach. That's great. It is this that mixes up the bunch a little bit. Some like it, some don't. Regardless, it works and they are in demand.

If they want to compose w/ multiple artists on a project, then fine! More power to them.

I think Hans Zimmer and Mark Machina are the only ones in this group with real talent. The rest are simply emulators of a sound that is quickly becoming (Daniel2 are you listening?) stock and trendy.

And WHAT IS up with it taking a team of composers to produce one score? On the surface this seems novel but why does it require this? Yea, most (traditional) composers have associates to assist them to get a score through production but the music came out of only one head (through collaboration with the director and others) not three.

Why? I guess that's the Media Ventures mantra.

Media Ventures is here for a while. It's like when CGI took over more traditional ways of producing visual effects. They can do a lot with computers but somehow you can always tell that it's CGI. A MV sound may be the state of the art but something of fine composition is being lost as a result. Everyone wants it but I don't know if that's a good thing in the long run.

I don't quite agree with the thought that the artistic vision is compromised with multiple composers. Maybe with scores like Armageddon and The Rock, but I think if the composers get together and openly discuss what their musical goals are, the art comes out even more polished than what would've happened if only one composer was working on the project. Chicken Run is a perfect example of this.

I like the concept of MediaVentures. Hans Zimmer is a popular and in-demand film composer. He's like the mother bird and the rest of MV are the baby birds. Zimmer goes out and gets the worms and feeds them to his baby birds... soon (as is the case with Mark Mancina) the baby bird learns to fly and get his own worms! (dumb analogy, I know...) I think, as seen with Chicken Run, John Powell and Harry Gregson-Williams are ready to fly as well. On the other hand, I think Nick Glennie-Smith needs momma bird to spit more worms in his mouth!

(hope I haven't grossed anyone out)

Tim

I don't want to give examples of ghost-writing orchestrators simply because I don't want to anger people... but if you search in the right places (like the FILMUS archives) you can find some answers. I have it on good autority that some popular film scores were written largely by the composer's orchestrator(s).

Tim

Gleenie-Smith was into alot of rock, but even before that! (please refer to the insert notes of The Man in the Iron Mask.)As for the other composers you mentioned, I forgot about them, Hey I rarley see them!

Anyway if you've ever heard Disney's Millenium Cellibration then you know that Gavin Greenaway has the skills! And I'm surprised that we don't hear from him more often.

Oh and just for everyone's information Nick-Gleenie-Smith is scoring the new Highlander movie! :-)

[This message has been edited by TimT, EricT, StevenT. Additional commments by NicholeT (edited 09 August 2000).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
[B]I think that the problem with multiple composers is that you can't produce art by committee.

[B]

---

Isn't that why The Beatles broke up?

Lol,
Anyways, I love MV...I can't get enough of the bass, the heart pounding action, the crazy synths. I mean, they do what they are paid for.. and they get the job done right.

John and Paul provided the artistic vision for The Beatles, but it was an adversarial relationship in that the tension between the two opposites provided the focus. It was inherently unstable.

In fact Ringo left the group and came back. I think the single artistic vision that shaped the Beatles music was provided by George Martin, their producer.

It worked both because of the ego thing, and because it usually was one person's song, and not a full-on group thing. Back to that group art comment about which Mr. Ruger was also right.

I have a friend with whom I grew up, both wanting to write and make films - probably together. We're different now. Different both from our old selves and from each other. We're no less friends, but we probably shouldn't work together as equals - ever. If I'm helping him achieve his vision, or he helping me with mine, we tend to excell in the other's eyes, but we would buck heads from start to finish if we tried to do an equal, collaborative thing, and we'd not finish it. We see things far too diferently now to even want the same results (unless we do comedy).

That's us. Not everyone, just us. But it happens. John wants to challenge and save the world, Paul wants to write lullabies and sing with a melody. What are you gonna do?

(of couurse, we're definitely not the Beatles)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorien:
So in another sense I'm agreeing, from an entirely pedestrian point of view, that it's not very attractive music.

---

It's not. Believe me.