Anyway, I was intrigued enough that I gave them a tape I'd made of Jerry Goldsmith's Islands In The Stream (without telling them that it was film music, of course), just to check the subsequent reaction. I was expecting the typical "Yes, that was great. What was it?" "Film music." "Ah, well, it wasn't brilliant, but OK for a film score."

But no. They held up their hands in horror, telling me how terrible it was, saying that it was mere NOTHING, that it JUST WASN'T...ANYTHING! I still don't know what they meant, and at the time I was too taken aback to ask them (and in fact I never did tell them that it was for a film).

I've been wondering about this response. It couldn't have been snobbery, as they never knew what the music actually was. I don't even know if their being music students had anything to do with it. But implicit in their reaction was something I've detected quite often among non-aficionados, namely "YUK I don't like THAT. It sounds like FILM MUSIC!"

Does that make sense to you?

SFT

First, which version of ISLANDS IN THE STREAM did you play? I've heard a lot of people rag on the Hungarian rerecording that Intrada produced (most of it sounds fine to me, though the shark music isn't as vibrant as the original Los Angeles performance was.)

but challenging is an abtract concept when it comes to music, because the soft stuff that doesn't sound very hard can be incredibly difficult to get right.

I agree with you all, but don't forget that these people didn't know that it was film music they were listening to, so I don't know where the sense of superiority or snobbishness comes in.

Maybe it's as some of you have pointed out: Islands In The Stream was maybe too fluffy a choice. (By the way, H. Rocco, the recording I have is on LP and from ages ago, so I assume it's the first release.)

NP: Search for Paradise (Dimitri Tiomkin)

Now I think about it, it must have been the Intrada release. Peter Proud was nowhere to be seen, and there weren't any pics of George C. Scott either, if memory serves (this is one of hundreds of LPs I have stored thousands of miles from my new home).

I suggest that you freak 'em out next time with one or all of the following: PLANET OF THE APES, 100 RIFLES, THE ILLUSTRATED MAN, SECONDS (which I don't own myself!), PAPILLON, PATTON or TOTAL RECALL. If they can't respond to one of THOSE, then, well, the hell with 'em. (Which I say joshingly, of course ... and if they feel like something more melodic, after that atonal assault I've recommended above, throw in Goldsmith's amazing LIONHEART.)

Putting aside Goldsmith -- what about Christopher Young's HELLBOUND or John Williams' THE FURY? Wojciech Kilar's DRACULA, Thomas Newman's THE PLAYER, Carter Burwell's MILLER'S CROSSING ... you get the idea (I only hope your musician friends do.)

last time I saw him He had a quite healthy 40+ film scores.

P.S. I should add that I came from classical music to film scores!!

I think a real and dedicated musician, of any kind, knows something great when they hear it. I gave tapes of Bernard Herrmann's chamber works "Echoes" and "Souvenirs du Voyage" to the amazing Japanese composer Akira Ifukube, and he was EXTREMELY enthusiastic about them. Which made me happy. (Of course, genius tends to recognize genius ... what astonished me was that he didn't know anything about Herrmann before, and he was nearly eighty years old at the time. (He and Herrmann were born around the same time, I think.) I mention this because it's the kind of thing that makes me wonder what exactly *I* may be missing.)

NP: nothing, but I just took out a pile of Prokofievs from the library. Don't know a note of em ... ought to put one on, I guess. Life is too short? Probably, but it is precisely as long as it ever happens to be.

Signed, his H'ness,

H

as a classical music lover, I find it hard NOT to get an emotional response in the music. I mean, if there was no emotion at all, what were Shostakovich, Beethoven, and Mahler writing about? Bruckner wrote his mountainous symphonies with a religious devotion that would offend many people today (after all, he dedicated his 9th to God).

and string quartets this century have evolved from flowery wallpaper music (though good wallpaper music) to personal statements from the composers about events in their own life. and let's face it. The 20th century was extremely violent, and the music reflected that violence. And to be fair, some of it does just plain suck.
but then, that's part of the beauty of music.
It's an outward expression of emotions that the composer feels inwardly, but it can have a totally different affect when YOU listen to it.

was any of that clear?

NP -- A Hatful of Rain

Usually two or three musicians in the groups are very fond to film music and that is all they listen too. Most professional artists are fond of film music and have no problem whatsoever. Some composers are actually considered "classical" composers rather tahn just "film" composers. They include John Williams, Miklos Rosza, Elliot Goldenthal, and others from the "Golden Era"(Korgnald, Steiner, and Hermann). If you say "what do you think aboout John Williams?" Most musicians would reply that his music is great and it is a joy to play! The more complex and musical, the better it is accepted.

