MovieMusic.com Message Boards: My Website/Film Music and Concert Music

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

My Website/Film Music and Concert Music

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: My Website/Film Music and Concert Music

JaredC Non-Standard Userer	Hello, this is my first post here in a long time. I'm a music composition major at Ithaca College (Ithaca, NY) and write concert music there for my composition program as well as film music for the film majors (there's an excellent film school there in addition to the music school). If you're interested in listening to some of my music, check out my site at http://students.ithaca.edu/~jcowing1/music.html Anyway, I've noticed a bit of a rift between some in the 'conservatory/concert music' community and the film music community. Film music, after all, is much more conservative to be more accessible, and as a result very often lacks any kind of originality. On the other hand, modern conservatory music often is kind of elitist... it often makes itself intentionally inaccessible, some people become cynical about things that are enjoyed by a wider audience. Being in a conservatory type of environment I deal with this all the time, incoming composers usually are rooted in very conservative musical ideas and are unaware of the vast world of groundbreaking music that has taken place in the 20th century (because it is largely ignored everywhere outside of conservatories) from Feldman, Carter, Messiaen, Ligeti, on and on. They go through (as did I) a period of conflict where they try and balance the desires to be considered valid and original, and to be accessible. They don't want their music to be inscrutible, but at the same don't want to be told 'anybody could have written that.' Though composers should push themselves to find a voice that is original and can be enjoyed, alot of this conflict isn't really necessary. I think even in conservative idioms there's a way to write music that isn't simply imitation. And in the other direction, I think alot of modern music is much more accessible than people give it credit for, and they just aren't listening to it in the right context because they have expectations before the music even starts about what it should sound like and what its function should be. I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this, do you consider the frequent lack of originality in film music something to look down on or something that is necessary to allow other people to like it? Or something inbetween? Do you think modern concert music has gone too far in the 20th century (and 21st!), or that people aren't giving it a chance just because it's something different? And regardless of what music you like, is it right to look down on music you don't like, or should people just respect music they don't like and not listen to it? Sorry for such a long post, I find the subject fascinating, I'd like to hear everyone else's input! -JaredC
posted 01-10-2007 01:10 PM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	Welcome back! Don't you want to use your original member name? Much of your paragraph is about people who are trying to figure out where they want to fit, instead of just doing what comes naturally. This is the difference between an artist and someone who likes art and wants to participate. True artists have an innate ability that is not learned. They need an environment that will allow themselves best use of their talents. Many presuppose an art institution is the place to be, but those artists who are not bothered (by where their music is supposed to "fit" in the history of music) see the entire world, life, as the environment in which they flourish. The movie music industry isn't a law firm; in otherwords, you don't need to have a masters degree in music to score a film as you would a JD to partner in a law firm. Understanding this, forget about discussions on where modern music is going. Get the basic education you need to successfully write your scores on paper (we learned letters before we could write or spell), and that should be it. Next step: get those melodies from head to pen to paper. And keep at it, without being bothered by music theory or whatever. Yeah, easier said than done. But the rift is only there because people have been spending too much time theorizing and reading critics, not writing. That's what I think.
posted 01-10-2007 03:22 PM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	quote: Originally posted by JaredC: Do you think modern concert music has gone too far in the 20th century (and 21st!), or that people aren't giving it a chance just because it's something different? It seems people are pre-determined to like something or not. Understanding modern composition and witnessing the genius of a composer's firm grasp of it is great, but is does it move you? I can say "wow, complex!" to a lot of stuff I hear, but if it doesn't do anything for me, the last thing I want to do is study whatever it is the composer is trying to accomplish so I can be moved by it. When I am moved, I am moved without much effort. At least that's how I prefer it. I think a lot of people are like this. As a listener, you don't need to understand the complexities of composition to like something. If a piece is created to be inaccessible in spite of itself, well then, yeah... it's written only for people who have an education to appreciate it, meaning it doesn't have much of a real chance for public appeal. The heart isn't in the piece anyway, so it shouldn't be regarded.
posted 01-10-2007 03:51 PM PT (US)

