quote:

---

Originally posted by John Prytz:
Horner is at the top of his chosen profession. Horner is in demand. If you are rich, famous, at the peak of your profession, and in demand, then I conclude that you must be "good" at what you do. Can you say the same about yourself? Are you "good"?

---

So was Al Capone, Milli Vanili and the Big Mac...

And, yes, I am good in what I do.
I am also well paid and somehow famous in the circle I work.
Even so, I am not a hack and I always try to come with something original and creative. Besides, I don't deny my influences...

Now I rest my case.
It's quite useless to argue with someone who lives by the "the more you have, the better you are" philosophy...

I think finding a "true original" in any music is mighty difficult. No one has been brought up in a vacuum, so maybe what we're doing is looking for those who have adopted and adapted what has gone before in the most "original" way (whatever that means).

Yes, I'm floundering. I must admit, in my younger days I'd never heard anything that sounded similar to Goldsmith's 60s output, Herrmann's love themes, or John Barry in general. Then I heard Bartok, Stockhausen, Mahler, Stan Kenton (!) and Elgar, just to give some examples, and I realised that these film composers didn't just come out the blue. Lots of influences there, although the last thing on my mind is to belittle in anyway the works of greats like those I've just mentioned. I mean, not even Bartok and Elgar invented a completely new language, or did they?

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:
Now I rest my case.
It's quite useless to argue with someone who lives by the "the more you have, the better you are" philosophy...

---

Agree.

Well, originality and distinctive style... sure, Goldenthal deserves a big accolade, but so does Mychael Danna I think. His style is... well... quite distinctive.

As for the inevitable comparisons, if there's one thing that irritates the hell out of me, it's when some non-score fan discusses a score and says that this choral piece is "very reminescent of Carmina Burana".

::rolls eyes::

I'm not saying this to show you how brilliant I am, but to demonstrate how brilliant THEY are. Even James Horner. When Horner rips someone off, at least it always sounds like HORNER ripping them off!

I totally agree with this. Copland started writing film music I believe, because he felt he could reach a wider audiance in writing it.
I'd like to know why so few film composers don't write concert hall music. Sure, many of them may claim to be purely 'film composers', but they're still composers and imho, should try writing for the concert hall aswell. Having said that though, I think a great deal of concert composers (and indeed, many classical musicians) need to stop being so friggin' ignorant when it comes to film music. As far as composers who write for film and concert hall, I know there's Goldenthal, Davis (?), Nyman John Williams...
...but who else?

Getting back to composers with completely original sounds though, and I think that most good composers will try to generate their own sound and if a work does turn out to sound as though it's influenced by another composer, it's probably completely unintentional. However, in my opinion, once a composer has his own sound he/she needs to be continually developing it. Sitting on top of a 'sound' and pulling out the same bit of music for 20 years is the sign of a weak composer.

It's common sense to realize that there has never been originality, as Dinko has said here - there's only people who interpret things from different perspectives and just may find out new ways of doing things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard:
As far as composers who write for film and concert hall, I know there's Goldenthal, Davis (?), Nyman John Williams...
...but who else?

---

Ahem....
http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/008531.html

And that's just what's been recorded... there are probably a good deal more.