That is my take on this matter... and I have been around many great musicians that have told me this!

Aaron

In fact, emotions are what makes me like classical music and film scores so much, because most "songs" don't trigger any genuine emotion. Even "cold" works like modern classical music, or atonal film score stuff, for that matter, has emotions. "Planet of the Apes", e.g., is very disturbing, I'd call that emotional. Also, honestly, music usually has to have a certain degree of complexity for me to like it. And good film music, like classical stuff, has both, complexity and emotions.

Korngold was an extremely sucessful and famous composer, at his time reportedly second only to Richard Strauss. Then he went to America and started composing film scores. He's hardly mentioned today. For his 100th birthday, there were some articles about him in Austria, and you could hear some broadcasts on radio dedicated to Korngold. You could learn how famous he was, that he was a "wunderkind", as great as Mozart. Now his 100th birthday is over, you hardly hear anything anymore.

And if you want to show those "musicians" a really complex work, try Rosenman's "Lord of the Rings" as well!

Tis my wish that your H'ness twill enjoy yonder minstrel known as prokofiev!

p.s. My appologies to Stan Lee and The Mighty Thor

(and nothing to do with my friend from Norway)

I'm putting this one back up because -- well mainly to tip my hat to the Enchanter, he might blow me up otherwise, but also: We have genuine musicians on this Board (I do not pretend to be one myself, which is wise, since I am NOT one) -- and yet it's interesting to me ...

Which composers working now are the MOST CHALLENGING TO PLAY?

Certainly Goldsmith, Williams, Young and Goldenthal. Was Herrmann difficult to play? I wonder. His stuff is so simple on the surface, and as with any discipline, that often means something MUCH MORE DIFFICULT is going on underneath. I'm sure Rozsa and North were/are challenging to the nth degree. But was Alfred Newman? I'm not arguing, I'm wondering.

My mother has played piano for at least fifty years of her life; I showed her some Akira Ifukube sheet music, and she was astonished at how difficult it was to play. And on the surface, Ifukube seems to be dealing in big, obvious, borderline vulgar themes (he himself would agree with the world "vulgar" regarding some of his film work) -- and yet he is as complex as anyone still working in music in the world today.

Pro or amateur musicians (I fall into the latter category): chime in, if you'd be so kind? What have you played, who's difficult to play, who's the most challenging? And did anything I said make any sense? (Not all of you will have played Goldsmith or Williams, much less Herrmann or Ifukube. But if you HAVE ... what's it like?)

H Rocco--You are always the Man! Kudos to you for introducing Herrmann music to Ifukube. Way to go!

NP: Patlabor 2 (Anime score by Kenji Kawai)

I know what you mean by finding "a lot of classical music dull." I've had the same problem, over and over again, and most of my favorite classical pieces are those that happen to resonate in my mind with MOVIES. For example, my all-time favorite classical piece may well be "Siegfried's Funeral March" from Wagner's "Ring" cycle, but that's because it's so indelibly associated in my mind with one of my very favorite movies EXCALIBUR. Mr. Ifukube's classical works resonate in my head because I can hear so many echoes/foreshadowings of his film work (although some of them are so esoteric that they don't recall the movie stuff at all).

I wonder if it's part of being a consequence of "the soundbite generation." I have trouble getting through entire classical works a lot of the time, but a pick-and-choose piece of work like the Telarc album "Jurassic Classics" was absolutely made for the soundtrack aficionado. (It's also got some WONDERFUL stuff on it that I've heard elsewhere but was never able to establish what it was ... "Montagues and Capulets" in particular, that was a car commercial from a couple years back, it made me CRAZY that you never get music credits for TV ads, except once I saw Jean-Michel Jarre's name on one.)

Remember Claude Chabrol's statement in the Music for the Movies--Bernard Herrmann documentary?

He said that after Herrmann, the only music that sounded good in Hitchcock movies was that which sounded like Herrmann.

Well, for me, mostly the only classical music that charges me is that which sounds like film music (i.e., big, Romantic 19th Century music for full orchestra). There are exceptions, of course.

But Christ, do you think I'd check this board night after night if I wasn't obsessed that film music was the music that counted?

NP: Berlin Alexanderplatz (Peer Raben)

It actually sounds like you know more about classical music than I do ... my focus is all too narrow, I fear. Same with punk music (which I also listen to, though rarely): "Point me at the best stuff." Same with Japanese anime movies: "Point me at the best stuff." As you've noticed, I'm an absolute bear for research in certain fields, but with others I just shrug and say "Awright ... point me at the best stuff."

(Peer Raben? Good Lord, I haven't heard that name in quite a while. Never saw BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ, life is just too short.)

NP Conan, The Destroyer. Wide awake.

