Creativity and originality are the most important aspects of making music is a myth? (Article Excerpt)

[Gamma-UT]

A composer who makes tutorial videos in which he pours a lot of bourbon into a shot glass and then gradually gets bladdered while he talks about composing film music.

I wasn't literally asking who he was, it was rhetorical, designed to imply that he has no right to say any such thing.

I know, it was just a handy opportunity.

[Dirtgrain]

The bizarre thing to me is how film music has somehow become this paragon of quality to some people, and it's often just because it happens to tickle their genre preferences.

Word.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

What he said makes sense.

It might seem to make sense but is he right?

Despite the tragically tortured wishes of no shortage of people, we are not living in a musical age defined by choice, skill, or talent, but by ignorance and abysmally low ability. We are hearing a style of music written not by choice, but by lack of ability to do otherwise. It's not as though your average, successful, working composer could write symphonically structured works, like Jerry Goldsmith did effortlessly for the Twilight Zone series, or for Star Trek the Motion Picture, and just chooses not to. He/she can't do it, period. They haven't the training, skill, experience, or interest. "I do not want what I have not got." They are not in control. It is not complicated.

That's a bold claim, Cotton. Let's see how that works out.

Does Verta honestly believe that the same schools that turned out these composers have shut up shop and that a collective dumbing down afflicts the rest? Or is he pushing an agenda that helps him ship a few courses to the people who didn't go to those schools but who think "I like Leia's Theme, I fancy doing a bit of that"?

The bizarre thing is that it has never been easier to learn the techniques that were once locked away inside expensive, exclusive tertiary education. So, the idea that supply is an issue just doesn't seem at all plausible.

Demand? That's another matter. What Verta leaves out of his rant is that the people selecting the music often aren't all that bothered about it. Yer average director, with the exclusion of people like Michael Mann, regard music as stuff to fill in the silences or beef up a fight scene and little more. Even with Michael Mann, you're going to be upset because he would more likely pick Tangerine Dream (OMFG minimalist electronic music! It's so modernist! The horror, the horror!) for its claustrophobic appeal than romantic classical. OTOH you are more likely to get the likes of James Cameron who orders the music a matter of days before the thing is going to print.

Where directors or the production management have made a conscious effort to go for more classically oriented scores they have clearly turned up. Disney, for example, has been careful to refer back to the original trilogy musically in its various Star Wars spinoffs. Armando Iannucci chose to get a very strongly Shostakovich-like score for The Death of Stalin. Christopher Willis did a bang-up job of getting the style and feel in a situation where Iannucci could so easily have opted, Kubrick-style, for the 10th Symphony. I'm guessing it was deliberate choice to not use the music of the time because of the comic-book "kinda real but not really" adaptation.

Do we really believe the likes of Hildur Guðnadóttir can't do it or that they prefer to explore texture in an environment where the pictures are there to be supported not to be dominated?

Going back to Star Wars spinoffs, are they as iconic as the first one? No. But there's a solid chunk of survivor bias in Verta's analysis. Williams, Goldsmith and others had ups and downs and they scored a tiny fraction of the films of the time. Most of the rest simply went unnoticed and mostly forgotten. And of course, because some people take a highly blinkered view of what makes a good score, they ignore the work of composers like David Shire on Pelham 123 and The Conversation.

I'd agree that a lot of film music seems stuck in a rut: big tribal drums, block strings. But it's not very different to the 1970s when everyone decided they needed to ape Lalo Schifrin and get some funky wah-wah bass in no matter how daft it sounded in the wrong context. Fashions change. Who knows, maybe you'll get your wish granted for a while with some more romantic classical with woodwind flourishes? But it won't be because of a sudden change in skill levels. It'll be what the people hiring decide.

The bizarre thing to me is how film music has somehow become this paragon of quality to some people, and it's often just because it happens to tickle their genre preferences.

There are several oversights in your analysis:

Does Verta honestly believe that the same schools that turned out these composers have shut up shop and that a collective dumbing down afflicts the rest?

Yes, collective dumbing-down does afflict the rest and the number of self-taught musicians will always outnumber professionally-trained ones. If the average threshold of skill is lowered for whatever reason, coupled with accessibility and one can wind up scoring movies or trailers without much understanding of music fundamentals, then there is very little incentive for new generations of composers to aspire to anything greater.