JaredC Non-Standard Userer	My old username, I don't even remember what it was. But the email address I had listed under it was doing something funky and I couldn't get my password so I decided to just register a new one. Yes I see where you're coming from, though I would think artists and people who like art and want to participate fall in the same group. And theorizing and writing, those I think also are the same thing. I also think doing what is natural and finding where you fit is also the same thing. After all, what music is naturally from someone? If somebody grew up never hearing a note of music in their life, would they contain music within them naturally? I would think so, but it certainly wouldn't be based in any sort of tonality, so it wouldn't sound much like what people today write 'naturally.' So film composers, uncluding those from backrounds outside of a conservatory, are writing music influenced by music around them, finding a musical place for themselves to fit into. I find alot of modern music extremely moving while alot of other music others find moving I don't, because I consider it unimaginative, the same old texture of melody over the same old chords that have been used over and over, it becomes just as heartless sometimes because it becomes just a formula, something manufactured and imitated rather than felt or envisioned. Alot of modern music I think is meant just to wow with complexity, which I don't enjoy, but alot of it also is just moving into a new language, not necessarily a complex one, but a new one that people aren't used to. What about John Adams, Steve Reich? Complexity isn't always the issue. And theory is very important, whether you study it or not. After all, the music that does move you, why does it? There must be a reason, and that reason is based in theory. A competent navigation of theory, granted, but theory just the same. Let me know if you think that holds any water! I'm not saying conservatories are the only place you can learn music and that you're not 'valid' without one, but to dismiss them I think would be a mistake because amazing things have gone on in concert music that not many people give a chance to, to ignore such innovations would be just as much a mistake as it is for 'concert' composers to ignore film music!
posted 01-10-2007 04:57 PM PT (US)

franz_conrad Standard Userer	I find this a fascinating topic myself. I often act as a kind intermediary between students from the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and Sydney Film School during the latter's class projects. One of the things that really does divide the two groups is: (i) professionalism - the composers always seem to do more preparation, more work, and go further than their collaborators could have; (ii) (and related to what you're saying) there's always a sense of being 'allowed to write real music' by the earlier music students, who haven't yet been brainwashed into thinking everything accessible is bad. The older ones are always far pickier about what real music in. Both positions have their advantages for the film-maker... the older ones come with more experience, but sometimes a slight disdain for the music the film-maker most wants. The younger ones lack experience, but sometimes just write that tune... or are willing to follow that popular influence suggested by the director. I like the immediacy of film music more than concert music. I like the storytelling function. But my preference is not strongly for one - I could list many modern classical works I'd sooner listen to than an average film score.
posted 01-10-2007 08:08 PM PT (US)

