In the event of keeping you, the reader of this forum, interested in the world of soundtracks, I offer a few stories available for reading online at the moment:

Fewer "inspired by" soundtracks in the future? Could be good news. read here (Hollywood Reporter)

Movie's music man has his work cut out. read here (USA Today)

Which composer will be inducted into the Motion Picture Hall of Fame first? read here

Let these headlines provide an open door for more discussion below, or not! Happy Halloween everyone....

NP - THE CHANGELING

Interesting.

"Bored with the board? Look here... Don't make me come over there... I'll make you happy damnit!"

Hollywood Reporter says " 'Titanic' was mostly a classical music collection."
> Say what? Carla and Tamara must have confused Gladiator with Titanic. I'm all for Horner-bashing, but unless Enya has been recategorized as 'classical', Titanic is hardly a classical music collection.

Dinko, I agree and share your reactions to the articles. Just before the writer suggests Titanic was a classical album, she mentions the CD "constitutes anything but radio-friendly pop music." Uh, hello? What song played ad nauseum on the radio did every person in America get sick of in early 1998?? Hmmmm? Perhaps "My Heart Will Go On"? Thought so.

Those few anomalies aside, it's good to see an industry finally realizing that "inspired by" albums are mostly worthless when it comes to making a "connect" with the movie the record labels suggest. The music on the CDs must have a musical connection, or else there's nothing there for the long term. I am betting 1992's The Commitments soundtrack is today selling a million times better than 1997's Batman and Robin. Regular mofos feel the same, too. Just look at all the negative feedback about The Fast and the Furious CD. Hopefully it's the last of a deservedly dying breed!

.

Probably the man who put film music on the map, as it were: Max Steiner.

Steiner. Without a doubt.

All these bloody awards shows and best of lists are truly the nadar of analysis and criticism. The perfect spoon fed dialogue to engage lunkheads in so called 'culture'. The same lunkheads who persevere in their quest to silence the so-called "snobs" and "cultural elite" because being stupid and uninformed now in days is an idealized form of moral superiority.

(People like to harp on Horner for his cribbing. If only Steiner's musical output was put through the same grinder... there would be shock and dismay).

Granted this has nothing to do with film music but the USA Today had an article a few months ago discussing the drop off in CD sales. Too many one hit wonders and not enough quality songs on the CD. Throw in the fact everyone sounds alike these days and no wonder sales are down.

I think some of that plays into "Soundtrack" Albums. With the exception of a few most songs included on the albums aren't that good. I mean look at Godzilla for an example. Sony probably shelled out alot of money for those artists to contribute and since then have you heard anything worthwhile from any of them? I mean wasn't Jamiroquai given all these awards and praised? Now where is he? Don't even get me started on P-diddy. Apparently he can't do anything but re-use songs and ruin them. Throw in the fact that only two of those songs were slapped on the End Credits for no reason. If memory serves me right the Godzilla album tanked on the charts.

I still don't see the relevancy of a 'Hall of Fame'. What function does it serve apart from being just another excercise in PR? They may as well be handing out awards for best processed sliced cheese or best breast augmentation. So, why is it "a good thing"?

If the public is really starving to add their two cents to collective memory, I'd rather single out those who perform a greater service to the living memory of great talent: the producers of the music we listen to and prize. Considering the market forces at play, they are either seriously deluded or profoundly dedicated. 200 years from now a plaque on a wall will be just another curiousity - like any tomb marker, but even a dusty, ignored CD on a library shelf (if they will still exist) still allows for knowledge to be shared.

But, what do I know...

SQPR, I realize the "award" nature of the Walk of Fame. I belated the use of inverted commas until now. "Award." I understand your view, sure, but also look upon the Hall of Fame thing as a brand new legacy that might just break ranks with gloating "PR excercises" such as the Walk of Fame. If you parallel the MPHoF with the Baseball Hall of Fame, or the Football Hall of Fame, there is some integrity to the recognition. This is why there's hope this is a good thing.

As for "PR excercises," there's no getting away from it, ever. "PR" is code for entertainment as far as I know....

But what do I know?

