A while ago I was playing Silvestri's Judge Dredd at work. Some colleague of mine thought it was great. Of course he never even heard of Silvestri, but only vaguely of John Williams (a familiar fact). It made me think what is the reason that I dived into film music and SO much people haven't.

I have a very diverse musical taste. I like rock, blues, jazz, classical music, synthesizer music, you name it. But film music is special to me because of its intense emotions it evokes. It's almost addictive. And the quality of composers is also remarkable. I always think, if there wasn't a movie medium yet, most of them would be some of the best classical composers. So in a way you can say that film music is contemporary classical music.

What I'm trying to say is, that when you play film music for people, they like it but for some reason they don't buy it.

Are we so different? I'm a person who is not afraid to deviate from the big crowd and give my personal opinion. Actually maybe I'm someone who wants to deviate from the big crowd. But when I say to people that I like and buy a lot of film music, I always have the feeling that it's a bit odd what I'm doing. I'm sure some of you have the same feeling. What is it that creates that feeling of film music and oddity?

Is it the wrong reputation of film music as some soft, romantic music genre?

Is it the fact that a lot of score albums can't be played fully from beginning till end because 'incoherent' action music?

Secondly (always according to my theory) we all at some point in our lives were exposed to some great score or scores that got us curious enough to want ot own the record. In my case it was Out of Africa, kindly played by my dad throughout my formative years.

Thirdly, we came across sites like these. Without the internet, I would definately not have become the score-geek I am today. By having a daily source of updates, reviews and recommendation, I have kept my enthusiasm high and gone from an owner of a few Star Wars CDs to a full-blown passionate collector.

This is my theory. You may dissect/destroy it as you deem fit.

NP: Squash

Seriously though, I do think there is an element of being more receptive to ALL music in the environment and not just what we hear on the radio. We have discussed this over and over before but most of my friends and family very often dont even notice the music in a film let alone go out and by the score. My mother though does like certain film music like Out of Africa, Dr. Zhivago, Death in Venice (Mahler) etc but she doesn't listen to CDs on a regular basis if at all. We all, I'm sure, listen to music every day...I for one couldn't get through the day without having some kind of spiritual lift or massage from some music whether film or classical.
Also, I think, as Camillu said, being exposed to a GREAT score at an important time in your youth is also important. For me there were several key scores that I heard in the 70's...firstly Jaws, then Star Wars and then I started getting into the Bond scores while seeing them on the T.V.
My furthest, but haziest, memory of being affected by film music was in 1973 at the age of eight. I went to see the Double-bill Escape from Planet of the Apes and Planet of the Apes and I remember being terrified by Goldsmith's Main Title music. It opened up some deep primal fear in my subconscious with its dissonant quirky sounds and that stayed with me for a while. The other one was in the same year and it was during the double-bill of Diamonds are Forever and You only Live Twice. I always remember being impressed by the "Capsule in Space" music in YOLT. Even at eight I reacted to its majesty and power and it really impressed me and gave me a feeling of awe at the spectacle of a rocket in space.

Personally, I think you have to be in the right time and the right place to hear that score that triggers off interest. I dont know if its just me, but recently film music seems to be more and more homogenised and there seems to be very little that stands out from the crowd...the same with the movies themselves. I would say that Hollywood probably produces 80% mediocre movies, 10% good movies, 6-8% great movies and then about 2-4% of masterpieces.

NP Empire of the Sun

So what you're saying is that people can get into film music by coincidence and then by further investigation become a score-geek? But do you think that can happen to every average good citizen or does it take some special character trait?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
First and foremost, as your username clearly shows, we are movie-buffs.

---

Yes, but I became a movie-buff BECAUSE I already was a film score-buff. It certainly helps, but it's no prerequisite.

quote:

---

Thirdly, we came across sites like these. Without the internet, I would definately not have become the score-geek I am today.

---

Yes and no. It certainly helped a lot to have site like these, I would have a much smaller range of scores today without them. But I was already a film score fan (focused more on John Williams, but not without scores by others as well) before I went online. And don't forget that there were many film score-buffs before the internet era.

