Yeah. I'm totally white.
Our computer at home bit it this past weekend so we are sans all things computer-related until this weekend. This means that I'm bloggity-blogging at work until then. Things have been hectic as all hell here, too, but that's another posting.
We made it to Mission: Impossible 3 this past weekend with Oscar and B. Was it a great movie? No. Was it a helluva lot of fun? I think so. Unfortunately the plot was, once again, waifer thin. Isn't it just possible that someone could write an actual story for one of these things? The first is still the best and we'll just pretend the second one didn't even happen. I've noticed that a fair number of people on the Film Score Monthly message board are kind of poo-pooing Michael Giacchino's score for the film. I can't help but think that, compared to much of the other more recent work out there, it's quite good. It's pretty "up front" for a contemporary action score. And even though it's filled with bombast, it's also has a few subtleties. Plus his interpolations of Lalo Schifrin's original themes (including some of "The Plot") were quite nice. My only gripe is that Giacchino either needs to learn how to orchestrate better or hire someone who does because I have the Alias: Season One album and The Incredibles and I just don't think that Tim Simonec is a good orchestrator. He had help (like the 900-year old Jack Hayes, who was no spring chicken when he orchestrated Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) but Simonec was the lead and ultimately responsible for the end result. At the same time some of his writing reminds me of some of the things I've done in a few of my own scores. Just with a bigger budget (rather than a "beggar" budget).
Also, there's a discussion going at the Film Score Monthly message board about the use of pencil and paper versus synthesizers and computers for the composition process. Some people are saying that they can hear the difference between composers who use one or the other as their primary means of composition. To an extent I agree. But I also think that it has as much to do with training as the tools one uses.
Comments? Is it the same with screenwriting?
9 comments:
I wasn't necessarily referring to writing a fully finished script longhand. I guess I was thinking more of a treatment where the script goes through some sort of the developmental stage where it can be given a shape and a point from beginning to end. Watching so many movies it feels almost like this process gets skipped. A lot. There's a reason I was asking about screenwriting because it all kind of comes from the same place: technology. There's a lot of really bad material being generated in film in screenwriting, music and filmmaking in general. I just can't help but think that it's, in part, due to the technology available to make it "easier" to accomplish the goal. But making it easier doesn't make it better. It seems to give people who don't actually have the talent the tools to peddle their hackneyed product. It's gotten to the point that anyone with a synthesizer and a sequencer thinks they can be a great composer, and anyone with a video camera thinks they can be a great filmmaker. I think that just writing a screenplay from beginning to end (I don't know how rare/common this is) is like writing directly into a score in ink; only the most truly talented can pull it off successfully. Everyone else sounds like crap.
I think the theory with contemporary film composers is that those that compose at a keyboard and with sequencers “sound” different than those that compose at the piano (or at a desk, for that matter). As I stated in my post, I think that it has as much to do with training as it does the technology, but the lack of training of so many big-name contemporary film composers is, in many ways, a handicap.
As for me, I don't actually have a synthesizer (I use the Pikey's toys). While I would certainly use it to mock up finished products if I had one, I don't know that I would be able to compose at it. I also don't 'write' at the computer. There are few things worse than trying to compose at the computer with the screen staring blankly back at you like, "What? Piss off!". I also don't spend much time composing at the piano, either. Come to think of it, I just like sitting at my desk with pencil and paper and seeing what my mind's ear thinks of and then go over to the piano and play a little bit of it just to hear if the two are in sync.
...but seriously Michael...i want to know what you really think.
Herr, in three years i will give you an educated opinion.
I'm surprised the Pikey hasn't weighed in on this issue yet.
Where are you, Pikey???
formulating...
word verification: bamtzzn
Says michael s: I got branded at film school as "commercial" by some, as if it was a bad thing. I always told them "commerical=career".
This sounds like my friend Noah, fellow aspiring film composer. He takes a lot of shit for writing... well, good music, aka crowd-pleasers. He's prolific as hell, and I really like most of his stuff. Why is this? Perhaps because he doesn't have an existential bone in his body and thus gets a lot more done. A lot of the acedemic-types condescend to his writing for no good reason other than they are jealous of his success.
He always says he's fine with it, because he's going to always be getting a lot of performances while everyone else is working on their avant-garde one-hit-wonder-pieces. (Okay, so those were my words.)
Commercial = career = worthwhile music = not wasting your time = doing your job well = good craftsmanship?
It's all a blur.
I wish I had better chops.
Fuck grad school. And fuck film school while we're at it.
