What in your mind defines an A-list composer?

Perhaps the question needs to be even more refined in that we make a distinction between concert (classical) composers and film composers.

I'm not a big authority on classical composers so I leave those bean to the ones who have the insight and education in this area. Now, while I have by far no authority or great knowledge about film music, I will attempt to bring some of my feelings about this subject to light.

First off, and please remember this is only Scott, the uneducated guy (musically speaking)so don't get a hissy fit if I sound really stupid or whatever; anyways, for me an A-list (film)composer will create his music to fit the action in the movie. I think one of the greatest examples here is the mickey mousing first used by Max Steiner (if I am not mistaken). While usually looked upon with a frown by most of us, if done well mickey mousing can very much enhance the film. Home Alone has plenty of examples of this.

Second, he will attempt to complement certain scenes in a movie. This may be a little more difficult. Certain scenes actually may require music that will actually turn down the emotional content of the scenes, while other scenes may require the composer to create an emotion that would be hard to achieve with images only. I think two great examples are here The Omen by Goldsmith and Jaws by Williams. The Omen would have been quite scary on its own, but with Goldsmith's chanting chorus opus, the images jump at you with utter terror and the music can still create fear by simply listening to it without the film. Who would actually believe the mechanical shark would have instilled any kind of fear in the hearts of movie audiences if it were not for Williams shark motive? Both composers managed to complement the scenes they were presented with which leads us to ....

Third, the composer who is considered A-list, must be able to enhance the scenes they compose for. You want drama, sometimes the music will provide that. Many times long stretch of dialogue can be enhanced and made bearable through the use of the music in the background. Look at the shower scene in Psycho. The strings as used by Herrman so enhance the image played out in front of us that it becomes almost unbearable. Even in our days of blood and gore, that black and white scene seems more terrigying than anything Wes Craven could ever put on celluloid, and it is all because of Mr. Herrman.

Fourth, the composer should be able to establish some kind of connection between the fillm and the audience. The kind of connection that will have people remember the movie more readably. This is not always possible or even necessary, but when in need it must be provided. There are definite connections between movie and music in such films as Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Raiders of the lost Ark, and yes, even Titanic. People hear the main themes and they remember the music, in fact the connections are so strong, that themes could never be used in trailors because they have been married to the movies in such a degree that audiences around the world instantly reckognize them.

Fifth, an A-list composer will be able and willing to compose music that is musically interesting and perhaps a challenge to the great musicians that perform the scores. The amount of work needed to orchestrate, arrange and create all of these sounds is to me mindboggling and a great composer will be able to do this and all of the above and still make the musician go home being proud of him/herself for having been able to perform certain difficult passages from the score.

Sixth, as far as I can see, the A-list composer will be able to creat melody, or themes. Something one can remember, one can hum. He/She will be able to create a score that can be listened to on its own, without the images they were created for. With the right skills, a composer will be able to create a symphonic style piece that not only does all it was asked to do, but will envolve into a new identiy when released seperately from the movie. Where new images are evoked in the mind of the listener. Where it will tell the story of the film purly musically or even help us create new ones in our imaginations hearts. Jorner, while despised by many, writes beautiful melodies and well, yeah, Goldsmith, Williams, Bernstein, all the greats are able to do this part extremly well.

Finally, the composer must not be afraid to try something new. Something not done or seldom done before. Venturing into a new style or type of sound or music, when needed. On the same token, he must be willing to forgoe inventiness for a more common style if this is what the movie requires. Goldenthal is great in this regard I do believe.

Naturally an A-list composer must be a great communicater. He has to be able to do all of the above and still listen and accomplish the wishes of the director and sometimes producer. If he cant get that achieved, all that will happen is that his score will be tossed in favor of another composer's score. Now, this might not be the fault of the composer as much as the directore or producer, yet it happens. Goldsmith score for Legend is maginificent, yet it was tossed here in the US because of certain tone death excecutives who wanted a more modern sound in order to get the youngeins in...which as we all know, sitll didnt' work out.

Well, those are my thoughts, call me naive, crazy, dumb...whatever...it's only my take on this subject.

By the way this topic is actually PeterK's as prompted by Widescreen's Minority Report thread. He asked for someone to start it. Why he didn't post it himself is beyond me, but I am happy he asked, for I think this is truly a great topic. Thanks PeterK and thanks Widescreen for getting us here.