I think one more important point is that we don't need lyrics to listen to music. For a long time, I couldn't even have imagined this, but I've heard several people say they find music without lyrics to be boring. Which leads me to believe that many people simply don't LISTEN to the music. (Ok, much of the stuff that runs on the radio nowadays would be boring without the lyrics, but that's because most of it isn't very good, music-wise, to begin with).

Marian, your lyrics argument is kind of interesting. I haven't thought about it like that. But doesn't classical music and jazz have the same problems?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ESB:
Marian, your lyrics argument is kind of interesting. I haven't thought about it like that. But doesn't classical music and jazz have the same problems?

---

Yes. But it still reduces the number of people who don't like film scores for other reasons than the "missing" lyrics.

As for being receptive to all kinds of music, that certainly helps. Funny enough though, it worked the other way round for me. When I first heard John Williams on CD, I immediately became a classical purist....I disliked anything with synths, guitars etc. I hated Goldsmith for a few years. It was listening to film scores that slowly broadened my tastes again.

That lyrics argument is very strong. I too think that most people, the mainstream audience (::shudders::), don't really listen to music. Fine, some will say, "Oh, cool bass line there", or "that was a nice drum pass", but they listen to the lyrics, the sound of the singer's voice, and the rest amounts to a blurry sight, it's just an "atmosphere". They don't take it apart and look at how it works, why is there a guitar there, what's its role, what's the rhythm on the drums... they just view the "music" as an atmosphere, something that puts you there for the lyrics to have an effect on you.

And that's for songs.

Why don't more people listen to film scores? Well, yes, no lyrics. What are they going to listen to? Low cello rumblings? Atonal brass writing? Minimalist piano ostinati? That's boring. To them, of course.

I've been asked a few times in the past by people I knew what kind of music I listened to, and I'd make them guess. Just watch this. They'd go through "pop", and "rock", and the big mainstream genres, then they'd go to "jazz", and I'd say no (although I don't mind jazz, it's not something I listen to everyday), and they'd go to "blues", "R&B"... I'd keep saying no. Then a light on their face, "Oh, classical!", and I'd go no.

Hmmm... now they were befuddled. One guy once desperately ended this guessing game with "... world music?". Nah. So I said, "scores", and of course, they all go, "scores? You mean... sheets of music??", and I say, "No, music scores. Film scores. Movie music".

And they invariably say, "Oh, you mean like classical music? I asked you that."

::rolls eyes::

A lot of people have a tendency to dump film music into the general classical music bin. Why? Because there's an orchestra (which is only true of an ever-decreasing number of film scores). It sounds like classical music, therefore it must be.

All in all, it's because mainstream listeners aren't brought up to pay attention to music. They don't eat fine cuisine of the ears every night; radio stations fills them with fast food and tap beer, and since that's what's cool, that's what THE COOL PEOPLE listen to, that's what they "listen to", never caring for quality, but rather wanting desperately to be cool, fit in, and listen to what everybody else is listening.

In the end, it's about the role music plays in being accepted in society, and not about the music itself.

"Gae, you said being receptive to all kinds of music helps. Maybe so, but I've also bumped into film music lovers who hate everything that is non-classical (e.g. synthesizers

What I meant to say was that Film Music fans tend to HEAR music in the environment that most people would not consciously "take in" whether for reasons of "taste" or "coolness" or whether they just couldn't imagine that this is the sort of music that is NORMAL to listen to outside of the film. More likely the latter!! Get my meaning? Most people I know believe that music should be danced to or should be up-beat or so called "optimistic...fun" and should have some lyrics somewhere, otherwise its not real music. They may have the occasional TOKEN soundtrack, i.e. Titanic (and only that because of its pop connection) but you could hardly imagine your average music listener to collect Film Scores in their hundresds could you?

in many film music lovers I have seen these attributes

1. thoughtful, thinking individuals in many cases
2. usually have a broader appreciation of lots of different kinds of music
3. really hears music underneath the film, perceptive and observant
4. appreciates how the music helps the film
-majority of people don't really notice it
5. most are very intelligent
6. this kind of music connects with a certain group of people-those that like a story and emotions of it-we tend to remember that
7. the themes, melodies etc connect with us, we relate
8. film music is how some of us perceive life should be, better than real life, so it builds hope and dreams in us, inspires, entertains, etc.. excluding the gory and triple R films
9. there is something special about good film music beyond words-its just good!!!!!
10. well performed film music is quite exciting and enhances imagination, we can develop the film in our mind, or make one of our own, relive those images or make new ones
11. much of it parallels our experiences
12. we enjoy good music