Despite what I just said, I'm curious as to what turned up as the best anime when you asked around....you see, I'll at least check in on what other people think from time to time.

I did Berlin Alexanderplatz in a theater for five hours a day for three days over one weekend. Life being short or long didn't apply as time itself began to lose all meaning during the experience. But actually, Alexanderplatz was a picnic compared with the much shorter Jeanne Dielmann--I'd give away national secrets rather than have to suffer through that endlessness again.

NP: The Thing From Another World (Dimitri Tiomkin)

quote:

---

Originally posted by H Rocco:

Best anime: Everybody seems to know AKIRA, but fewer have heard of ROYAL SPACE FORCE, and I must admit a particular soft spot for PROJECT A-KO. The original URUSEI YATSURA (aka LUM) TV series was terrific (haven't seen any in years, though), and the first two or three feature films were decent as well.

Oh yes, the original PATLABOR movie was excellent, more of a murder (or suicide) mystery than a big SF/fantasy piece, although it had those aspects as well.

---

I don't know about the rest here, but I am an big fan of anime. I definitely know of Akira, Patlabor and The Wings of Honneamise - A.K.A. Royal Space force, they are great IMO. However the second Patlabor film is great as well, but more of an thriller than anything else.

As for an favorite of mine, well I would suggest the Macross movie to anyone interested in anime. And if you like UY, also check out Ranma 1/2 and Maison Ikkoku, which are from the same creator.

BTW, If you get the Cartoon Network, check out Dragon Ball Z, Sailor Moon, Ronin Warriors and the best IMO, Gundam Wing. The Action channel has also been showing anime of late. IIRC, this Saturday at 11:05PM they will show Macross II: Lover's Again. Which could be any good start, if you have not seen much if any anime before.

Also In case you are in the area, an local Bay Area PBS station airs Urusei Yatsura and Evangelion each Sunday at 9:30 and 10:00 PM.

What I would like to ask though, does anyone actually collect the Anime soundtracks? In my case that equals nearly half of my soundtrack collection.

Take care.

well spoken!

timmer

I wondered on a similar thread at FSM (sob) if film music isn't a much quicker emotional fix. That we're impatient to "get to the good part." By its very nature, film music has to quickly get to the emotion of a scene. As contrasted with classical music--where the musical material develops at a more leisurely pace before getting to "the good part."

Also, and this goes back to "emotional" music, classical composers who compose "too emotionally" (e.g Rachmaninoff) are often thought to be lesser composers. This makes no sense to me, since all good music should & does manipulate the emotions. Perhaps it's that purely analytical people (most "serious" critics) tend to be uncomfortable with emotionalism, in life AND in art. Although I obviously have an analytical side, I wouldn't describe myself as purely analytical.

1. DOES IT APPEAL TO YOUR EMOTIONS?

2. DOES IT APPEAL TO YOUR INTELLECT?

3. DOES IT APPEAL TO YOUR FANTASY?

4. DOES IT APPEAL TO YOUR MEMORY - both to the film and to your own past?

If you think about it, these 4 criterions are wider than it seems. Good music - for me - includes all of these 4, but with differing emphasis: PLANET OF THE APES is more intellectually motivated, STAR WARS is part memory, part emotions. And FAR AND AWAY, for example, is more fantasy, since I have not seen the film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by debi:
Also, and this goes back to "emotional" music, classical composers who compose "too emotionally" (e.g Rachmaninoff) are often thought to be lesser composers.

---

I can't agree:
Beethoven's symphonies? Operas in general? Requiem works (at least by Mozart and Verdi)? Many of these are more emotional than your usual film score, especially operas often overwhelm you with emotions.

Anton Bruckner had a very hard time as most of his works were critized and he had to rewrite a lot of them. E.g., in his 4th symphony you can often hear a cymbal, which he was more or less forced to add by "well-meaning", the original version does not include it. So it seems that he wasn't emotional enough. In the end, his 4th was quite famous, and it's no wonder that it is called "The Romantic".

Thor: Good points. I think "film music is subservient to the visuals" is an often used argument, but for me, it doesn't count. Take a fugue for example, maybe the most complex of all classical forms. Fugues have extremely rigid rules, the composer often is forced to do this or that to stay true to the form, so in this case, music is more or less "subservient to the form". Also, really good film music is NOT subservient to the visuals. Of course, it DOES serve them in the first place, but if it really is good film music, it often can stand on it's own very well.

I think the "classical elite" sees to little form in film music. Symphonies used to follow a predefined pattern, and film music can't do that. Nevertheless I believe that good film music has it's own form. The general form is dictated by the visuals, but the "internal" form of the different cues can, to a certain extent, be specified by the musician.