You are surrounded by countless examples of this; all the gatekeepers to even getting music heard or played live are gone. Anyone can buy a sample library and get a soundcloud. Anyone can submit to various places like AudioJungle and maybe get a placement. Where I'm from, when I was a teenager, if your band wanted to play live, you actually had to submit a music demo, meet with the owners of the venue, etc; they wanted to make sure you were good and that you'd bring business.

Now, they charge the bands to play, and they just let anyone who pay perform. So every group of bearded, overweight stoners and all their facebook friends show up every other weekend to punish neighboring businesses with their attempts at "metal".

Worst of all? Anyone can be a "teacher" now too and give bad information to the next generation of composers for anywhere from Mike Verta prices to Evenant prices!

John Debney was making these observations 20 years ago.

https://www.ascap.com/playback/2003/march/debney.aspx

Demand? That's another matter. What Verta leaves out of his rant is that the people selecting the music often aren't all that bothered about it.

The film industry, like basically all of the entertainment business, is heavily rooted in nepotism. It's often not the best person for the job who gets it. The matter also exists that, especially with many younger directors, many of them have probably not listened to much in the way of orchestral music beyond movie trailers or other action films and such they grew up watching and the pop music they listen to. Paul Haslinger has talked about this on numerous occasions.

There's also the matter that, as Danny Elfman and Alexandre Desplat regularly bemoan, most movies are using temp scores from the same modern blockbusters.

There is also the fact that most modern, popular films, are all equally-vapid and "gritty".

Where directors or the production management have made a conscious effort to go for more classically oriented scores they have clearly turned up.

Yeah, but do you ever notice that they almost always turn to the same old guys like Williams, Silvestri, Debney, etc. for such scores? Why is that? Shouldn't all of these young-blood, modern composers raised on samples be there go-to? They'd probably demand less money to boot.

The reasonable assumption as to why they often don't turn to these composers is because said composers cannot do what the score requires.

Do we really believe the likes of Hildur Guðnadóttir can't do it

If one's body of work does not contain such works, especially if their work is extensive, then yes that is a perfectly justified and more-likely-than-not correct assumption.

Assuming that someone can do something, and well at that, which none of us have ever seen them actually do, is delusional.

Williams, Goldsmith and others had ups and downs and they scored a tiny fraction of the films of the time. Most of the rest simply went unnoticed and mostly forgotten.

The thing is though, is that what existed outside of that tiny fraction often demonstrated that the composers had similar or great ability to popular scores.

Today, a large percentage of the professional compositions now sound like amateur scores. This was not the case 50 years ago; there was an obvious difference between a professional score and an amateur one. Although, there weren't too many amateur scores making it into big movies at all back when.

That's despite the nepotism still being strong as ever in the "golden age", but the entry requirements to have even an assistant job has dropped to ostensibly nothing aside from having a computer and samples, is all the proof you need to know that the standards have dropped — it's objective reality.

One doesn't require much skill to become a film composer or any musician at all these days.

I'd agree that a lot of film music seems stuck in a rut: big tribal drums, block strings. But it's not very different to the 1970s when everyone decided they needed to ape Lalo Schifrin and get some funky wah-wah bass in no matter how daft it sounded in the wrong context. Fashions change. Who knows, maybe you'll get your wish granted for a while with some more romantic classical with woodwind flourishes? But it won't be because of a sudden change in skill levels. It'll be what the people hiring decide.

The bizarre thing to me is how film music has somehow become this paragon of quality to some people, and it's often just because it happens to tickle their genre preferences.

Because it was and is the most popular form of orchestral music in the 20th and 21st centuries and many of the greatest composers of film were esteemed concert composers as well.

The final piece of the puzzle that you are missing is that these films are not fundamentally supposed to be produced solely to entertain directors, rich Hollywood progressives, and disperse propaganda. Rather, they are supposed to entertain the audience who pays to see them.

Audiences have been deciding that they don't like a lot of these movies (Charlie's Angels, Ghost Busters, Star War sequels, etc.) that have not only ignored what the audience wants to see, but then shit on the consumer for not liking their crap product.

Audiences also don't seem to much care for or even recall a lot of the music in these insanely-successful films, as countless debates, polls and "top 10" lists regarding film music in recent years have shown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Vn9V-tRCo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcXsH88XlKM

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/ ... d-and-ugly

https://www.popularmechanics.com/cultur ... rgettable/

It's not to say that every movie or every orchestral piece needs to sound like Beethoven or Holst, but what it is to say is that — much like those old castles, paintings, and so on — people still seem to prefer the old way over the "new" style when the option is presented to them and the public remarks (negatively) on its absence.