Korngold was a big influence but he only did 17 scores and one arrangement later.

Steiner did about 314 and Newman like number.

Steiner 1929-1965 active in scoring
Newman 1930-1970 " " "
Korngold 12 years and the one later

Of these three Newman showed much more variety in his writing.

The USA today article is very interesting. Movie music is a very big business when used for expensive projects. John Williams for example, is a very good composer, yes, but there are some other awesome composers, not as well known as Williams, who have very unique styles and could do a great job at the movie music business. Unfortunately, the big budgeted projects, only mind about the name and the fame, and they leave great new composers behind. I very much like to see Williams scoring “big” movies, but I’d love to see new composers developing their capacity and creativity, having the support that “big” movies give.

For the hall of fame I also say that Newman is the man.

Rach.

and that is that Steiner is generally credited by everyone as being the father of film music. He is the one that gave credibility to sound films, by using music in a new way.

Korngold, yes was a giant, and his stature and reputation in both the film and classical realms continues to grow to this day, witness recent recordings by no less a film composer than Andre Previn and a bit of a song cycle by someone else whose name and label I conveniently forget.

but Steiner was the one to establish film music and plant the roots.

so in short:

suck it, PK!

Steiner may have been the father of film music, but somehow I tend to hear more of Korngold's stylistics used in today's films, than Steiner's continuous quoting of folk tunes and national anthems. Same goes for Rozsa.

Steiner's King Kong took Wagner's composing technique of "motif" and applied it to a movie score. The resulting King Kong is unmistakably a great feat, but someone was bound to do it sooner or later. Correct me if I'm wrong, but during the silents, pre-existing music was cribbed all the time as thematic music for the given picture. The music was not specifically composed for picture, but it was used for thematic purposes.

Korgold, on the other hand, is known (or should be known), for not just using thematic scoring techniques, but taking them to an entirely deeper level. As Dinko suggests, Korngold's scoring technique has had a most influential impact on the scores we hear today, which can be attributed largely to John Williams' re-introduction of Korngold's symphonic scoring technique with Star Wars.

I'm going to skip the topic of hall-of-fame inductees because I'm not as well-versed as some of you on the potential inductees.

One of the reasons I don't post much at this board is because I don't buy soundtracks that often. So this is a "lay man's" perspective, so to speak. I think that those soundtrack albums with pop music can be very worthwhile, but only as a collection of songs that I already like. This is the reason I bought My Best Friend's Wedding, The Parent Trap and Practical Magic. I wanted those particular songs, but I didn't want to buy the whole album they were originally released on, so I bought the soundtrack instead. But here's the thing. If those songs are released on a new compilation soundtrack, I don't need them, see? I have them from movie soundtracks I've bought over the years. So one of the reasons I don't buy c.d.s like that anymore is that, like most people, I have a growing c.d. collection.

I really don't have a lot of money to spend either, so any money that I do use on soundtracks will probably go toward score c.d.'s that I haven't managed to buy yet. In the past year, I have collected Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings, The American President, a c.d. with a lot of W.G. Snuffy Walden scores, including the theme to The West Wing, and a few other ones that I can't think of right now. Considering I've spent only about $50 on music this year, I ain't going to be testing out pop songs from The Fast and the Furious anytime soon. I have no idea of my buying behavior translates into a larger pattern, but I do know that we're still clawing our way out of a recession.

Hope this made sense!

The articles from above mention a boom in the late 90s years for these song soundtracks, and I can't help but note the impact song-swapping services like Napster might possibly have had on these types of CDs beginning in the year 2000.

People bought up these "inspired by" collections just as you've mentioned... for the great collections of songs offered by the CD without having to buy individual CDs from the artists to otherwise obtain the songs.

Napster's offerings then takes this idea to the extreme. People could collect the songs they want without having to pay at all.

And now that people have a HUGE collection of their favorite songs, thanks to Napster (et al) previous "inspired by" soundtracks, etc, the demand for such CDs has waned, and the real soundtrack is finding its way back to the hearts of true movie fans.

.