I could also find myself in a lot of John's points. I also think most film music lovers have a very rich and deep emotional perception. We don't just see music as some tool for dancing, but we experience the music intensely and use it to feed our rich imaginations. The addictive larger-and-better-than-life principle

But, I don't know. A lot of these things can also be said about classical music. Only a thousand true film music fans world wide. That's still an awfully small amount! Isn't there also a wrong reputation and promotion problem?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ESB:
Isn't there also a wrong reputation and promotion problem?

---

Yeah, definitely. I mean, there is a reason the mainstream listeners continue to believe film music is just classical music, and it's boring, and you can't dance to it, etc.

First of all, advertisement is nill. I mean, come on, let's face it: when was the last time you saw an ad for a score? Apart from the big ones, and even more so those that contain songs, it's very rare. And those Entertainment Tonight/Access Hollywood programs that do their little music spots every Tuesday, talking about what's new, well, they only talk about the mainstream stuff. Never is there any mention of jazz, blues, or scores. It's always Aliguera, Spears, *NSYNC, etc. So they're not helping.

Now, ads cost money, and soundtrack releasers don't have much money. Why? Because not a lot of people buy the product. Why don't they? Because they think it stinks. Why do they? Because there's no ad to make them think otherwise. Vicious circle.

Another problem I think is that, yes, film music is generally speaking not as good as it was. Sure, we've got some ass-kicking masterpieces like Shore's Lord of the Rings, things that stand out and that continue to make us film score fans proud of what we are, but let's face it, there is a lot of sloppy crap being pushed around, because studio executives are generally speaking (once again) morons and want something as mainstream as possible, because they don't want to take risks, don't want to innovate, want to cash in, etc. etc. And composers adopt those styles because they want paychecks for, oh, I dunno, eat, get an apartment, buy clothes, take showers....

This somewhat comes back to a thread we had some months ago, where I asked if we would ever get strong film themes that would enter pop culture nowadays, and where I basically said no, that's almost impossible. I saw a brief review blurb this week going back on horror movies, and the mention for Jaws was "what was more terrifying, the music or John William's music?". Yes, he was mentioned. By name! Holy Jesus!

Would that happen now? I don't think so.

So, combine the fact that film music has been going downhill for a big part, that it's usually quieter and more restrained than it used to be (anyone remember the Main Title music from Hitchcock's Rope? Can you say overkill?), and that ads for it are nill, and you get our present situation.

Now, there are people out there who are open to trying things like film music, there are smart, intelligent, open people who will, when you tell them, "Oh, I listen to scores", ask, "Could I hear some? Maybe I'd like that". And thank God.

But generally speaking, film music is not getting much recognition.

Last weekend I went to Cancun beach and while I was feeling the breeze and the cool water on my feet, I was listening to JNHoward's Atlantis as it is "water music" (very loud) and I felt this feeling that makes you feel more alive than ever.

I believe that the objective of our life is to create positive feelings by living very happily, so the energy we produce might become part of different intelligent species somewhere else in the universe (we are made of stars after all). So you see how there is a connection among all of us. Therefore, movie music amazingly helps to do this universal task.

Why is it that so few people listen to it?
I would ask: Why is it that so few people search a passionately living?
Movie music, the eternal heart of the human kind...

Rach

A very recommendable reading: (“Rhinoceros” by E. Ionesco)

NP: The rescuers down under – Bruce Broughton

Only a thousand true film music fans world wide

I'm curious to know, where does this statistic come from? Also, define the word "TRUE" in this instance.

The other thing is...if there are only a thousand TRUE film music fans, do we know their names?

Of course we do....