James Standard Userer	I'm glad you brought this up, as it'll allow me to flesh out a few hypotheses that have been brewing in my head for a while. They're begging scrutiny at the moment, so critical responses are quite welcome. To start with, I don't think the perceived lack of originality in film music is borne only out of a desire to be accessible (though this is certainly a factor) as much as it is the logical result of two unfortunate qualities inherent in the way the industry has evolved: (1) time and (2) temp tracks. The window of time given to film composers to allow them to do their jobs has been steadily diminishing over the last twenty years. So it's no wonder the scores may be suffering for originality, as I don't think you can expect most composers to come up with something truly original if they only have two weeks to complete an entire score. Under that kind of pressure, most of what goes into a score is likely to be the first thing that pops into a composer's head, and unless that composer is a genius (and I think real geniuses are a rarity) the first thing that pops into his or her head is likely to be the most basic (i.e., obvious) response to the film or the scene at hand. Add a temp track to the equation and the final result will tend to suffer even more. The whole system of temp tracking (where the temp track is comprised of previously recorded material) is inherently deleterious because it is endlessly homogenizing. In the 60's a score based on a temp track might still sound relatively unique. But let's say that in the 70's this score that was itself based on a temp track is used as a temp track to several more films. And in the 80's, pieces from those scores are used as a temp track again in several more films. Taken through time, what we are left with today are scores based on a temp track comprised of music based on another temp track comprised of music based on another temp track, and so on. The effect is much like inbreeding, with homozygosity leading to extremely derivative, watered-down scores within a few generations. I'm not saying accessibility isn't a factor, of course. Troy is a case in point: when the test audience doesn't connect with the music, it gets thrown out. But in that case, I'm more interested in why the audience doesn't connect, which brings me to my next point: What most people like is naturally average. When many people respond favorably to something, it has less to do with that thing being exceptional and more to do with that thing exemplifying the average level of quality in comparable things. To illustrate my point, try the "Make an Average" software demo at FaceResearch.org. Choose four people (of the same sex) and see what comes out. Then choose 10. Then choose 20. Notice how the more people you throw into the equation, the closer the resulting average gets to something most people would likely say is an ideal. I think most people (not all, but most) are the same way with music. When a lot of people like a piece of music, chances are it is because it exemplifies the averages of similar music. This is why, when we hear, say, the top 20 hits in a style of music we don't generally like, we think they all sound the same. I think they are the top 20 precisely because they sound basically similar. I also think this is a primary reason Hans Zimmer and his followers have gained such a strong hold in film music (in addition to their ability to work quickly): they take the three most common methods of scoring films -- orchestral music, pop/rock songs, and techno -- and in essence "average them out" to one thing that satisfies the majority of people on some basic level. (Naturally, I'm not saying they all do this all the time -- I'm merely postulating why I think the "Media Ventures sound" took off like it did.) I could be totally wrong about this, but if I'm right, what does that mean for the film composer who is expected to write music that will connect with the greatest possible number of viewers? It means he or she is essentially expected to write the most common, basic music they can come up with. Something that stands out, even if it's amazing, is risky. And when studios are pouring upwards of $70 million dollars into a picture, they like to take as few risks as possible. This is why replacement scores are often "safer" than the scores they replace. Where does this leave the composers who try to be innovative and original? They can only hope that the director is sympathetic to their ideas and the people footing the bill are sympathetic to the director. Every once in a while a new sound will break through, like the sort of thing Thomas Newman, Elliot Goldenthal, and even Hans Zimmer became famous for. But once that chord is struck, it too is likely to be banalized by the system, and there's not much anyone can do about it. The composers could protest, but they would do so at the risk of losing job offers, and if all they were being asked to do is imitation, there will be plenty of hungry B-list composers waiting in the wings who can do that just as well. So if that's why film music is so conservative, what makes concert music so inaccessible? I can completely sympathize with composers who become cynical about music that manages to be popular, precisely for the reasons I cited above. But more than that, I think the simpler reason concert music tends to be less accessible to people is that, unlike film music, accessibility is not a primary goal. It may be some sort of goal, but it's not a primary one. For one thing, accessibility seems like it would be a much more vague goal in the concert world these days, since music has branched off into so many different places. How do you know what's going to be accessible when you look at who's popular and you see the likes of (to use the first examples that come to mind) Arvo Part, Jennifer Higdon, Elliot Carter, and the Bang on a Can people (themselves a very diverse group)? It seems like "accessibility" would be a much more difficult quality to gauge in concert music. I also think there's a difference between writing elitist music and writing challenging music. An elitist composer isn't really writing music that is intentionally inaccessible -- they're just writing music that is