The icing on the cake is that if one wants to give those people that kind of music, they will have to master a lot more advanced techniques of the craft to pull it off authentically — and there seems to be very little evidence suggesting most young(er) composers working in films, games, etc. could deliver on it if asked.

It's amusing that I'm accused of "elitism" when I'm the one defending what it seems to be that people are longing for, where as you are defending whatever elites are cramming down our throats.

[Gamma-UT]

You are surrounded by countless examples of this; all the gatekeepers to even getting music heard or played live are gone. Anyone can buy a sample library and get a soundcloud. Anyone can submit to various places like AudioJungle and maybe get a placement. Where I'm from, when I was a teenager, if your band wanted to play live, you actually had to submit a music demo, meet with the owners of the venue, etc; they wanted to make sure you were good and that you'd bring business.

Holy moving goalposts, Batman! One minute we're on film/media music. The next it's pub bands.

And yet, somehow, punk happened. I wonder how if you had all those gatekeepers keeping out the riff-raff. Something's up here, and I don't think it's that punk got blocked because its CV wasn't up to snuff.

The matter also exists that, especially with many younger directors, many of them have probably not listened to much in the way of orchestral music beyond movie trailers or other action films and such they grew up watching and the pop music they listen to. Paul Haslinger has talked about this on numerous occasions.

And we're back to "modern life is rubbish". Ho hum. I think you can play back movies from many periods and come to the conclusion that directors were not all that acquainted with "the classics".

2001 was a prime example of the temp-score phenomenon.

Yeah, but do you ever notice that they almost always turn to the same old guys like Williams, Silvestri, Debney, etc. for such scores? Why is that? Shouldn't all of these young-blood, modern composers raised on samples be there go-to? They'd probably demand less money to boot.

Funny, I seem to remember mentioning Christopher Willis and that was straight off the top of my head.

Assuming that someone can do something, and well at that, which none of us have ever seen them actually do, is delusional.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who studies composition at an academic hasn't learned the mechanics of counterpoint? Because that's what we're talking about here. The rest is stylistic convention.

Today, a large percentage of the professional compositions now sound like amateur scores. This was not the case 50 years ago; there was an obvious difference between a professional score and an amateur one. Although, there weren't too many amateur scores making it into big movies at all back when.

I see we're playing "words mean what I say they mean" again. A paid-for score is not amateur by definition. Why not just say "I don't like it" rather than this pathetic weasel wording to make your argument try to sound authoritative?

The final piece of the puzzle that you are missing is that these films are not fundamentally supposed to be produced solely to entertain directors, rich Hollywood progressives, and disperse propaganda. Rather, they are supposed to entertain the audience who pays to see them.

Audiences are not selecting the music are they? And outside of stage musical adaptations they are not selecting the film they go to see based on the music. I'd be interested to see an example where the music was the reason audiences stayed away from any movie (that wasn't explicitly tagged a musical).

Conversely, music doesn't help a film. John Powell turned out a fine score for X-Men 3. The movie was still terrible.

Your list is just a prime example of survivor bias. What people remember are a couple of themes. How many people sit through the entire score at home who aren't studying music? Williams compressed Star Wars down to a five-piece suite. Total Recall has some cracking music in it but there's a solid chunk of stuff in the middle that's not exactly memorable.

Also, it's funny how rehabilitate modernist Morricone just so you can fill in a top ten. Then again, after your diatribes about the terrible modernism of Chopin you manage to ignore the influence of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Walton and others on your fave composers.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

You are surrounded by countless examples of this; all the gatekeepers to even getting music heard or played live are gone. Anyone can buy a sample library and get a soundcloud. Anyone can submit to various places like AudioJungle and maybe get a placement. Where I'm from, when I was a teenager, if your band wanted to play live, you actually had to submit a music demo, meet with the owners of the venue, etc; they wanted to make sure you were good and that you'd bring business.

Holy moving goalposts, Batman! One minute we're on film/media music. The next it's pub bands.

And yet, somehow, punk happened. I wonder how if you had all those gatekeepers keeping out the riff-raff. Something's up here, and I don't think it's that punk got blocked because its CV wasn't up to snuff.

Lol there's no "moving the goalposts". We've been talking about the decline of all music this entire time.

Most of the punk bands actually wrote better music than a lot of these "metal" bands up here you should hear.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who studies composition at an academic hasn't learned the mechanics of counterpoint? Because that's what we're talking about here. The rest is stylistic convention.

No, that's what you're talking about.