Peter Kelly
Jeron Moore
Marian Schedenig
Kosh
Dgoldwas
Phillip
Dan Brecher
Crono/Kyp
Timmer
Graham Watt
Camillu
John Winfrey
Lou Goldberg
Kimiakane
Joan Hue
Me...................The list just goes on and on and on......!!!

Kosh, I agree with your thoughts about advertisement. It's really terrible Can't major labels from Sony, Warner and Universal do better? Of course they can. I remember that Vangelis' 1492 Conquest of Paradise was a huge nr. 1 hit here in the Netherlands and also other European countries I believe (also in the USA?) The main reason was that it was a lot on TV and radio. Good advertisement from Warner. I was amazed that it was so popular because it contains choirs and that would seem too intellectual for the average citizen. Well, I was wrong. But if they haven't advertized I'm sure the Vanglis' song would have stayed in obscurity.

I think Internet will be a perfect medium to advertize and promote film music. It's already happening a bit. For instance official movie sites could make or link to a special professionaly made section of the score album where people could hear high quality clips. But usually the labels have an extremely simple page that is only to be found after a lot of effort and that isn't linked with the official movie site. Some labels don't even publish audio clips. Or they publish audio clips with an awful sound quality (e.g. Varèse) I would even call that negative advertisement. Sigh.

As adolescents, we were spotty and weird. Whereas others chose to exteriorize their volcanic teenage angst through rock music, we retreated into ourselves. Other people went out and drank beer and tried to have sex with everybody. We stayed at home watching TV and finding our release through the magic of a false world. We were sensitive, uncynical beings. We accepted the fantasy, and dreamed with it.

Others didn't connect, because what we loved represented films and, by default, the establishment. Who can be a rebellious youth and accept that film-making machinery? And, despite what people say, the majority of film music DOES sound like music for a film (there are exceptions of course, but they are a small percentage of our CD collection). For many, film music is too heart-on-sleeve, but beyond that it's just too reminiscent of FILMS. We film score lovers often even embrace bad scores for bad films, like we would a spastic child. But for many, bad scores to bad films just evoke bad films. Even GOOD scores to bad films just evoke bad films. But, sadly, even GOOD scores to GOOD films evoke everything the cynic hates. How many people do you know who could never accept the idea of listening to BEN-HUR?

What you're saying joins hand-in-hand the stuff I was saying :) It's all about what's cool, what's not, and even though I wouldn't go as far as to say that angry teens don't listen to scores because they represent "the establishment", I will agree with you that score music is not rebellious enough for them.

And these teens grow up to be adults who start listening to what their colleagues listen to, and since nobody in there was listening to film scores in their youth, they don't start then, and that's how people never get to listen to scores at all outside of the movies.

Not everyone, again, I'm generalizing. But you get the point.

Film scores = classical music = music that old folks listen to = music that my parents listen to.

I hate my parents, therefore, I hate classical music, therefore I hate film scores!

I have never been a fan of classical music - with some few exceptions (mostly Tchaikovsky and Grieg) - because most usually classical music asks for maximum patience, an ability to sit three hours in your chair and listen as the orchestra goes nowhere in particular ...I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but the point is nevertheless that classical music asks for EVEN HIGHER "intelligence" and sensibility than movie music will ever need. Movie music speaks in so much more "straight-forward" language than classical will ever, thus making movie music MUCH MORE "acceptable"... more "POP", if one would use such a word.

That's why I find it very curious that most people regard movie music as classical music. Movie music is really much more "easy-listening" than classical, and yet people out there consider movie music as too difficult to listen. VERY CURIOUS !!

But there's another thing. I have a very vast imagination and I simply live for EMOTION - and yet I simply can't understand most classical masterworks. Now, if my imagination and emotion are as vast as I think - that I live on another planet - then the true classical music lovers must really live on a third planet ...And vice versa, the people who can't understand movie music at all must be very UNimaginative people with a very little emotion in them (and living on the planet called Earth).

I thought about the rebellious argument. I grew up with my parents listening to pop music from the 60s and 70s. Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Yes, Bob Dylan, Rolling Stones, you know the stuff. Maybe I unconsciously chose film music because my parents didn't listen to that. I don't know. Did most of you grew up with parents who listened to other music genres? I wonder if our children will become film music lovers.