As a mid-level pianist (I’ll wait now while everyone gets the snickering out of the way………..finished…good!), I find composing at the keyboard the most satisfying and productive. I also prefer inputting everything directly into notation software because I enjoy the direct feedback, and because even I can’t read my chicken scratching. I suppose if you think you can tell the difference between who pencils and who types, then more power to you. I also think you’re trying too hard. As far as Hollywood composers go, the old guys do/did it old school (although given Jerry’s love of technology, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was at least familiar with notation programs). The younger guys I would guess do it half and half. I imagine some of the folks at Media Dentures just play it in on their gee-tars and wouldn’t know the difference between notated music and a Sanskrit scroll. Anyway, as I was saying, I visualize my compositions on the piano keyboard, so I pick around with a line or segment of something, then put it on Sibelius or MOTU’s Mosaic. After I have what I consider a large enough section complete, I’ll turn the piece into a MIDI file and bounce it into DP4 for sequencing with the synthesizers. Now after all that, if you can still say that you can tell just by listening to it that I didn’t do it on pencil and paper first, I say you are full of shit.
My earliest completed compositions started out on paper, and Brad will tell you that they sound just as schmaltzy as my more recent efforts. Think for a minute about which composers your pieces most stylistically emulate/imitate. Now, do they/did they write out their music, or point-and-click it in with a mouse. If you associate synthetic music with that composer, then yes, I guess I could see how someone might be able to say they can tell how you write. But it’s really kind of subjective isn’t it? Take Hans Zimmer for instance. If you worship at the Alter of the Big Z and your music sounds as such, then yes, one might come to think that you do everything by sequencing because that’s what he is known for and your style sounds just like him. This could be misleading however. Maybe you sound just like The Zim, but you really do write out everything by hand. You’d never be able to convince anyone of it. Why? Because generally that type of music is more simplistic and thinly structured, and most people might have a hard time believing that anyone would even need to “write” it out at all. Brad and I both borrow from Johnny and Jerry’s books now and again. Brad’s almost strictly a pencil guy, and as I said, I computer notate. If you listen to something either of us wrote and immediately associate it with either of those two composers, are you going to be able to say conclusively how we did it knowing how they did or do it? Not really, no!
Admittedly this is a fun albeit silly debate. As far as screenwriting is concerned, I have a hard time believing that many people do it longhand anymore or have for a long while. George Lucas did it for the prequel trilogy…but we all know how that turned out! Then again, that’s wandering off into a debate about talent, and I’m not going there right now (I’ll let a braver soul take the plunge on that one). I think it’s safe to say that the word processor has just about made handwriting anything of substance obsolete. I would imagine that even the worst typist would rather hunt-and-punch their way through on a typewriter rather than cramp-out their hand trying to jot it all down. I find the whole page-a-minute rule fascinating really. Especially when watching what one might call more ‘artistic’ fare. The New World immediately comes to mind after having rented the DVD last weekend. I’d say about 80% of the spoken word in that film consisted of narrative overdubbing. It was a very ‘visual’ picture to say the least, but at about 135 minutes, I can’t fathom what the screenplay must have read like. If you were to edit out all of the visual set pieces and narrative portions leaving only the dialogue exchanges, I’d guess the film would come in at about 35 – 40 minutes. It wasn’t what I’d call a great film, but the camera work was excellent and the direction top notch. Editing and pacing-wise it was schizophrenic at best, downright confusing at worst.
I suppose I’ve just spat out a whole bunch of nothing. But what the hell, I’m entitled to my 2 cents.
1. There's nothing wrong with being "commercial". "Commercial" does not necessarily mean "Lacking artistry" and "Artistic" doesn't necessarily mean "not commercially viable".
2. To clarify on what the Pikey said about my being a "pencil and paper" guy. I don't do it that way because of some superiority issue. I do it that way because I'm a visual person. I need to take whatever musical materials I'm working with and create as many variations as I can think of. This way I can actually see, both visually and aurally, the way it works.
I also like the feel or tactile aspect of sitting at a piano. Psychologically it's just not the same - to me - as sitting at a keyboard or a computer.
For the record, I wasn't implying that Brad is an elitist snob for using pencil and paper. We already know he's an elitist snob and the p and p thing has nothing to do with it! I can say that because I have the same problem (remember I'm the guy that once referenced Style Hongrois to describe Johnny's score for Dracula).
People who do use the pencil and paper thing as a superiority crutch are dicks and should be shot, torn limb from limb, and have their parts placed on display in the town centre.
And I totally agree, "commercial" isn't a bad word. The people who tell you you're too "commercial" or that you're a "sell-out" are probably also going to be the ones spending their lives jealous of your success.
Lastly, Brad's seen ST: First Contact too many times.
Resistance is futile!!!
Post a Comment