Just WHO out of all these great composers we love so much are truly original, what I mean is that they have created a sound that is purely thier own and not derived from the classical greats, a distinct sound where the layman won't say "oh, that's great Stravinsky" but say "oh, that's great Joe Bloggs...unmistakable!"

Out of todays composers, I'd have to say the most original or having the most distinguishable sounds are Danny Elfman, Elliot Goldenthal, and Jerry Goldsmith.

I could say Trevor Jones...but not everything he does sounds like Dark City, most people haven't hear For Rosanna or Criss Cross.

Horner is very distinguishable. but we know not originally. I think his problem is having his own scores temp tracked to the movies?

And another thing....I feel critics are a bit harsh sometimes. I mean why can't a composer write an expansive romantic theme without being labeled as a John Barry Hack? (Last of the Dogmen) Or use a child choir and suddenly they're ripping off Danny Elfman (The Cable Guy). That doesn't make any sense, and is not fair. If I wanted a large chanting choir in my music I should'nt have to go through the B.S. of Omen references.
Theres just to much of "This Composer First Did This, So No One Else Is Allowed To Do It" going on.

Timmer, that's a very hard question! Grrrrrrrr.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinko:
Zimmer: pale extension of the other 1980's German Synth Pop dudes: Faltermeyer, Moroder, Doldinger, etc.

---

I beg to differ. Granted, Doldinger, Moroder, Faltermeyer (In that order) all came "before" Hans in term of filmic presence, Hans's been in there for as long as they have. In a way, Hans became something else. He established his own sound, which made him unique, or just different from his German peer. But then Hans wasn't necessarily a German. He was raised in England.

I think every composer has has his/her own style even if it does remind us of the old "masters." What a lot of music professors don't understand about guys like John Williams is how well his music works with moving images rather than nit-picking every gawddamned note he wrote like it was a bloody symphony.

Now, more importantly, where can I get my hands on a copy of Tango & Cash and a complete Beverly Hills Cop?

Tell me do you really think that's ok Horner re-using his four note Kael's motif (from WILLOW) again on THE PERFECT STORM and ENEMY AT THE GATES?
Or Hanzimmer cloning Morricone's SECRET OF THE SAHARA in his lame GLADIATOR score?

Why? I really want to know that...

Oh, and Andre i agree with you about Zimmer's Gladiator...and his other scores of course...

K

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Tell me do you really think that's ok Horner re-using his four note Kael's motif (from WILLOW) again on THE PERFECT STORM and ENEMY AT THE GATES?
Or Hanzimmer cloning Morricone's SECRET OF THE SAHARA in his lame GLADIATOR score?

Why? I really want to know that...

---

The bottom line is that if it works (in the context of the film scene in question) then Horner (or anyone else for that matter) can repeat the same four, five, six, etc. notes all they want. If you're on a good thing, stick to it! If you can't plagiarise yourself who can you plagiarise?

And since I am not aware of any film composer bring on a plagiarism lawsuit against any other film composer, I can only conclude that identical or near identical musical passages in different film scores by different film composers aren't as big an issue for the composers as they apparently are for the fans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Prytz:
If you can't plagiarise yourself who can you plagiarise?

---

Wow... what about "lets write some original stuff from time to time otherwise people will think we are just ludicrous hacks" bottom line?

And these cloned scores doesn't work for me and I bet for others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:

Perfect, John.

The Catman

---

Now I know for sure I am right...

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

And these cloned scores doesn't work for me and I bet for others.

I am sure it works for the average audience [/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Prytz:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=
And Horner, et al. don't write their scores to please you or other film music fans. They do write their scores to fit the film in question, and of course to please those in the industry who are signing their pay packets. And of course there is an appeal to the masses.

---

...and that's when Film music stops being a legitimate form of art...

k

The Catman<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't you answer the questions yourself with solid evidence about your opinions, instead of waiting for others to bash Andre?
...since you hate him so much...

...oh well, just a thought...

