Brian Tyler is over-rated: yeah he uses themes by other composers... you forgot to mention Trevor Rabin and, of course, Hans Zimmer, who is obviously Tyler's favourite composer to rip from.

The reason I think Tyler would be a good choice for Star Trek is because his best music has been written for Star Trek, on the Enterprise episodes "Canamar" and "Regeneration" (which houses his best and most diverse and rousing action music to date!).

Michael Giacchnio is one notch down from Tyler: look, his entire score to The Incredibles is a big rip-off fest of John Barry's 007 scores (I don't care if it's supposed to be, either), and where exactly is the appeal of MI:3? nuts, do you even own this score yet, or are you just going by what you saw in May in the theatres? Apparently his video game music, according to you, sounds like one big John Williams adventure score, so ditto there, too (I thought copying Williams was an 80's thang).

nuts, I know Giacchino is a given on ST XI and I'm sure everyone has accepted that, including me, it's just not a very good path to travel down; and if the recording quality is anything like the stale MI:3 mix, than it'll be even worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erik Woods:
Anyway, like I said in a previous post I never understood why people harp on the signature voice stuff anyways. I also think that you guys are STILL mistaking signature voice for the over use of the same devises over and over again. I prefer a composer who can change styles from film to film and not rely on strutures or devises from their previous scores.

---

It's not an either/or situation. The best composers can mantain a distinctive voice and be good chameleons at the same time. Goldsmith is probably the most classic example of this. A Patch of Blue, Planet of the Apes, The Russia House and 100 Rifles (to pick the first four that came into my head) all sound like they came from the same composer despite being very different scores. I think Don Davis is ace at this, as well.

On the other hand, I partially agree with you, insofar as the "signature voice," however important I feel it is, should not be upheld at the expense of all other qualities. For example, it is precisely because I am aware of Hans Zimmer's signature that I don't look forward to his scores.

Still, I think the signature voice is very important, not just in composers but in every major contributor to a film project. I want people who are going to bring something of themselves to the project, not people who are just going to fade into the tapestry in an effort to become invisible.

This problem of the "voice" is the reason I think John Debney's work started to deteriorate as he started becoming more popular. It's not that his music has gotten essentially worse -- if anything, his technique with incidental music and his sense of harmony seem to have improved -- but there's a individual human voice that I hear in Class of '61 and White Fang 2 and Not Since Casanova and all of his early work I can think of that I can't seem to find in any of his later scores save for Dragonfly (though I seem to be in the minority on that one). I miss that voice. The later scores, even if they're more technically efficient, sound like they could have been written by anyone who went to school for it.

Kirk

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
[B]Elfman's is the best of the MI scores by a long shot, and one of his better scores (his incorporation of Schifrin's main theme and "The Plot" theme are far better executed than anything Giacchino came up with, and are actual incoporations of the original themes rather than dead-head performances, like in MI:3),

---

Holy crap, did you even listen to M:I:iii? Your statement is a complete falsification of the score. For example, listen to the whole musical sequence from Humpty Dumpty Sat On A Wall through See You in the Sewer. Every single second of that music is a subtle variation on the orginal M:I theme. Giacchino took every single part of the theme apart, put a spin on it, ran it through a variation, a different meter, used it as a rhthmic accompaniment to his Davian theme, created melodic variations....and you call this a "dead-head" performance?

I don't care if you don't like his style, but just because you don't like doesn't mean you can sit there and say things about the score that simply aren't true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brendan Anderson:
Holy crap, did you even listen to M:I:iii? Your statement is a complete falsification of the score. For example, listen to the whole musical sequence from Humpty Dumpty Sat On A Wall through See You in the Sewer. Every single second of that music is a subtle variation on the orginal M:I theme. Giacchino took every single part of the theme apart, put a spin on it, ran it through a variation, a different meter, used it as a rhthmic accompaniment to his Davian theme, created melodic variations....and you call this a "dead-head" performance?

I don't care if you don't like his style, but just because you don't like doesn't mean you can sit there and say things about the score that simply aren't true.

-Brendan

---

Yeah of course I know what you're talking about, and that cue you're talking about is the best on the album (piano being my fav); but, it's the only sign, to me, of anything interesting that Giacchino did with Schifrin's music—hardly worth mentioning. I don't have the reverance you have for Giacchino or David Arnold's bad techno, so we just won't agree, ok?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Yeah of course I know what you're talking about. I don't have the reverance you have for Giacchino or David Arnold's bad techno, so we just won't agree, ok?

---

I don't need you to agree with me, just simply admitting you were incorrect in your false representation of the music is enough for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Sean, get yer ass back to Mars! (And by Mars I mean Ottawa ) We need to continue this conversation over AIM or Skype or something like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by nuts_score:
[b]Sean, get yer ass back to Mars! (And by Mars I mean Ottawa ) We need to continue this conversation over AIM or Skype or something like that.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

LoL... I'd like to conference in![/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brendan Anderson:
Holy crap, did you even listen to M:I:iii? Your statement is a complete falsification of the score. For example, listen to the whole musical sequence from Humpty Dumpty Sat On A Wall through See You in the Sewer. Every single second of that music is a subtle variation on the orginal M:I theme. Giacchino took every single part of the theme apart, put a spin on it, ran it through a variation, a different meter, used it as a rhthmic accompaniment to his Davian theme, created melodic variations....and you call this a "dead-head" performance?