Scott

[Message edited by Scott on 05-17-2002]

When I think of A-list composers, the best and often most traditional (today) ones (in my mind) usually pop up.

Williams, Goldsmith, Morricone, Horner...

Generally these guys always produce hugely effective scores and are always in high demand.

Somebody like, oh, Poledouris would make his way on the list, but the fact that he doesn't score a whole 'lotta projects these days keeps him off.

I don't know, the whole "a-list", "b-list", etc seems kind of useless. There are so many good composers out there that I don't see a point in slicing them up into different lists.

I mean if I had a personal "a-list", there'd be at least 10 composers up there, including Isham, Newton-Howard, Zimmer, Elfman, all three Newmans, Portman, Young, Barry, Shore, and a few others I'm no doubt forgetting... The list gets to the point where it's a majority of the popular composers working today, so it has little purpose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
If we're judging by the credentials by which Tim replied -- how much one's in demand and how much he gets paid -- it makes more sense, because at that point it comes down to fact rather than opinion.

---

The greatest artist of the past were underpaid and not very much in demand. After they died they bacame famous and were reckognized as artists. So, your facts establish exactly that, that they are highly paid and in demand, yet it still does not say they are a-list composers which to me (if you actaully read what I wrote, which based on your response I highly doubt), means a true artist.

Scott

For example:

Does "A-list" only apply to Hollywood?

Does "A-list" only apply to current day? Meaning, if a composer was once on the "A-list" (take Herrmann, for example) but might not be anymore due to the passage of time? Ok, so it might be easy to divide "A-list" composers into "past" and "present," but the better discussion then ends up in "limbo" - or, at least which composers are in limbo... where someone might not be fully in the past or fully in the present (take Vangelis, for example).

If a composer receives an Oscar, would that automatically qualify them for the "A-list" ? The Oscar is supposedly Hollywood's measure of success. Accordingly, any composer who's ever won an Oscar is an "A-list" composer.

Etc, etc. This topic can be good, but then again, it can be easily wrecked just the same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Olivarez:
I dare someone elso to mention Steiner, Message edited by Mark Olivarez on 05-18-2002]

---

Hey I used Steiner. My response was not meant to leave out the great masters, but I was blah, blahd already for what I DID write; had I written more I would have been send to the Dungedons in Artiariallo to die a horrible death.

Scott

let me see if I can address some of your questions (without being long winded...lol).

Does "A-list" only apply to Hollywood?

Of course not. Maurice Jarre, Delure, Morricone, while composers who do work in Hollywood, they are European and not really Hollywood bread. Soule, Giacchino work up north. So, no, to be an "A-list" composers does not apply to just Hollywood.

Does "A-list" only apply to current day?

Nope. That would be saying Beethoven or Mozart were not "A-list" composers in the classical world just because they are gone.

If a composer receives an Oscar, would that automatically qualify them for the "A-list" ? The Oscar is supposedly Hollywood's measure of success. Accordingly, any composer who's ever won an Oscar is an "A-list" composer.

I disagree with that point. Sure, the Oscar is supposed to be a critical award, but we all know this not to be entirely true. I mean, did Titanic really deserve to meet Ben Hur in awards? You be the judge of that.

All in all, whether your industry or a fan, I really believe that if a composer does everything we have said so far they qualify as an "A-list" composer.

Last point: Bruce Broughton: Would not everyone agree that he is an "A-list" composer, yet for the longest time he barely got assigments and I don't know if he is one of the highest paid composers out there and obviously for a while he was not much in demand. Yet the guy is an awesome composers and does everything we have discussed before, and is in for an Oscar I would say.

Scott

What defines an A-list composer? Durn good question, my only criterion with respect to the other thread was somebody whose career had spanned quite a bit of time as well having been somewhat of an Oscar winner, really it was more for organization purposes, bot for ranking. The organization that I had in mind was too see trivial patterns, no more, no less.