...sorry everyone,i just couldn't resist...
k

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:

Oh!Impressive, now.
Maybe I prefer this way, just wait for someone who think like me.
Are you a paranoic, Kir?

The Catman

---

...hmmmmm....maybe, maybe not...
If i am, then at least i know that Elliot Goldenthal is paranoid too. And his music is pure genious.

k

The Catman<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Peter...

No, I'm not a musician, nor am I in the music industry. I'm applying what I trust is some sort of economic common sense. Films, the film industry, creating music for films, are ultimately about money, profits, jobs, etc. Follow the money trail. Film composers gotta make a living. They got bills to pay. They gotta please the "suits" who hire and pay them. They need to write music that appeals to the average audiences that goes and sees the film in question, and to do that they have to write music that is appropriate to the film. Since composers tend to have their own unique style, if they compose for different films that are however similiar in nature, then it is not surprising that there will be results something akin to musical cloning.

Film music composing is business first, art second, and the last thing film composers I'm sure are worried about is the reaction of the 5000 or so hard core film music fans
around the world. We are small fry in the overall context of the industry, and our liking and buying (or not buying) the end product (film score CD) is neither here nor there. If one million average (the masses, the great unwashed, call them what you will) film goers like the music in "Titanic" and buy the "Titanic" film score, what care Horner and the "suits" if the music is poo-pooed by the 5000 hard core film music fans because it sounds too similiar to other Horner scores or the music in other films? We don't hardly rate; our opinions don't ultimately matter.

And that also is the bottom line. If you don't care for film composer Joe Blogs score to "X" because it sounds too much like his score to "Y", you don't have to buy it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TimT:
I think it was Graeme Revell who said, composing for films is a job not an art.

---

...well...no offense to any Revell fans out there, but take a look at the majority of his scores(according to Filmtracks reviews;i personally don't own any CDS by the composer)

quote:

---

Originally posted by TimT:
I think it was Graeme Revell who said, composing for films is a job not an art.

---

Graeme Revell? Pfft. Aaron Copland:

quote:

---

The main complaint about film music as written today in Hollywood is that so
much of it is cut and dried, rigidly governed by conventions that have grown up
with surprising rapidity in the short period of twenty-odd years since the talkies began. But, leaving the hack composer aside, there is no reason why a serious composer, cooperating with an intelligent producer on a picture of serious artistic pretensions, should not be able to have his movie scores judged by the same standards applied to his concert music.

---

Hence, art. And I have a feeling Revell doesn't see it as a job all the time... in a recent Soundtrack.net interview he said he was trying to change his typecasting as an action composer. If it's just a job, why try to change an image that gets you paid big bucks on many, many films that get you major exposure? Revell is quite popular and sought-after in the Tomb Raider / Collateral Damage league of films, yet he's taken time out to do Anne Frank on TV and Human Nature, an obscure semi-independent comedy that probably won't get more than a generous art-house release.

What was this thread about? Oh, that's right, modern film composers who have truly distinctive, original sounds.

Well for starters, John Ottman. Give a listen to Incognito or his rejected Cruel Intentions.

Then there's Don Davis. After surviving for a few years on his similarity to James Horner, his own voice is starting to show through (although last year didn't offer him many chances to use it). Case in point: The Matrix, House on Haunted Hill.

And there's Howard Shore. Howard Shore. Proof: listening to almost anything he has done.

You could say Philip Glass. But if you want to talk about similarities to classical composers, he does have a tendency to sound like Philip Glass.

Everyone has said Elliot Goldenthal. No question there.

Mychael Danna. Put on Kama Sutra or Felicia's Jounrey.

Some people will tell me I'm crazy for including him, but the hell with you. Mark Mothersbaugh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
You could say Philip Glass. But if you want to talk about similarities to classical composers, he does have a tendency to sound like Philip Glass.

---

Kirk, LOL. Doesn't this mean he's overqualified in this thread's case?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Prytz:
And Horner, et al. don't write their scores to please you or other film music fans. They do write their scores to fit the film in question, and of course to please those in the industry who are signing their pay packets.