About film music vs. classical music. I also consider film music to be something else, although they are also much alike. In general I don't like classical music much (Wagner and Beethoven being sometimes an exception). A big difference for me is the magical character of film music. For instance the magical climaxes of for instance Goldsmith is something unique to film music. Film music is very intense. One of its main goals is to intensify the emotions of a film. I agree with Ken, classical music can sometimes be very long-winded, tedious. I think the intense character of a lot film music is also a reason for the impopular reputation of film music. It can be just TOO good, too beautiful, too intense. It's almost embarrassing to play Goldsmith's brillant climactic work in "Reaching Out" from Poltergeist II when someone else is in the room. It's not good background music so to speak. Although some scores are, like Howard's Unbreakable for instance.

In my opinion it's very dangerous to connect intelligence and musical taste in a 1:1 relation. I know that there can be people with a pretty average intelligence who love classical music. There are also people with high intelligence who dislike classical music and love hard rock for instance. I think the emotional characteristics are more important. I guess a rich emotional, imaginative mental state is somewhat connected with intelligence, but only partly.

And Rachmaninov: don't you think that most people have a high sensitivity? I think what differentiates us from the rest is that we're not afraid to give in to this sensitivity that everyone has. For some reason we're indifferent about what people think about us. We're not afraid to be the person who we really are. We have a very own personality. I think a lot of people are performing an act their entire life. I sometimes almost throw up when I see people behave in an overwhelming fake way on TV. Would also seem very tiring behaviour.

Another interesting fresh and very important point that should get us closer to our answer: why are there so few female film music collectors? If showing sensitivity is one the characteristics of a film music lover, you should expect to have a lot of female collectors. I believe I heard once that contrary to popular belief, men are more sensitive than women? Maybe females don't develop very own personalities like men do (partly because of upbringing) and follow the big crowd more? I also wondered why so few women have a hobby. Most men have (and film music can thought of as a particular hobby) Before I get attacked by angry women, these are just hypothesises!

Excellent observations and thoughts here !!
As I agree with almost everything that has been said by ESB, Gae, Kosh, Winfrey, Schedenig & Rachmaninov - I just want to underline the difference between classical music and movie music. Many times movie music is falsely compared to classical music - and I consider myself as a living proof to this fact (no kiddin')

Timmer says...

But Ken, it's hard NOT to compare 'Film' with classical when so much of our favorite music is derived from the works of the masters, listen to John Williams and you'll hear Stravinsky, Holst and particularly Ralph Vaughan Williams (James Newton Howard's UNBREAKABLE owes massively to Vaughan Williams), Jerry Goldsmith and you'll hear Bruckner, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel and a host of others, Where would John Barry be without Dvorak? the lists go on and on and on!

I have never been a fan of classical music - with some few exceptions (mostly Tchaikovsky and Grieg) - because most usually classical music asks for maximum patience, an ability to sit three hours in your chair and listen as the orchestra goes nowhere in particular ...I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but the point is nevertheless that classical music asks for EVEN HIGHER "intelligence" and sensibility than movie music will ever need. Movie music speaks in so much more "straight-forward" language than classical will ever, thus making movie music MUCH MORE "acceptable"... more "POP", if one would use such a word.

Timmer says...

I'm as 'thick' as they come but have no problem listening to the most complex of classical works, film music is more accessable but at times can be just as challenging as any classical peice.

That's why I find it very curious that most people regard movie music as classical music. Movie music is really much more "easy-listening" than classical, and yet people out there consider movie music as too difficult to listen. VERY CURIOUS !!

Timmer says...

Gulp!...have you heard Howard Shore's THE CELL Ken?

But there's another thing. I have a very vast imagination and I simply live for EMOTION - and yet I simply can't understand most classical masterworks. Now, if my imagination and emotion are as vast as I think - that I live on another planet - then the true classical music lovers must really live on a third planet ...And vice versa, the people who can't understand movie music at all must be very UNimaginative people with a very little emotion in them (and living on the planet called Earth).

KEN<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Timmer says...