---

Sadly the album isn't 10 minutes long though... there's music from the rest of the film there too.

As for Giacchino: he's a mixed bag. Sure, he can be a copyist (who isn't these days that's a major motion picture composer?) and he can be repetetive due to this. But, after hearing what he is capable of with my two favorites of his (Lost and Medal of Honor: Frontline) I'm willing to put all of my grudge aside and let him do his own thing. As for this "no voice" arguement; I definitely see where it's coming from: he doesn't have much that says: "LISTEN TO ME! I'M ORIGINAL!" (aside from Lost which still borrows heavily in its suspense and action cues) but I remember a majority of you saying the same things about Beltrami when he first took off after Scream; yet, on this thread, people are shouting from the rooftops about how easy it is to discern Beltrami's voice from his music and how different it is from his young peers. That's something I've been saying for years and then the moment someone speaks out in Beltrami's favor, it gets shot down: "Ugh, sounds like everything else." (see also: Harry Knowles who wouldn't know film scoring if it - cliche-ingly told - bit him on the ass).

NP> Goldsmith's Star Trek: The Motion Picture (*****/*****)

[Message edited by nuts_score on 08-28-2006]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
To me, it was Mission: Impossible as Hitchcock would present it. Which is saying a great deal to me.

---

There is a quotation that says, "Imitation is the
sincerest flattery." I think it is quite
normal to see a rising new artist imitate at first
until he finds his personal voice or vision. And as Jeff noted,
personal vision does change or evolve over time. Alfred Newman's
music in the 30's is full of sweeping, melodic strings, but
the difference between his 1939 music for Wuthering Heights
his later scores like How The West Was Won or his last film score,
Airport, is enormous. Four decades of change in music was
reflected in his evolving style.

For me a great composer has a signature style but also the versatility
to change styles for particular motion pictures. I can spot Bernstein's
signature rhythms in his westerns like Magnificent Seven and his
melodic side in movies like To Kill A Mockingbird, but he also scored
comedies and epics like The Ten Commandments and varied his
style. I can spot Goldsmith's action music due to his orchestral
colors and rhythms, but he could score painful, personal
dramas like Powder and A Patch of Blue in another style befitting
those dramas.

Howard Shore surprised me when he left the Seven and Silence
of the Lambs' style to do the LOTR series. I'm starting to hear
a voice from him, and I'm starting to hear a personal voice from
JN Howard, but it took a lot of listening to various soundtracks to
hear their styles. Morricone is easy to spot, but he too
has changed over the years. Fateless is certainly different from
A Fistful of Dollars.

I haven't heard enough Tyler or Giacchino to really get a sense
of signature style yet. It will emerge. I see signature style
as essential to a true composer, but NOT all his/her music
will always fit into that mold. After hearing J N Howard's
Dinosaur and Vertical Limit, and his music for Shyamalan, I thought
I had his voice nailed, but Dying Young doesn't fit into those
two styles.

And then there are a few composers who develop a personal
voice that leads me to searching for earplugs.....

NP The Promise

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
For me a great composer has a signature style but also the versatility to change styles for particular motion pictures. I can spot Bernstein's signature rhythms in his westerns like Magnificent Seven and his
melodic side in movies like To Kill A Mockingbird, but he also scored comedies and epics like The Ten Commandments and varied his style. I can spot Goldsmith's action music due to his orchestral colors and rhythms, but he could score painful, personal
dramas like Powder and A Patch of Blue in another style befitting those dramas.

---

But you can still identify A Patch of Blue vs say... Executive Decision (generic action score) as a Goldsmith work. You can identify The Ten Commandments as a Bernstein score vs To Kill A Mockingbird.

I honestly can't identify or find any commonality between Michael's most recent work. That's not to say it isn't good, but I can't lock on to anything. Perhaps he's trying new things... perhaps he's finding himself right now. David Arnold was new on the scene w/ The Young Americans, Stargate, and Last of the Dogmen. Those are unmistakably David Arnold scores. There's a voice there that can't be sold as anything other than the David Arnold voice. Same goes for John Powell. Trevor Rabin. Joel McNeely. Craig Safan. The list goes on. Where's Michael's?

I want to be enthusiastic about Michael Giacchino as a composer. I'm ridiculously passionate about the state of Star Trek and where it's going. As said previously, I'm beginning to get excited about JJA doing the film. When it comes to a franchise like this, it sure helps when you can rest easy knowing that at the very least, the music will be done right. People, help me learn to love Michael's more recent work! It's LOST on me so far. But I keep an open mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:

Hitchcock's cynicism saves him to this day. I wish Mi3 had been made with his wit, rather than the directives of Cruise-Wagner driving it. Haneke's CACHE feels a bit more Hitchcockian ... though the resolution departs from that style.