---

Wow... what a genious!
I could have never figured it out for myself.
But I can only laugh at the statement above.
Horner "do write music to fit the film in question".

Is that so? He "writes" music?
I tought that taking a score you previously used in another movie and puting it to play with minimum variation could never be called "writing".

Only two people write action music, Lalo Schifrin and Jerry Goldsmith....everyone else just copies them.

I've always loved that statement, although I have to add Erich Korngold in there for the 'Williams' style of orchestral chaos.

No mention yet for Morricone or John Barry? Two composers who in my opinion have truly distinctive original voices! Try picking out all the stuff they have nicked from other peoples music and notice what a damn hard job you'll have!!

I'm not saying they haven't been tea-leafs from time to time but boy is it ever rare.

If it's originalty of thought and an explorative, creative approach then people like Goldenthal, Goldsmith and and Morricone come to mind among those still alive and working today.

The criticisms music scholars maintain in relation to film music indicate all the more why industry enthusiasts should be careful to avoid evaluating a score strictly on the basis of its musical quality and/or originality. Classical music devotees can recall forever that even the most progressive of film scores—-such as many works composed by Alex North or Leonard Rosenman—-still owe much to preconceived musical ideas that emanated from classical circles. Film music aficionados’ fixed concentration on film scores’ musical significance only fuels critics’ unflattering assessment of the industry…and its fans. Moreover, another reason why one should be careful not to value a score’s experimentation, etc. too highly is because it is certainly possible for film music to be original or daring to a fault. In order for a film composer to communicate to an audience, he must speak in a musical language that an audience can understand. This is why it is fundamentally erroneous for one to criticize a film score for its uninspired musical value.

Filmgoers should recognize the importance of communication and compositional consistency in film music and celebrate these principles with greater fervor. It is by means of replacing an analytical concentration on a film score’s musical quality with a focus upon a score’s dramatic significance that the art form and its most effective practitioners will finally receive proper respect. In addition, classical music admirers (hopefully) will come to realize that their criticism regarding the regressive tone of film music is not sound. In other words, through such a critical transition, listeners will understand that what accounts for a film score’s artistic quality is not the value of the music in and of itself…but rather how clearly a film composer communicates a picture’s message(s)/story to his audience through the language of music.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Besides, Horner music is always getting lame reviews everywhere - from critics and even the average moviegoer.
So it isn't even fiting the movies anylonger...

---

Yet still Horner gets hired. Why (if you are right)? And Horner's scores on CD sell well (or as well as film scores can sell in the overall context of things which is a relatively small market), otherwise the record labels wouldn't issue things like "Iris", or "Beautiful Mind" or "Braveheart", etc. Nothing succeeds like success, and you can bag Horner from now until the cows come home, but he has proved to a stayer in the industry, and successful by nearly any criteria you care to name.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Prytz:
Yet still Horner gets hired. Why (if you are right)? And Horner's scores on CD sell well.

---

Sorry lad, but I still can't get your point.
You're trying to say that Horner is GOOD because the studios and lame directors keep hiring him? Or because his albums sells well?

Following your twisted logic ("Money Rules"), then we can say that things like Jon Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson or N'Sync are great too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by André Lux:

Sorry lad, but I still can't get your point.
You're trying to say that Horner is GOOD because the studios and lame directors keep hiring him? Or because his albums sells well?

---

"Good" is a relative and ultimately a judgment term that (in the case of music) is in the mind and ear of the listener. "Good" is not a matter of fact that can be proven. But what I can say is that Horner is very well off (dare I say rich in fact). Horner is famous (or as famous as one can be scoring motion picture films). 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"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
[B]And K, keep reading Filmtracks, sure, but don't stop there! You have much more of a relationship with (and understanding of) music than Clemmonsen does. The majority of Revell's scores are not what Filmtracks (and perhaps others) have painted them to be. Perhaps a minority, but certainly not a majority.
[B]

---

See? This is what i hate with Filmtracks. They stop you from bying even the good cd's...