Your bonkers Ken but I always love reading your views

Tim

NP : Lemonjelly (excellent, thanks for the rec Dan)

Another interesting fresh and very important point that should get us closer to our answer: why are there so few female film music collectors? If showing sensitivity is one the characteristics of a film music lover, you should expect to have a lot of female collectors. I believe I heard once that contrary to popular belief, men are more sensitive than women? Maybe females don't develop very own personalities like men do (partly because of upbringing) and follow the big crowd more? I also wondered why so few women have a hobby. Most men have (and film music can thought of as a particular hobby) Before I get attacked by angry women, these are just hypothesises!

[Message edited by ESB on 11-04-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
Timmer says...
But Ken, it's hard NOT to compare 'Film' with classical when so much of our favorite music is derived from the works of the masters, listen to John Williams and you'll hear Stravinsky, Holst and particularly Ralph Vaughan Williams (James Newton Howard's UNBREAKABLE owes massively to Vaughan Williams), Jerry Goldsmith and you'll hear Bruckner, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel and a host of others, Where would John Barry be without Dvorak? the lists go on and on and on!

---

My dear Timmer,
here we go to the other old subject again - ORIGINALITY. As some wise people on these boards observed during the "originality" discussions, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS ORIGINALITY - only people who loan old things and make them shine anew with fresh and witty enhancing and expanding. Need to say more..?? It's a fact and I'm glad of it that my favorite movie composers have managed to create orchestral magic without the tortuous artistry of the classical so-called masters.

And speaking of influences, I can't understand how some people for example claim THE WIZARD OF OZ score having been strongly influenced by Stravinsky's FIREBIRD suite - I can't hear any resemblance or influental thingy whatsoever between these two works (and besides, THE WIZARD OF OZ is much better)... Although people can sometimes CHOOSE what they want to hear

And while I'm on the subject again, I could mention that probably today's movie music CAN BE EASILY COMPARED TO CLASSICAL MUSIC because I can't listen to any nowadays scores

The bonkers KEN

[Message edited by Ken S on 11-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ESB:
[B] A big difference for me is the magical character of film music. For instance the magical climaxes of for instance Goldsmith is something unique to film music. Film music is very intense. One of its main goals is to intensify the emotions of a film. I agree with Ken, classical music can sometimes be very long-winded, tedious. I think the intense character of a lot film music is also a reason for the impopular reputation of film music. It can be just TOO good, too beautiful, too intense. It's almost embarrassing to play Goldsmith's brillant climactic work in "Reaching Out" from Poltergeist II when someone else is in the room. It's not good background music so to speak.

---

HEUREKA ESB - you found the perfect answer to the mystery!! I'm sort of 'intense' person myself so I can uderstand completely that I like the same kind of intensity in the music I listen too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marian Schedenig:
Timmer wasn't complaining about a lack of originality, he just pointed out the parallells between so-called "classical" music and film music.

---

Yes he wasn't complaining about the originality, but... I never like someone/something because he/she/it resembles of SOMETHING ELSE (although it can be a little bonus sometimes). That's why Timmer's post wasn't exactly what I wanted to agree upon - it seemed like a slap on all Master movie composers' faces.

quote:

---

And I'm afraid to say it, but your criticism of classical music is exactly the same as classical purists think: That film music is too simple, too obvious, not "worthy".

---

Maybe yes, Marian, but at least I base my opinions on what I have LISTENED MYSELF - there was truly a time in my teen years when I collected classical music quite a lot, including countless compilation albums, lots of Herbert von Karajan recordings, and music by Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, and Sibelius among others - so, I'm not just blabbering gibberish rubbish without any actual encounter with serious classical stuff.

The point is that classical music is classical, and movie music is movie music. Two different things. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken S:
The point is that classical music is classical, and movie music is movie music.

---

Dunno if I can add much more m'self.... :)

1. I think ESB hit an immensely valid point talking about intensity, or even passion, and it all comes back to coolness (ain't that schweet?). You listen to heavy metal because you think it's cool. Why is it cool? Because it's about anger, it's about masculine emotions, it's empowering.

You listen to techno (which I still maintain is not music but rhythm ;) because you think it's cool. Why is it cool? Because it's the in thing right now. It's about social acceptance.