It appears the board has suggested Alfred Newman as the first inductee, followed by Korngold and Steiner. Correct, or is there still some conversation left in this piece? Where does Franz Waxman fit into this? I would have to say his The Bride of Frankenstein means as much to me as Steiner's King Kong, and, as individual scores, their significance to me is unmatchable.

.

Two additional questions for this topic. Where do you place those composers, such as Prokofiev, who scored very few films but paved the way for serious classical composers to enter film scoring? And, where do you put someone such as Charles Chaplin, who not only acted and directed films, but composed scores, as well?!

I am surprised there haven't been any suggestions for Morricone, Jarre, Goldsmith, etc until now. Maybe people's perceptions of induction should be that they be post-humous? I wouldn't think they would be, as there have been plenty living inductees into halls of fame from art to sport (zport!).

I'll clear up the part about Charles Chaplin... this specific hall of fame linked to above is not an exclusive composer hall of fame. The composer is one of six inductees, and off the top of my head, are a couple each for actors and actresses, one for producer, one for director, one for composer. In that sense, Chaplin can be named to as many as technically possible ("actress" award not possible!).

Finally, unless Prokofiev or Wagner have technically written a film score, they probably won't qualify. Yeah, it's seems wrong, but these are the snags.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
Finally, unless Prokofiev or Wagner have technically written a film score, they probably won't qualify.

---

Oh Peter, Peter, Peter...
How can a Holy FishChip such as Yourself make such a statement? Quite preoccupied with other matters you must be.
Prokofiev has technically written film scores. At least four of them.
Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible 1, Ivan the Terrible 2 and Lt. Kijé.
Shame, shame, shame,...

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeterK:
Hey Mike, while I have your attention, what serious classical composers are actually scoring films regularly these days? Is that what you meant when you say "paved the way," or somethin' else?

---

Well, first off, there's Elliot Goldenthal, probably the most famous of the film composers and "serious classical composers". There's Tan Dun and John Corigliano who are more in the classical vein than movie scoring, and they each have a very well deserved Oscar. There's also Phillip Glass, who may very well get an Oscar nomination this year, and Kilar, as well. If you want to go even further back, Ralph Vaughn Williams composed some wonderful film scores, too (I need to get that Chandos CD).

What I meant by "paved the way" is that if people like Prokofiev, Korngold, etc., hadn't entered into film scoring, for whatever reason, composers, as some do today, may look at film music as being beneath them, and some of the truly talented composers we have experienced, past and present, may have stayed in the purely classical realm.

and if you wanna go WAY back, Camille Saint-Saens.

Would current movie music be of a higher calibre if there were more serious classical composers working in film today?

Or... was movie music of a higher calibre back then when so many more serious classical composers were contributing to film?

Each voting member nominates 3 composers based on the following criteria:

1. The composer must have a minimum of 5 films with a running time of 80 minutes or more to his/her credit.
2. The composer has written or contributed music to at least four of the the following genres:

Historical Drama
Historical Adventure
Contemporary Drama
Contemporary Adventure
War Drama
War Adventure
Crime/Noir Drama
Urban Comedy
Western
Psychological Thriller
Horror
Sci-Fi
Fantasy

Nominating Procedure:

a. From the 27 possible candidates, those receiving less than 6 nominations are stricken from the nominations list.

b. On the first ballot, a composer receiving less than 5 votes is stricken from the nominee list.

c. On the second ballot, a composer receiving less than 6 votes is stricken from the nominee list.

d. On the third and final ballot, the composer with 7 or more votes is the winner.

Frankly, I don't whether the mathematics are sound but I'll leave that to the statistician amongst us to fret over..but this is the sort of general formula I would look at.

Naturally, there will be some who would object to the whole idea of an exclusive voting body, but the these 'Hall of Fame' thingies are intended to give credit where credit is due (or, at least that's what I've been led to believe), not open the doors to just another popularity contest. I would only say to those who object to this sort of process is to trust in the integrity and acumen of the individual you would vote for.

Certainly an arguable set of requirements for induction.

How do these then explain why someone like John Carpenter would never make it into a composer hall of fame? I would think he belongs, but then again, tinkering on a keyboard might not be as deserving the kind of credit a hall of fame suggests....