Most of the music that Williams and stuff composed for film is not contrapuntal like a fugue or something. The difference between the old stuff and the modern is that the old stuff was far stronger melodically and regarding orchestration in general.

I see we're playing "words mean what I say they mean" again. A paid-for score is not amateur by definition. Why not just say "I don't like it" rather than this pathetic weasel wording to make your argument try to sound authoritative?

No, it's just you refusing to accept that "standards" can possibly exist.

The phrase and term "up to 'professional standards'". Have you ever heard of that? It used to be that what was paid-for had to meet a certain standard of quality and craftsmanship. That standard was once higher than it is now.

Audiences are not selecting the music are they? And outside of stage musical adaptations they are not selecting the film they go to see based on the music. I'd be interested to see an example where the music was the reason audiences stayed away from any movie (that wasn't explicitly tagged a musical).

Conversely, music doesn't help a film. John Powell turned out a fine score for X-Men 3. The movie was still terrible.

This entire paragraph is irrelevant.

The audiences react to what they're being shown — they react increasingly negatively, yet you defend the shit the producers put out anyway. Like a good little consoomer!

Your list is just a prime example of survivor bias. What people remember are a couple of themes. How many people sit through the entire score at home who aren't studying music? Williams compressed Star Wars down to a five-piece suite. Total Recall has some cracking music in it but there's a solid chunk of stuff in the middle that's not exactly memorable.

No, because it is the style, the aesthetic, the themes, the energy, etc. — not the individuals — that are missed.

Here's the real question for you:

What exactly does one, or society and the arts as a whole gain from accepting your viewpoint on all this? This idea that nothing was actually better in the past?

Can you actually provide some sort of evidence that this rejection of standards and elevating any sort of inane shit to the status of "just as valuable" has done any sort of good?

How has the "trophy for everyone" ideology actually improved the craft?

[imrae]

What exactly does one, or society and the arts as a whole gain from accepting your viewpoint on all this? This idea that nothing was actually better in the past?

I found the goalposts, they have been moved into the sun and atomised.

[Gamma-UT]

Here's the real question for you:

What exactly does one, or society and the arts as a whole gain from accepting your viewpoint on all this? This idea that nothing was actually better in the past?

Can you actually provide some sort of evidence that this rejection of standards and elevating any sort of inane shit to the status of "just as valuable" has done any sort of good?

How has the "trophy for everyone" ideology actually improved the craft?

Holy smoking strawman, Batman! Edward Woodward is crapping himself at the sight of it.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Here's the real question for you:

What exactly does one, or society and the arts as a whole gain from accepting your viewpoint on all this? This idea that nothing was actually better in the past?

Can you actually provide some sort of evidence that this rejection of standards and elevating any sort of inane shit to the status of "just as valuable" has done any sort of good?

How has the "trophy for everyone" ideology actually improved the craft?

Holy smoking strawman, Batman! Edward Woodward is crapping himself at the sight of it.

Lol right

Answer the question

[Gamma-UT]

Which one? I counted four.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Which one? I counted four.

It's all the same.

How has your pro-modernist viewpoint, bemoaning the idea that the standards of the past were objectively better, improved music?

[Gamma-UT]

As your definition of "pro-modernist" includes everyone from Chopin (and perhaps a bit before that) and is not focused on musical output purely from select corners of Europe, I think the evidence is clear.

[empphryio]

Clearly the stuff on the radio sucks now. The millennial whoop, Taylor Swift, etc. Standards are going down. But I'm not sure how that makes Chopin an asshole...

[Gamma-UT]

Clearly the stuff on the radio sucks now. The millennial whoop, Taylor Swift, etc.

Even then, for every Taylor Swift you've got a Grimes and a Sia. And that's just in pop. Cast the net wider and there's a ton of stuff out there. It just doesn't get on the radio.

The charts are always full of junk. People only think it was better way back then because they remember the good bits. I remember Top of the Pops as a teenager. It mostly sucked. Hooray for gatekeepers, eh?

For my parents' generation it seemed worse because of the unnerring ability of kids to find genres their parents will hate and...well you know the rest. Where my parents might have hated distorted guitars now we've got bubblegum chords and overcooked autotune. I wonder what the autotune generation will despise.

[Bombadil]

The Beatles?

[Gamma-UT]

The Beatles?

Did/will someone pop their heads in a jar Futurama-style?

I realise what I should have written is "what will the autotune generation despise that their kids play"? Then again, maybe it's Beatles covers rendered using an amplified noseflute?