You listen to all these things either because society sells them to you or because they reflect emotions which you want to make yours. You think anger will make you cool: you listen to trash metal. You think jazz will make you cool, in a loungy lizard sort of way: you listen to jazz.

Film music (and to a greater extent, classical music) are liked not, I think, for coolness (and when they are, it's what we call 'guilty pleasures'), but for the emotions, the sensations, and the passions evoked. There are other musical genres that have this type of passion to them, and I'd say that probably all of these genres accumulate dust in CD stores.

So, ESB, good point :)

2. There is such a thing as complete originality. It's rare, and maybe we won't be seeing it again for a few years, but it exists. You just have to look at classical music to find a good example. Everytime a new era was ushered in, some innovation took place that made this possible. New instruments were created, expanding the baroque orchestra to the classical orchestra. That's originality. Never been done before. Even before that, you had plainchant, completely monophonic, and then composers "invented" heterophony and homophony, and textures changed, and suddenly church chants sounded different. That was originality. The avant-garde, when it first knocked on our doors, around the Second World War if I'm not mistaken, or maybe a tad before, that was originality. Composing music thanks to equations, creating "electronic poems" by assembling sound effects and labeling that music, using minimalism to achieve more with less, this is all original.

Now, of course, there ain't a lot of originality around. But it does exist. In film music, it might be extremely rare because a lot of film music got its inspiration from (but is not, of course) classical music. So in that sense, film music, most of the time, can only be original insomuch as it adapts classical techniques to the screen to underscore things that were never underscored that way before.

But that's an aside to this topic, I'm afraid.

But there's another thing. I have a very vast imagination and I simply live for EMOTION - and yet I simply can't understand most classical masterworks

Ken, You must be listening to the wrong type of classical music as to me, my favourite classical music is pure EMOTION. For example "The Planets" (Holst) has to be one of the most EMOTIONALLY/DESCRIPTIVE pieces on a par with Film Music. For pure EMOTION how about Delius' "A Walk to the Paradise Garden"? I tell you where that piece of music takes me...to the very EMOTIONAL center of my Spirituality. How about "The Lark Ascending"(V. Williams) or "Fingal's Cave"(Mendehlsson) or "Clair De Lun (Debussy)? They are HIGHLY EMOTIONALLY charged and very descriptive pieces which should be felt with the heart and not understood with the mind. There are of course thousands of more great examples from the Classical repertoire.

Timmer said

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmer:
Before I get attacked by angry women, these are just hypothesises!

---

I don’t think men are more imaginative or creative than women. Women for centuries
were given the job of mother and wife. They didn’t have anyone to cook, clean and raise
their children. They had to do it. Now we also get to do the domestic chores and work
full time for a salary. When I was raising my family, I needed a wife to make doctor
appointments, drive everyone to doctors and sports games, shop for groceries, cook,
clean, wash, iron, do Christmas plus decorate, buy presents, wrap them, bake....and on and
on. But I didn’t have a “wife.” I did it myself with “some” help from hubby. He couldn’t
handle 50% because he had a full time job and his hobbies. I had a full time job but
couldn’t quite squeeze in too many hobbies. Think of it this way. Did Bach, A Copland,
Hemingway, or Shakespeare have to stop their creating at least THREE times a day to
cook three meals, did they stop to rock babies for endless hours, to clean a house? etc.

My point is until we equalize our roles, and that isn’t going to happen with women being
the baby bearers, women are rarely going to have time for the creative process. A few
women break through, but even Rachel Portman had to drop out of Mulan to have a baby.

The answer to the question of the thread is very simple. WE BE COOL!!

[Message edited by joan hue on 11-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
But even Rachel Portman had to drop out of Mulan to have a baby.

---

Pfft... did she hafta?

ORCHESTRATOR scribbling like mad.

RACHEL: "Now.. urrgh... you're gonna change the key to G minor.. AHHH! and start on the shaku-AHHHHHHHH-chi... oooh."

DOCTOR: "That's it, Mrs. Portman, you're doing well, the baby's almost out!"

RACHEL: "And the first note's gonna be... AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHRRRRGH!!!!"

ORCHESTRATOR takes out his tuning fork. "Hmm... was that a C or a G sharp?"