---

I think that I decided to look past the studio product of something like M: I - 3 on its release because I had frankly had enough of Cruise's ideological rants and I just wanted to enjoy the film as it stood; same with any Cruise film from here forth. Yet, when Paramount canned Cruise's contract upon it's renewal last week, the studio brash-ness seemed to stick like a sore-thumb. It's obvious that the film didn't exactly make anyone's expectations in Hollywood, but it generated the best reviews that the series saw and a higher majority of people in my life thought the film was hands-down the best of the series. So is it really the directives of Cruise/Wagner, or the balls behind Paramount (namely new honcho Brad Grey). Surely, Cruise has been acting quite foolishly and hammy lately, but he still delivers fine work. And with Paula Wagner he has brought us some great films with even greater talents behind the camera (The Others, Narc, Vanilla Sky). To me, Abrams and Cruise knew of the wit, and - again, to me - it was on full display; the same as in DePalma's film. If you're more cynical, and out judging a film solely because you think it will fail or likely has no wit, you will ultimately think so (see also: Ryan Keaveney).

And I agree with you whole-heartedly on your Cache comment. Coupled with Funny Games, they are the only Haneke films that I've seen (though I intend to view his entire filmography after both films) and I was pleasantly pleased with the wit that you mention. Haneke is a master of creating tension in the audience, and when it's all over, you can't help but sit back and laugh along with him. Brad Anderson (Session 9, The Machinist) is a director along the similar lines. After The Machinist, I was in absolute joy that their are still filmmakers who know how to manipulate their audiences, twist their idea of reality, spin them around (without them puking), and make them have a generally fun time at the cinema. It's a shame that too few of today's filmmakers only like to please themselves and leave the audience scratching their head as to whether or not they were entertained (see also: today's current crop of "horror" films, M. Night Shyamalan).

NP> JNH's The Village (****/*****)
-Funny, huh? That I continually beat down on Shyamalan yet nothing can keep me from JNH's music on album.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
And with Paula Wagner he has brought us some great films with even greater talents behind the camera (The Others, Narc, Vanilla Sky). To me, Abrams and Cruise knew of the wit, and - again, to me - it was on full display; the same as in DePalma's film. If you're more cynical, and out judging a film solely because you think it will fail or likely has no wit, you will ultimately think so (see also: Ryan Keaveney).

---

Actually, a Joe Carnahan Mi3 or a Fincher Mi3 remains of especial interest to me... I would have been interested in seeing more of the COLLATERAL-style Cruise... and it wouldn't have been a strict copy of the idea of Cruise as a more amoral figure, because unlike COLLATERAL, here he would have been the main character and the audience would have been forced to identify with someone who does some very uncomfortable things for the sake of the state... the BOURNE films are not a bad precedent for what I would have found more interesting out of Mi3 if you will.

quote:

---

And I agree with you whole-heartedly on your Cache comment. Coupled with Funny Games, they are the only Haneke films that I've seen (though I intend to view his entire filmography after both films) and I was pleasantly pleased with the wit that you mention. Haneke is a master of creating tension in the audience, and when it's all over, you can't help but sit back and laugh along with him. Brad Anderson (Session 9, The Machinist) is a director along the similar lines. After The Machinist, I was in absolute joy that their are still filmmakers who know how to manipulate their audiences, twist their idea of reality, spin them around (without them puking), and make them have a generally fun time at the cinema. It's a shame that too few of today's filmmakers only like to please themselves and leave the audience scratching their head as to whether or not they were entertained (see also: today's current crop of "horror" films, M. Night Shyamalan).

---

I have a copy of THE MACHINIST to watch on DVD, and I'm looking forward to getting to it... especially with a recommendation like that.

Re: Shyamalan. One thing I do think he's good at is not over-editing his setpieces... Watching SIGNS again the other night in preparation for a class on its music was a reminder of how gradually-cut the big suspense scenes are. In a cinema, this aesthetic combined with Newton-Howard's music is actually tremendously effective. Where he really departs from Hitchcock is in his attitude rather than his technique - he's a sentimentalist on the order of Spielberg... and the intellectual motivations of the plots show through too easily.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Franz, I do - however - think that Shyamalan has a fantastic eye and can manipulate tension very well within the context of his films; and Signs (coupled with JNH mesmerizing score) is his best example of this strong-suit.

---

Brian Tyler is an utter fraud. Anyone with any kind of musical training can hear that he has no idea how to write for an orchestra. His action writing is juvenile and pianistic; it's all wailing horns over blatting pedal point, but of course the fans eat it up because it's slickly orchestrated by Robert Elhai. Tyler himself said himself that if he can't play it on the piano, it doesn't go in the score which is a TERRIBLE way to write symphonic music. To limit your orchestral writing based on what you can play at the keyboard is exactly what Media Ventures does. Michael Giacchino may not have found his voice yet, but he can write circles around Brian Tyler.