As to what makes a composer an A-List one regardless of what I meant, I can only say what an A-list composer is to me. Not every composer could be one, but they get to do something I'd love to be great at doing while in the industry, but I'm not yet either and the possibility exists I might not ever, so I can show humility and admiration to those in the rotation now. But like I said, not everyone of them can be A-list. SO what an A-List is to me consists of Consistent and Creative Prolificism. Want an example? Look at the entire careers of Williams and Goldsmith. I'm not viewing them entirely on technique or choice of material. It's more important to look at their work by how it stands over the years. But what does that make composers like Don Davis who have had long careers but not as much public prolificism. Does that make them B-list, or lesser than those I've exemplified, HELL NO. So I guess A-List in that definition I used may not work, but it can serve as a basis for which filmmakers use them and consider them A-list. A fan could just listen and call them what they mean to them individually. Maybe that's best. I do think the posts that have already come up cover extremely well where and how someone gets to be A-List. Scott's got some good ideas for that.

I'm lucky I've been part of the genesis of a wide ranging topic on this board. If you look at my time on this board, I'm not quite as public as others- and when I have been, i can't say I haven't added to flames or written something that could be the read equivalent of putting my foor in my mouth.
I count myself grateful that starting post was read at all. I don't think I'm beneath or above anyone here, I just didn't expect to stumble on a great conversation topic that I'm surprised hasn't come up before and probably has.

[Message edited by Widescreen on 05-20-2002]

[Message edited by Widescreen on 05-20-2002]

In Hollywood, publicists and/or agents define the A-list composers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom_B_Stone:
but "A-list" is simply a recent industry term for the short list of composers who usually get asked first. It changes day-to-day, and has more to do with last week's movie grosses than musical gifts.

---

I can agree with that to a certain point, yet there are those composers who have been on this list (whether deserving or not)for a long time now. Williams and Goldsmith come to mind. Now interestingly enough, if we compare the two, then Williams has the box office tally down pad. It's almost to the point where if you want a box office smash, call Williams. Naturally we all know Williams fortunes with big box office performances is more luck (if not blessing) then his virtuoso composing abiltites. However, Goldsmith, who has not had Lady Luck on his side as far as box office greatness is concerened, is still very much sought in Hollywood.

So is it box office related? Maybe. Is is publicity? Partly. Is it talent and abiltity? Hopefully. Is it luck? Likely (if you accept the notion of luck at all that is). Is it all of that and Harry Potter put together? Now we're getting somewhere.

Scott

You talk of this "A-list" as if it is real.
Where can I see it? Sure, most of us have heard the term, but there is nobody who says this composer is on the A-list, and that one is not. It's a nebulous concert if you ask me -- and a suspicious one too when neither Poledouris and nor Broughton make it on the list.

I think that it only means what the person using the term means it to mean. Those in the business think of the business; most of us fans think of the talent.

Luck (that is, the last movie scored made a pile of money) has everything to do with getting one's name there. Some deserve it; some don't.

Tom

Scott wrote:
I can agree with that to a certain point, yet there are those composers who have been on this list (whether deserving or not)for a long time now. Williams and Goldsmith come to mind. Now interestingly enough, if we compare the two, then Williams has the box office tally down pad. It's almost to the point where if you want a box office smash, call Williams. Naturally we all know Williams fortunes with big box office performances is more luck (if not blessing) then his virtuoso composing abiltites. However, Goldsmith, who has not had Lady Luck on his side as far as box office greatness is concerened, is still very much sought in Hollywood.

So is it box office related? Maybe. Is is publicity? Partly. Is it talent and abiltity? Hopefully. Is it luck? Likely (if you accept the notion of luck at all that is). Is it all of that and Harry Potter put together? Now we're getting somewhere.

Scott
[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom_B_Stone:
Scott,

You talk of this "A-list" as if it is real.
Where can I see it? Sure, most of us have heard the term, but there is nobody who says this composer is on the A-list, and that one is not. It's a nebulous concert if you ask me -- and a suspicious one too when neither Poledouris and nor Broughton make it on the list.

Well, duh! Of course there is no "actual" list (as far as I know). Yet, if there was one, Broughton and Poledouris would be on it as far as I am concerned.

Luck (that is, the last movie scored made a pile of money) has everything to do with getting one's name there. Some deserve it; some don't.

Hmmm...I don't belileve in luck. I also don't believe that if I were to believe in luck it would be the only factor in this. But, heck, what do I know.

---

he is a very good composer indeed. I love his "The American President" score, awesome work.