intentionally accessible to a particular subgroup (e.g., academics). But if you're trying to challenge people, that's something different. It's perfectly fine to listen to music that moves you without much effort, as Peter said, but I couldn't stand listening to music like that on a regular basis. I think greater value lies in being adventurous, in constantly challenging your tastes and your perceptions, and composers who are engaged in that pursuit are invaluable, even if I don't always like what they write. I also agree that the academic world of music should not be dismissed. Aside from the reasons Jared has outlined, it's also important for some to know what came before if you really want to push yourself to write something no one has heard before. In many cases, this depends on the individual composer: knowing what rules have been laid out, some composers will write better music in an attempt to break those rules or bend them in ways we haven't heard before; others will write better music not knowing any of the rules. It just depends on what sort of an environment will allow a composer to flourish; some who were not primarily trained in conservatories probably had to go there first to know it wasn't the place for them (Steve Reich is probably a good case in point here). One last thing, in response to the question: quote: Do you think modern concert music has gone too far in the 20th century (and 21st!) I don't understand how any music could go "too far." If there was a boundary that music wasn't supposed to cross, I think music would be a lost cause. The idea seems especially preposterous to me now, when we finally seem to have entered an era where nothing is truly "off limits" and the music world is surging with composers struggling to make their individual voices heard. Yeah, I don't think people on the whole are giving modern music a chance. Lots of people don't even know it's out there -- I can't even tell you how many times I've tried to tell people about the music I like and I just receive a blank stare followed by the question, "People still write classical music?" -- and those who do know it's out there just assume it all sounds like Schoenberg, or they remember John Cage's 4'33" and laugh it off without stopping to think about what he was trying to say. There's a mind-boggling amount of variety in contemporary music, and there are so many people out there doing truly astounding work, but since it's not big business it doesn't have the distribution other music does (film scores are as widespread as Hilary Duff by comparison) and it can be daunting to go and seek it out, especially if you're not predisposed to challenge yourself or try things that are really new (because it's not always a battle to come to grips with new music -- a great deal of brand new discoveries are instantly likeable). I do take comfort in the fact that we've entered the age of recordings, which means that music which at least gets recorded now has the chance at a much longer shelf life and, by extension, a much better chance at being discovered. Kirk NP - cello concerto by Tigran Mansurian
posted 01-10-2007 09:12 PM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	quote: Originally posted by James: It's perfectly fine to listen to music that moves you without much effort, as Peter said, but I couldn't stand listening to music like that on a regular basis. I knew my phrasing would be interpreted incorrectly, my fault. I mean the act of "discovering" new music that moves you with little effort. In other words, to hear something for the first time and be blown away by it immediately without further study. If there is an opportunity to be moved again and again with continued listens (as people have been recently discussing in the big LOTR thread), this is only icing on the cake and deepens the personal discovery. Unfortunately, there's a problem here with a lot of film music. Much of what dictates the construction of the score is the film itself. When listening to a film score without the film, you are in essence a "deprived" listener. But such is the reality. I listen to this movie music as music, first. The World Trade Center score it can be a very boring listen. Connecting all the inspiration to it may cause me to appreciate it more, but as music it will either move me or it won't. I don't want to have to study what's not there before I can be moved by it (although I will admit, there have been many pleasant surprises where boring scores on their own come to life after seeing a film). The problem I have with this is that I listen to way more film scores than films I could possibly see, so it's a trade off I'm willing to make if I cherish being a dad and a model railroader. quote: Originally posted by James: There's a mind-boggling amount of variety in contemporary music, and there are so many people out there doing truly astounding work, but since it's not big business it doesn't have the distribution other music does and it can be daunting to go and seek it out, especially if you're not predisposed to challenge yourself or try things that are really new For the mind-boggling amount of truly good work being produced, you must take into account that technology has allowed for 4 to 5 times that amount of pure trash being produced as well. I don't think it's necessarily being ignored because it's not big business (which it really isn't if last year's biggest selling album sold fewer than 4 million copies... the field is being leveled!); it's more due to the fact that so much recorded music is now available, CD or download. There's just way too much. Good web research can help us unearth the treasure we seek, but the avalanche that keeps roaring down the mountainside sets things back so far it can swiftly kill the spirit of a good challenge. At least I know I don't have time for it all.
posted 01-10-2007 09:46 PM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	Sidebar Love Letter that is of good interest to those interested in the music biz. This gets away from some things Jared wants to chew on, and might not address issues in the classical music biz, but is interesting across a wider music biz spectrum. Apologies offered should they be required!
posted 01-10-2007 09:56 PM PT (US)

James Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by PeterK: I knew my phrasing would be interpreted incorrectly.... Thank you for clarifying; it looks like you weren't even talking about the same thing I thought you were. As to what you were talking about, I think we're in agreement (as we usually happen to be). quote: Originally posted by PeterK: For the mind-boggling amount of truly good work being produced, you must take into account that technology has allowed for 4 to 5 times that amount of pure trash being produced as well. I guess I survive because I'm not usually shooting in the dark (though I am sometimes) but am instead looking into something because I read about it, or a friend said such-and-such to me, or another musician mentioned it in an interview, etc. But your point is well taken. I have a friend who buys about 8 to 12 (used) CDs a week, many of which are blind buys, and I don't know how he finds the time to give everything a fair shake. I am grateful for all the things I've discovered through him, though. Kirk
posted 01-10-2007 10:09 PM PT (US)

NickK Non-Standard Userer	I think this dichotomy you perceive between film music and modern classical music is not so much a matter of the different styles/idioms so much as the level of quality, resulting from the factors James mentioned in his first post. In my opinion, GOOD film music and GOOD modern classical music both achieve the same ends: they serve to engage the emotions and the imagination of the listener. I personally never listen to music from and "intellectual" standpoint the first time through (that is, analyzing the form, developmental techniques, etc.) but I find that the music I find most aesthetically engaging and emotionally moving at first listen is often that which, upon closer examination, has a lot going on beneath the surface. It is this unpredictability, I think, the sense of mystery associated with not knowing exactly what's going on but still being able to understand what the composer is saying is what captures the attention and elevates the emotions. This ambiguity, I think, is what separates truly moving music that comes from somewhere deeper than the intellect, from music that is composed by following a formula that "anyone could have written..." and by this, I don't just mean pop music that is cranked out to sell CDs or film music that is cranked out to meet deadlines, but also esoteric modern classical music that is also based simply on a theoretical formula, however complex it may be. I think this is where it is possible that modern classical music may have gone a bit "too far" in the 20th century: if some modern composers create music that is based solely on a process (say, a certain mathematical formula) and has no meaning beyond the process used to compose it, is there any way a listener can get any kind of aesthetic experience out of it? It could be argued that THIS music could, as well, have been "written by anyone" with a certain amount of esoteric theoretical knowledge and certain concrete and completely non-musical ideas. It seems to me that such composers are, in effect, being more mathematicians than artists. Or am I missing something here? Beyond that, I think if the listener keeps an open mind and erases all expectations (which is the hard part), it is possible for anyone to appreciate and be moved by any kind of music. And the music that, in the end, stands the test of time is anything but average, even if it may not be hugely successful in its own time. Although sometimes it is... for example, John Williams went to Juilliard, and I'm sure part of his immense success is due to his ability to manipulate listeners' expectations that he picked up by being immersed in this musical environment and gaining a thorough understanding of why people react to music the way they do. Some would probably argue that a lot of his immense success is also due to his imitating Stravinsky's idiom, and Stravinsky is anything but average. My point, I guess, is that good movie music pretty much IS good modern classical music, and I agree that it IS possible for it to be complex and musically innovative and still be appealing to the general moviegoing public, as long as it is expressing something genuine. [Message edited by NickK on 01-11-2007]
posted 01-11-2007 04:02 PM PT (US)

Thor Standard Userer	What is this topic about, really?
posted 01-12-2007 11:49 AM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	Whatever you want it to be, Thor. Within reason. What do you think it's about?
posted 01-12-2007 12:23 PM PT (US)

Stargate Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Thor: What is this topic about, really? Great Thor. Thanks for breaking my concentration. I believe it's about concert music vs. film music, and film music lacking in originality. It's kind of hard to compare the two, IMO - almost like comparing waffles and pancakes - they're both damn good with syrup.
posted 01-12-2007 12:31 PM PT (US)

Thor Standard Userer	Yeah, I got the concert music vs. film music thing, but not really what you were discussing within that. Comparison of attitudes? Comparison of quality? Comparison of critical approaches? I just can't find a focus. [Message edited by Thor on 01-13-2007]
posted 01-13-2007 09:58 AM PT (US)

JaredC Non-Standard Userer	quote: Originally posted by Thor: Yeah, I got the concert music vs. film music thing, but not really what you were discussing within that. Comparison of attitudes? Comparison of quality? Comparison of critical approaches? I just can't find a focus. [Message edited by Thor on 01-13-2007] All of the above I think, just comparing in general to try and explain why some people percieve one or the other the way they do. ...Also the thread was meant to shamelessly advertise my site so people would listen to my music and give me some feedback. I didn't know if that would go in the classical forum since some of it is concert music, or the soundtracks forum since some of it was film music, or the junkyard since they're all student works. So I added the film music concert music discussion to make it fit in this forum.
posted 01-16-2007 08:08 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB