Well i'm not surprised by this review on this site. It annoys me however that people who like Zimmer's scores are spoken about as if they know nothing about film scoring. It doesnt matter who scores what film, there will be people who love a soundtrack like this one (me) and people who dont. Does this score work in the film... Damn right it does, but you have to have an open mind and it was great for me to hear a film score for a genre film which also isn't filmed as an old fashioned pirate film either. I think that is where Clem misses the whole point. But hey I love this score like many other film score fans, and there are those of you who don't, but please don't try and write a review about what the composer was thinking and how they do their work cause you havent the slightest idea. This review was way off with what was in Zimmer's mind and you only have to listen to the interviews with Zimmer to realise that the vision for the film and score was to create a modern film action bruckheimer score for a modern audience. This is what Verbinski wanted so who better then to get the guy who can create such in your face, enjoyable theme music. Zimmer did his job to perfection. They didnt want the pirates movies to go back to the old pirate films. They wanted to create something new for a new audience and that is exactly what they have done. It worked cause these films and their scores have been hugely successful. Obviously Zimmer's scores appeal to more then just film score fans like us, and that is the gift that Zimmer has brought to the world fo film music. I just feel sorry for the old fart traditionalists of film scoring (CLem) who are too stubborn to let their ears really open to the world of music in general. The beauty of music is that you can do what ever you like. No rules, no boundaries. Understand this and you will understand why Zimmer is enjoyed by people of all ages who enjoy all styles of music. Looking forward to hearing the score for the Simpsons movie. Take care

I'll say this, it will probably come out sounding insulting, but I'm really not meaning it to be that way. I would say that Zimmer writes popular film score music. It's simplistic, doesn't mean ineffective, just not complex or layered. His music appeals to a wider audience because more people without a musical background can appreciate it. Take someone like James Newton Howard. He writes some of the most complex film scores in modern times, but he has a much smaller fan base, primarily of people with some musical structure knowledge that appreciate the finer methods he employs.

We all know there's a lot of controversy behind the composer, the methods that employs to write music, etc. However you feel about it, the fact has to be accepted that he's not as talented a composer as his Hollywood peers. He's kind of a one trick horse. As long as he's in his element, the music works on screen and occasionally on album (The Medallion Calls from the first Pirates film is one that I like a lot).

A lot of critics that have harsh reviews for Zimmer, do so because they have musical training that gives them a sort of behind-the-scenes view of the music. If you're a chef that studied for 10 years and you know how to make really complicated dishes that taste great, and then you see a guy making cheeseburgers and selling them for $50..well, you're probably going to tell people "Hey, they're just cheeseburgers."

Nothing wrong with liking cheeseburgers, I wish more people would turn off the radio and listen to film scores. Compared to Britney Spears, Hans Zimmer is Beethoven. But compared to his peers, he's more like a guy that likes one chord progression and the same synths for every score.

So again, Zimmer is writing music that appeals to a wider group of people by using simpler methods of composition to avoid alienating them. Most people equate classical music with the word 'boring'. So maybe you could accuse him of selling out and sacrificing quality of music for popularity, maybe he's just plain lazy, but what he's writing is more or less pop music for orchestra (and synth).

> Well i'm not surprised by this review on this site. It annoys me however
> that people who like Zimmer's scores are spoken about as if they know
> nothing about film scoring. It doesnt matter who scores what film, there
> will be people who love a soundtrack like this one (me) and people who
> dont. Does this score work in the film... Damn right it does, but you have
> to have an open mind and it was great for me to hear a film score for a
> genre film which also isn't filmed as an old fashioned pirate film either.
> I think that is where Clem misses the whole point. But hey I love this
> score like many other film score fans, and there are those of you who
> don't, but please don't try and write a review about what the composer was
> thinking and how they do their work cause you havent the slightest idea.
> This review was way off with what was in Zimmer's mind and you only have
> to listen to the interviews with Zimmer to realise that the vision for the
> film and score was to create a modern film action bruckheimer score for a
> modern audience. This is what Verbinski wanted so who better then to get
> the guy who can create such in your face, enjoyable theme music. Zimmer
> did his job to perfection. They didnt want the pirates movies to go back
> to the old pirate films. They wanted to create something new for a new
> audience and that is exactly what they have done. It worked cause these
> films and their scores have been hugely successful. Obviously Zimmer's
> scores appeal to more then just film score fans like us, and that is the
> gift that Zimmer has brought to the world fo film music. I just feel sorry
> for the old fart traditionalists of film scoring (CLem) who are too
> stubborn to let their ears really open to the world of music in general.
> The beauty of music is that you can do what ever you like. No rules, no
> boundaries. Understand this and you will understand why Zimmer is enjoyed
> by people of all ages who enjoy all styles of music. Looking forward to
> hearing the score for the Simpsons movie. Take care

In addition to what he said, I don't think the use common chord progressions is grounds for condemning a composer to that kind of a review. I remember some reviews on this site that sing praises to James Horner despite the fact that he too was using common chord progressions and being very predictable considering his previous works. Both Horner and Zimmer were just following their personal preference in film scoring and yet only Horner gets praised while Zimmer gets bashed. Maybe there's a bit of bias going on here.

> I'll say this, it will probably come out sounding insulting, but I'm
> really not meaning it to be that way. I would say that Zimmer writes
> popular film score music. It's simplistic, doesn't mean ineffective, just
> not complex or layered. His music appeals to a wider audience because more
> people without a musical background can appreciate it. Take someone like
> James Newton Howard. He writes some of the most complex film scores in
> modern times, but he has a much smaller fan base, primarily of people with
> some musical structure knowledge that appreciate the finer methods he
> employs.

> We all know there's a lot of controversy behind the composer, the methods
> that employs to write music, etc. However you feel about it, the fact has
> to be accepted that he's not as talented a composer as his Hollywood
> peers. He's kind of a one trick horse. As long as he's in his element, the
> music works on screen and occasionally on album (The Medallion Calls from
> the first Pirates film is one that I like a lot).

> A lot of critics that have harsh reviews for Zimmer, do so because they
> have musical training that gives them a sort of behind-the-scenes view of
> the music. If you're a chef that studied for 10 years and you know how to
> make really complicated dishes that taste great, and then you see a guy
> making cheeseburgers and selling them for $50..well, you're probably going
> to tell people "Hey, they're just cheeseburgers."

> Nothing wrong with liking cheeseburgers, I wish more people would turn off
> the radio and listen to film scores. Compared to Britney Spears, Hans
> Zimmer is Beethoven. But compared to his peers, he's more like a guy that
> likes one chord progression and the same synths for every score.

> So again, Zimmer is writing music that appeals to a wider group of people
> by using simpler methods of composition to avoid alienating them. Most
> people equate classical music with the word 'boring'. So maybe you could
> accuse him of selling out and sacrificing quality of music for popularity,
> maybe he's just plain lazy, but what he's writing is more or less pop
> music for orchestra (and synth).

I can definitely agree with that. There's nothing wrong with common chords in and of themselves, it just depends on the context. You probably wouldn't want to hear Bach-style writing for a film like The Matrix.

Horner is guilty of the same things, truly. There's a melodic motive that's showed up in at least three scores to potray a villain, a triplet turn figure leading back to tonic. If I remember, it was in one of his Star Trek scores, the Land Before Time, and Zorro. But on the other hand, even though he recylces a lot of the same material, it seems like his database has more material to draw from than Zimmer.

You know, it seems like most people are biased in one way or another against Zimmer. People seem to either love him fanatically or despise him venomously. I tend to stand in the middle ground, I don't hate his stuff, some of it I like, but I can see the weaknesses in his style as well.

> In addition to what he said, I don't think the use common chord
> progressions is grounds for condemning a composer to that kind of a
> review. I remember some reviews on this site that sing praises to James
> Horner despite the fact that he too was using common chord progressions
> and being very predictable considering his previous works. Both Horner and
> Zimmer were just following their personal preference in film scoring and
> yet only Horner gets praised while Zimmer gets bashed. Maybe there's a bit
> of bias going on here.

Why does something that has more notes played mean that is automatically a better score? One of my favourite composers along with Zimmer is Goldsmith...Why? Well I have all of his stuff, one of the lucky few to have the Burbs score which is fantastic, but Goldsmith's scores are the most simply written scores i have heard. Simple but strong brass themes and simple but well crafted string lines. Seriously have a listen and all of his scores are so simple but catchy. Some of the writting in these pirates scores like Jack Sparrow from Dead Man's Chest is very exciting and sophisticated writing just like the writing for I Don't Think Now Is The Best Time. Musically inclined has nothing to do with enjoying a peice of music. I write my music and i have studied classical as well as many forms of music for over 12 years now and I dont want to always hear a 4 octave scale played at lightning speed within 1 second. That stuff is easy to write, but to write catchy and enjoyable themes? Thats the hard part. A classic example is Jimi Hendrix, the most amazing guitarist, but when it came to his songs, his riffs and themes were simple and catchy and thats why people love his stuff. Zimmer works the same, he could write parts for intruments that could show off the players ability to use fast fingers but film scoring is not about that and I luv Newton Howards stuff, but hes stuff is very basic too. But if you're not musically inclined then you might think it's more difficult then what it really is! haha The biggest problem i have is people who agree with the review of this score and haven't even heard it and are just agreeing for the sake of it because they arent fans of Zimmer scores. Listen to it for once and make your own mind up. Thank god there is Zimmer aswell as Williams, Howard, Horner and Silvestri cause if there wasn't there wouldnt be much variety out there in the film score realm. We don't want everyone to score the same way do we? It would be pretty damn boring!

That's an excellent point bringing up Hendrix, Little Wing is just a modified blues progression. I think a lot of film music is this way because of the time constraints, usually a composer will find something that works and use it repeatedly (sometimes till it's done to death). Check out the Narnia theme vs the theme from Shrek, both scores involved Harry Gregson Williams. Both of those themes are the same chord progression with a different melody over it, it works yeah, but how honest is it? An argument that keeps coming up against Zimmer is laziness and I'm sometimes inclined to agree.

When I say that his scores lack complexity, I don't mean rhythmic but harmonic. Rhythmically his work is pretty interesting, that might have something to do with his rock background. I like his use of 3 (or 6/8 whichever). But harmonically the scores are pretty bland. There's a review somewhere that said his melodies were basically neo-classical chord progressions. I don't agree for scores like Pirates, although it's evident in other scores. I guess what I think ultimately about the scores for these three films is that they are the musical counterparts of the films. They're popcorn scores. That'll probably piss somebody off, but that's what I think.

Sometimes they're great, but other times you want something with more meat to them.

> Why does something that has more notes played mean that is automatically a
> better score? One of my favourite composers along with Zimmer is
> Goldsmith...Why? Well I have all of his stuff, one of the lucky few to
> have the Burbs score which is fantastic, but Goldsmith's scores are the
> most simply written scores i have heard. Simple but strong brass themes
> and simple but well crafted string lines. Seriously have a listen and all
> of his scores are so simple but catchy. Some of the writting in these
> pirates scores like Jack Sparrow from Dead Man's Chest is very exciting
> and sophisticated writing just like the writing for I Don't Think Now Is
> The Best Time. Musically inclined has nothing to do with enjoying a peice
> of music. I write my music and i have studied classical as well as many
> forms of music for over 12 years now and I dont want to always hear a 4
> octave scale played at lightning speed within 1 second. That stuff is easy
> to write, but to write catchy and enjoyable themes? Thats the hard part. A
> classic example is Jimi Hendrix, the most amazing guitarist, but when it
> came to his songs, his riffs and themes were simple and catchy and thats
> why people love his stuff. Zimmer works the same, he could write parts for
> intruments that could show off the players ability to use fast fingers but
> film scoring is not about that and I luv Newton Howards stuff, but hes
> stuff is very basic too. But if you're not musically inclined then you
> might think it's more difficult then what it really is! haha The
> biggest problem i have is people who agree with the review of this score
> and haven't even heard it and are just agreeing for the sake of it because
> they arent fans of Zimmer scores. Listen to it for once and make your own
> mind up. Thank god there is Zimmer aswell as Williams, Howard, Horner and
> Silvestri cause if there wasn't there wouldnt be much variety out there in
> the film score realm. We don't want everyone to score the same way do we?
> It would be pretty damn boring!

Just because Zimmer uses the same chord progressions in every score doesn't mean they are harmonically bland. I happen to think his chord progressions are simply the best ones that exist, so in that case, he shouldn't stop using them. I mean, isn't that what this is all about? There is only so much you can do with music. If he's found his niche, he's going to stick with it.

> That's an excellent point bringing up Hendrix, Little Wing is just a
> modified blues progression. I think a lot of film music is this way
> because of the time constraints, usually a composer will find something
> that works and use it repeatedly (sometimes till it's done to death).
> Check out the Narnia theme vs the theme from Shrek, both scores involved
> Harry Gregson Williams. Both of those themes are the same chord
> progression with a different melody over it, it works yeah, but how honest
> is it? An argument that keeps coming up against Zimmer is laziness and I'm
> sometimes inclined to agree.

> When I say that his scores lack complexity, I don't mean rhythmic but
> harmonic. Rhythmically his work is pretty interesting, that might have
> something to do with his rock background. I like his use of 3 (or 6/8
> whichever). But harmonically the scores are pretty bland. There's a review
> somewhere that said his melodies were basically neo-classical chord
> progressions. I don't agree for scores like Pirates, although it's evident
> in other scores. I guess what I think ultimately about the scores for
> these three films is that they are the musical counterparts of the films.
> They're popcorn scores. That'll probably piss somebody off, but that's
> what I think.

> Sometimes they're great, but other times you want something with more meat
> to them.

But don't you think that as a composer he should strive to continue growing creatively? This is why I think he's on the lazy side. He's made it as a composer in Hollywood, which is a damn hard thing to do, and kudos to him for making this far. But look at John Williams, he hit it big in the 70s with Jaws and Star Wars, but his career kept steamrolling along. His best scores came years after he hit the big Hollywood composing scene. Williams is known to use to the same melodic motives and harmonic progressions, but he has also grown and matured in his compositions. He's probably peaked by now, but he still kept moving up after becoming rich.

I just don't hear that with Zimmer's scores. His better stuff, in my opinon, is behind him and he's hit a plateau where he doesn't seem to care about growing as a composer...because there's really no pressure for him to. He could write terrible scores from now till the end of time, but he'd still have enough money to live comfortably. And if that's what he wants, that's fine. But people should stop being so fanatic about (both fanatic fans and fanatic haters). He's got some good stuff, but he's not A-list.

> Just because Zimmer uses the same chord progressions in every score
> doesn't mean they are harmonically bland. I happen to think his chord
> progressions are simply the best ones that exist, so in that case, he
> shouldn't stop using them. I mean, isn't that what this is all about?
> There is only so much you can do with music. If he's found his niche, he's
> going to stick with it.

> His better stuff, in my opinon, is behind him and he's hit a plateau where he
> doesn't seem to care about growing as a composer...

> But people should stop being so fanatic about (both fanatic fans and fanatic
> haters). He's got some good stuff, but he's not A-list.

I think it's too early to say that Zimmer's better stuff is behind him. My favorite of all his scores is a recent one, "King Arthur," which in ways is similar to "Gladiator," but more focused. I also think he used "Tears of the Sun" to improve upon ideas introduced in his earlier African-themed scores, and "The da Vinci Code" to improve on ideas he was experimenting with in "Hannibal."

I'm neither a fanatic fan nor a hater of Zimmer. My A-list of film composers (past and present) is essentially locked-in: Goldsmith, Williams, Vangelis, and Barry (with Vangelis doing better than Williams if all their music is included, and Williams doing better than Vangelis if only scores as written for the films count). But I can hear Zimmer nipping at their heels. That, and the controversy surrounding him, is why he's so interesting.

I've not heard the da Vinci code or Tears of the Sun on album, but I'll take your word for it. The funny thing is that while I'm sort of debating against Zimmer here, if you put me into a Williams situation I'd most likely take a similar stance against him.

What I've heard of Vangelis is limited, but his work in Blade Runner I liked as well as the 1492 score, as misfitted as it was with the movie. I think it's supposed to be like the best selling record ever in Germany.

A lot of what I end up liking, I hear it in the film first so there's a subconscious bias against some scores that I gotta get over, King Arthur being one of them. Seeing Knightley wearing Blue fact paint just killed that movie for me, but I guess I'll give the score a listen on album.

> I think it's too early to say that Zimmer's better stuff is behind him. My
> favorite of all his scores is a recent one, "King Arthur," which
> in ways is similar to "Gladiator," but more focused. I also
> think he used "Tears of the Sun" to improve upon ideas
> introduced in his earlier African-themed scores, and "The da Vinci
> Code" to improve on ideas he was experimenting with in
> "Hannibal."

> I'm neither a fanatic fan nor a hater of Zimmer. My A-list of film
> composers (past and present) is essentially locked-in: Goldsmith,
> Williams, Vangelis, and Barry (with Vangelis doing better than Williams if
> all their music is included, and Williams doing better than Vangelis if
> only scores as written for the films count). But I can hear Zimmer nipping
> at their heels. That, and the controversy surrounding him, is why he's so
> interesting.

> I've not heard the da Vinci code or Tears of the Sun on album, but I'll
> take your word for it. The funny thing is that while I'm sort of debating
> against Zimmer here, if you put me into a Williams situation I'd most
> likely take a similar stance against him.

> What I've heard of Vangelis is limited, but his work in Blade Runner I
> liked as well as the 1492 score, as misfitted as it was with the movie. I
> think it's supposed to be like the best selling record ever in Germany.

> A lot of what I end up liking, I hear it in the film first so there's a
> subconscious bias against some scores that I gotta get over, King Arthur
> being one of them. Seeing Knightley wearing Blue fact paint just killed
> that movie for me, but I guess I'll give the score a listen on album.

It was the last two tracks on the "Tears of the Sun" album that blew me away. And I had not seen the film at the time. For "The da Vinci Code, it was mainly the music for the final scene, which works better in the extended international cut of the film, where it's played in its entirely as it is on the album, than it does in the truncated scene that's in the American theatrical release.

Some additional Vangelis recommendations: "Heaven and Hell," his breakthrough album in 1975, the likes of which had never been done before using electronics, and part of which Carl Sagan used as the main theme for "Cosmos." Also, the "Mythodea" concert and the score for "Alexander."

For the "King Arthur" commerical album, I suggest moving the Moya Brennan song (which I liked a lot) to the end where it's more effective. There are also bootlegs available with additional music.

In defense of Kiera Knightly's blue paint, it fits the movie, since everyone in her tribe is wearing it for the final battle. It would be jarring if they were all in blue paint and she wasn't.

One criticism of the new "Pirates" film that I agree with is that Knightly looks too glamorous in it in relation to the other characters. You'd think that living among pirates, essentially as one of them, and, for a time, as their leader, she would not have access to movie star makeup and would start looking dirty and grungy like them. By contrast, she did look appropriately dirty and grungy for her role in "King Arthur."

Thanks for the recommendations, I'm definitely going to check them out. I wish I knew where the bootleg market operated (as if it were an actual place) so I could get some of the complete versions of things, but eh, I'll live with commercial albums, even though they always seem to leave out the very best stuff.

In King Arthur, it wasn't so much the fact that Keira Knightley was wearing blue makeup as it was that Keira Knightley was cast in the role. Everyone else seemed to fit the role in physical appearance, but she looked like a supermodel trying to blend in. Just really killed the suspension of belief for me. I have a bias against her I admit, I don't find her to be particuarly talented, but that's a debate for another board, this is about film music after all

I listened to Pirates 3 today and really studied it. My opinion of has become slightly elevated AND slightly lowered. Overall I like his use of rhythm, I think it's his strongest skill as a composer. But I found the score to be wandering with no seeming destination, something that (I assume) works better with the picture over it than on album.

> It was the last two tracks on the "Tears of the Sun" album that
> blew me away. And I had not seen the film at the time. For "The da
> Vinci Code, it was mainly the music for the final scene, which works
> better in the extended international cut of the film, where it's played in
> its entirely as it is on the album, than it does in the truncated scene
> that's in the American theatrical release.

> Some additional Vangelis recommendations: "Heaven and Hell," his
> breakthrough album in 1975, the likes of which had never been done before
> using electronics, and part of which Carl Sagan used as the main theme for
> "Cosmos." Also, the "Mythodea" concert and the score
> for "Alexander."

> For the "King Arthur" commerical album, I suggest moving the
> Moya Brennan song (which I liked a lot) to the end where it's more
> effective. There are also bootlegs available with additional music.

> In defense of Kiera Knightly's blue paint, it fits the movie, since
> everyone in her tribe is wearing it for the final battle. It would be
> jarring if they were all in blue paint and she wasn't.

> One criticism of the new "Pirates" film that I agree with is
> that Knightly looks too glamorous in it in relation to the other
> characters. You'd think that living among pirates, essentially as one of
> them, and, for a time, as their leader, she would not have access to movie
> star makeup and would start looking dirty and grungy like them. By
> contrast, she did look appropriately dirty and grungy for her role in
> "King Arthur."

> I'm neither a fanatic fan nor a hater of Zimmer. My A-list of film
> composers (past and present) is essentially locked-in: Goldsmith,
> Williams, Vangelis, and Barry (with Vangelis doing better than Williams if
> all their music is included, and Williams doing better than Vangelis if
> only scores as written for the films count). But I can hear Zimmer nipping
> at their heels. That, and the controversy surrounding him, is why he's so
> interesting.

SURELY you jest about Vangelis.

Oh, but if not... careful - a comment like that can tend to instantly make any opinion of yours on the subject of music completely irrelevant. Seriously, you've GOT to be kidding. Vangelis' ineptitude astounds me.

OK, Sam... sorry in advance for being a little rude.

But really... it honestly hurts my Classically-trained ears to listen to Vangelis, and not because of his synths --- it's his writing.

> Why does something that has more notes played mean that is automatically a
> better score? One of my favourite composers along with Zimmer is
> Goldsmith...Why? Well I have all of his stuff, one of the lucky few to
> have the Burbs score which is fantastic, but Goldsmith's scores are the
> most simply written scores i have heard. Simple but strong brass themes
> and simple but well crafted string lines. Seriously have a listen and all
> of his scores are so simple but catchy. Some of the writting in these
> pirates scores like Jack Sparrow from Dead Man's Chest is very exciting
> and sophisticated writing just like the writing for I Don't Think Now Is
> The Best Time.

There's a significant difference. People like Goldsmith or Williams work very hard on these themes that appear to be very simple and catchy. The end product sounds simple and intuitive, but to get to that point, you have to invest lots and lots of work. As John Williams put it: they sound "inevitable". They could be varied, quoted partially or as a whole, and they would work.
The problem with Zimmer's themes is that they are so static that they work only in the environment they were originally written for, and in the specific style Zimmer writes. Christian nailed this in his review.
For instance, I adore how Howard Shore could indicate or nod to a very specific theme with just one chord or two notes. This kind of controlled writing just isn't possible with Zimmer's themes.
They aren't varied because they can't be varied, because there's nothing particulary identifiable about them.

Let me just say that you perfectly express my opinion on Hans Zimmer, one that I've tried to convey for a long long time. He's simply not a very good musician. "Pop music for orchestra", perfectly put.

That's why Zimmer's albums are bestsellers, because they also appeal to the people that listen to the Top 10 way too often, and have as much knowledge of music as a banana peeling schimpanse (really, no offense).
That's also why you're reading so many customer reviews at amazon or similar places that proclaim At World's End is amongst the best film scores ever. The thinking process of those folks is not "Hey, this is good film music", they simply think "sounds great! So this is film music?" And they think they like film music in general, but all they really like is Hans Zimmer's music, which sounds unlike any other film composer (for better or worse), but which is far less effective, and requires less to no attention and "insider-knowledge".
Sure, if you're a fan of your pop stars, scores like At World's End sound like Götterdämmerung. But if you regularly listen to classical music and real maestros of film music, then Hans Zimmer simply comes off as a talentless hack. That doesn't mean his music can't be enjoyable from time to time, but as a musical product, it's utterly worthless.

May be it is "pop music for orchestra" but it is damn fine music and if the masses enjoy it, then is it really worth over-analysing?

> Let me just say that you perfectly express my opinion on Hans Zimmer, one
> that I've tried to convey for a long long time. He's simply not a very
> good musician. "Pop music for orchestra", perfectly put.

> That's why Zimmer's albums are bestsellers, because they also appeal to
> the people that listen to the Top 10 way too often, and have as much
> knowledge of music as a banana peeling schimpanse (really, no offense).
> That's also why you're reading so many customer reviews at amazon or
> similar places that proclaim At World's End is amongst the best film
> scores ever. The thinking process of those folks is not "Hey, this is
> good film music", they simply think "sounds great! So this is
> film music?" And they think they like film music in general, but all
> they really like is Hans Zimmer's music, which sounds unlike any other
> film composer (for better or worse), but which is far less effective, and
> requires less to no attention and "insider-knowledge".
> Sure, if you're a fan of your pop stars, scores like At World's End sound
> like Götterdämmerung. But if you regularly listen to classical music and
> real maestros of film music, then Hans Zimmer simply comes off as a
> talentless hack. That doesn't mean his music can't be enjoyable from time
> to time, but as a musical product, it's utterly worthless.

> May be it is "pop music for orchestra" but it is damn fine music
> and if the masses enjoy it, then is it really worth over-analysing?

You're damn right it's worth it!
Every fan should care about who is representing our already small community! And it's not particulary encouraging when the guy doing this job has a ultra-simplistic style that doesn't have much to do with the rest.

It may be "damn fine" pop music, but even that ranks below Elfman's or Goldsmith's or Shore's or Williams' worst efforts.

Oh come off it! If so many people are enjoying his film music then all I can say is "Job Done". I mean seriously, what more must the man do?

Fair enough, you say the man "represents" your community but does he really? He's just a guy that has been very successful within your community. He has not proclaimed himself leader of film composers worldwide. He's just a composer. Surely if you are a film composer (I assume you are or at least connected) then Hans Zimmer's success and massive fan-base should be inspirational in itself. Just because his style (in your words) is ultra-simplistic, why should that be a problem for you? Surely you have your own style? Surely others in the community have their own styles to? Why should Hans Zimmer's personal film scoring choices be so threatening towards your work?

When it all boils down to it, the job of a film composer is to arouse the audience through a range of emotions depending on the material in the film. That's it.

Hans Zimmer takes a lot of flack for "ghostwriters", collaborations and other such methods of practise meaning he isn't the sole composer. But again, why should that bother anyone? His company has helped young composers break into the movie indsutry that would normally have not had a chance. The fact that he welcomes contribution is a wonderful quality. All the best filmmakers do the same so why should film scoring be any different?

I guess the point I'm making is that it is impossible for everyone to like everything in this world. For everyone that loves something, there is someone just around the corner waiting to [bleep!] on it.

I've listened to virtually everything Hans Zimmer has composed and he has a marvellous range of material which makes me think your "ultra-simplistic" remark was a bit of a generalistion that wasn't justified.

I would recommend the following soundtracks you listen to see if Hans Zimmer's music is that bad that you feel he let's your community down:

1. The Thin Red Line
2. Prince Of Egypt
3. The Lion King
4. House Of The Spirits
5. Backdraft
6. Crimson Tide
7. The Da Vinci Code
8. Gladiator
9. Hannibal
10. King Arthur
11. The Last Samurai
12. The Peacemaker
13. Pearl Harbor
14. The Power Of One
15. Tears Of The Sun
16. Thelma and Louise

And of course, you should listen to the Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End soundtrack again.

The above are just some of the great soundtracks he has written and there are plenty more. On top of this there are dozens upon dozens of great themes within other scores that he has done that are just amazing.

So to sumarise, the man is diverse, his work is exciting and he takes too much crap from others when all he is trying to do is bring a little magic to the movies.

> You're damn right it's worth it!
> Every fan should care about who is representing our already small
> community! And it's not particulary encouraging when the guy doing this
> job has a ultra-simplistic style that doesn't have much to do with the
> rest.

> It may be "damn fine" pop music, but even that ranks below
> Elfman's or Goldsmith's or Shore's or Williams' worst efforts.

I'm gonna write an analogy of how I think about Zimmer's music.

You know how when you're a teenager in college, you first start discovering beer? At first, any beer is good beer. Then, after you get past the phase of drinking till you spew, you start to want beer with good flavor, body, etc. You realize that Budweiser is pretty crappy beer and you start trying independent labels and microbrews.

When someone is classically trained, in most cases it just gets hard to listen to Zimmer and think "Hey, that's good music." It's more along the lines of "Hey, so-and-so did that before him." And like a summer popcorn flick, I sometimes pop in some Zimmer. But because I have a deeper understanding of the mechanics of music than the average joe on the street, my taste is refined.

And Zimmer has really grabbed ahold of that Budweiser drinking market, where he doesn't have to work as hard to make money.

> Oh come off it! If so many people are enjoying his film music then all I
> can say is "Job Done". I mean seriously, what more must the man
> do?

> Fair enough, you say the man "represents" your community but
> does he really? He's just a guy that has been very successful within your
> community. He has not proclaimed himself leader of film composers
> worldwide. He's just a composer. Surely if you are a film composer (I
> assume you are or at least connected) then Hans Zimmer's success and
> massive fan-base should be inspirational in itself. Just because his style
> (in your words) is ultra-simplistic, why should that be a problem for you?
> Surely you have your own style? Surely others in the community have their
> own styles to? Why should Hans Zimmer's personal film scoring choices be
> so threatening towards your work?

> When it all boils down to it, the job of a film composer is to arouse the
> audience through a range of emotions depending on the material in the
> film. That's it.

> Hans Zimmer takes a lot of flack for "ghostwriters",
> collaborations and other such methods of practise meaning he isn't the
> sole composer. But again, why should that bother anyone? His company has
> helped young composers break into the movie indsutry that would normally
> have not had a chance. The fact that he welcomes contribution is a
> wonderful quality. All the best filmmakers do the same so why should film
> scoring be any different?

> I guess the point I'm making is that it is impossible for everyone to like
> everything in this world. For everyone that loves something, there is
> someone just around the corner waiting to [bleep!] on it.

> I've listened to virtually everything Hans Zimmer has composed and he has
> a marvellous range of material which makes me think your
> "ultra-simplistic" remark was a bit of a generalistion that
> wasn't justified.

> I would recommend the following soundtracks you listen to see if Hans
> Zimmer's music is that bad that you feel he let's your community down:

> 1. The Thin Red Line
> 2. Prince Of Egypt
> 3. The Lion King
> 4. House Of The Spirits
> 5. Backdraft
> 6. Crimson Tide
> 7. The Da Vinci Code
> 8. Gladiator
> 9. Hannibal
> 10. King Arthur
> 11. The Last Samurai
> 12. The Peacemaker
> 13. Pearl Harbor
> 14. The Power Of One
> 15. Tears Of The Sun
> 16. Thelma and Louise

> And of course, you should listen to the Pirates Of The Caribbean: At
> World's End soundtrack again.

> The above are just some of the great soundtracks he has written and there
> are plenty more. On top of this there are dozens upon dozens of great
> themes within other scores that he has done that are just amazing.

> So to sumarise, the man is diverse, his work is exciting and he takes too
> much crap from others when all he is trying to do is bring a little magic
> to the movies.

> Oh come off it! If so many people are enjoying his film music then all I
> can say is "Job Done". I mean seriously, what more must the man
> do?

Ah, so things like pride, ambition, living up to a legacy don't seem to count. Poor film music world. The thing is, there's a great amount of people who are no film score fans, but listen to some Zimmer anyway. And those people have a genuinely wrong impression of what film music is like.
If that doesn't bother you, then it's telling and a pity, but I do care very much.

> Fair enough, you say the man "represents" your community but
> does he really? He's just a guy that has been very successful within your
> community.

You know, my experience tells me that the more experienced and sophisticated the people of this community get, the less they take Hans Zimmer seriously. That's for a very simple reason, which Euphman very vividly describes below.
Don't kid yourself. Of course Hans Zimmer represents us because many who know nothing about film music think Zimmer's music is a good example of diverse and intriguing film music.

> He has not proclaimed himself leader of film composers
> worldwide. He's just a composer. Surely if you are a film composer (I
> assume you are or at least connected) then Hans Zimmer's success and
> massive fan-base should be inspirational in itself.

No, actually, it makes me sick that you can get this far with so little. Success isn't inspiring; success *and* quality is. In that respect, Danny Elfman is a far more inspiring person.

> Just because his style
> (in your words) is ultra-simplistic, why should that be a problem for you?
> Surely you have your own style? Surely others in the community have their
> own styles to? Why should Hans Zimmer's personal film scoring choices be
> so threatening towards your work?

Because the success of Hans Zimmer undermines the virtues of film music:
One work by one composer, absorbing the atmosphere of any given film, skills in writing for full orchestra, and so on.
You see, by now, the film doesn't have any influence on Zimmer's work anymore. That's why you hear Batman Begins in Da Vinci Code, Da Vinci Code in Pirates 3, Batman Begins in Pirates 2.

> When it all boils down to it, the job of a film composer is to arouse the
> audience through a range of emotions depending on the material in the
> film. That's it.

Nothing wrong with that. But film music should also be able to stand on its own as one piece of music, and it should stay with you, stand the test of time. Hans Zimmer's scores are musical fast food. In 10, 20 years, it will sound terribly dated. It even sounds dated today already.

> Hans Zimmer takes a lot of flack for "ghostwriters",
> collaborations and other such methods of practise meaning he isn't the
> sole composer. But again, why should that bother anyone? His company has
> helped young composers break into the movie indsutry that would normally
> have not had a chance. The fact that he welcomes contribution is a
> wonderful quality. All the best filmmakers do the same so why should film
> scoring be any different?

I don't quite get that. In how far are filmmakers related to Hans Zimmer's use of ghostwriters?
Film making has always been a collaborative thing, but film composing? It's great that Hans Zimmer gives young composers a chance to work on such films, but it ends when he uses their work to promote his name. And nothing else happens. Do you in all honesty think that the average joe, or average film music listener can tell which cue was written for instance by Nick Glennie-Smith?
And even if they were, nobody can tell which piece was written by whom, so ultimately, if nobody knows what each composer wrote, you can hardly call that "promoting".
And one more thing: when those ghostwriters are forced to blend in with Zimmer and *his* themes, they are not really able to present *their* style, are they?
And in the end, it doesn't do anything but hurt the final product because it doesn't have structure. That's why there's no development in the themes (yes, you've read correctly), and you don't have any sense of resolution and satisfaction when the album closes.

> I guess the point I'm making is that it is impossible for everyone to like
> everything in this world. For everyone that loves something, there is
> someone just around the corner waiting to [bleep!] on it.

I'm not asking anyone who likes Zimmer to suddenly dislike him (and vice versa), but I wish people would at least acknowledge that his music doesn't hold a candle to the work of his peers, not to mention classical composers.

> And of course, you should listen to the Pirates Of The Caribbean: At
> World's End soundtrack again.

Not a chance. It works even less in the movie than it does on album. Every time there's a wide shot of a ship or the horizon, you hear french horns blaring.

> The above are just some of the great soundtracks he has written and there
> are plenty more. On top of this there are dozens upon dozens of great
> themes within other scores that he has done that are just amazing.

"Alle Meine Entchen" is also amazingly intuitive, and yet I wouldn't dare calling it good music.

> So to sumarise, the man is diverse, his work is exciting and he takes too
> much crap from others when all he is trying to do is bring a little magic
> to the movies.

That he's trying is not the question. But diverse he's definitely not. Trust me.

We'll have to agree to disagree to pretty much everything said between us. I suppose with all compopsers (yes, not just Zimmer) I look at the work with more of a "glass-is-half-full" attitude whereas you, not only is the glass half-empty, but it has lipstick all around the rim.

See the good in the world and stop nit-picking at the faults.

> Ah, so things like pride, ambition, living up to a legacy don't seem to
> count. Poor film music world. The thing is, there's a great amount of
> people who are no film score fans, but listen to some Zimmer anyway. And
> those people have a genuinely wrong impression of what film music is like.
> If that doesn't bother you, then it's telling and a pity, but I do care
> very much.

> You know, my experience tells me that the more experienced and
> sophisticated the people of this community get, the less they take Hans
> Zimmer seriously. That's for a very simple reason, which Euphman very
> vividly describes below.
> Don't kid yourself. Of course Hans Zimmer represents us because many who
> know nothing about film music think Zimmer's music is a good example of
> diverse and intriguing film music.

> No, actually, it makes me sick that you can get this far with so little.
> Success isn't inspiring; success *and* quality is. In that respect, Danny
> Elfman is a far more inspiring person.

> Because the success of Hans Zimmer undermines the virtues of film music:
> One work by one composer, absorbing the atmosphere of any given film,
> skills in writing for full orchestra, and so on.
> You see, by now, the film doesn't have any influence on Zimmer's work
> anymore. That's why you hear Batman Begins in Da Vinci Code, Da Vinci Code
> in Pirates 3, Batman Begins in Pirates 2.

> Nothing wrong with that. But film music should also be able to stand on
> its own as one piece of music, and it should stay with you, stand the test
> of time. Hans Zimmer's scores are musical fast food. In 10, 20 years, it
> will sound terribly dated. It even sounds dated today already.

> I don't quite get that. In how far are filmmakers related to Hans Zimmer's
> use of ghostwriters?
> Film making has always been a collaborative thing, but film composing?
> It's great that Hans Zimmer gives young composers a chance to work on such
> films, but it ends when he uses their work to promote his name. And
> nothing else happens. Do you in all honesty think that the average joe, or
> average film music listener can tell which cue was written for instance by
> Nick Glennie-Smith?
> And even if they were, nobody can tell which piece was written by whom, so
> ultimately, if nobody knows what each composer wrote, you can hardly call
> that "promoting".
> And one more thing: when those ghostwriters are forced to blend in with
> Zimmer and *his* themes, they are not really able to present *their*
> style, are they?
> And in the end, it doesn't do anything but hurt the final product because
> it doesn't have structure. That's why there's no development in the themes
> (yes, you've read correctly), and you don't have any sense of resolution
> and satisfaction when the album closes.

> I'm not asking anyone who likes Zimmer to suddenly dislike him (and vice
> versa), but I wish people would at least acknowledge that his music
> doesn't hold a candle to the work of his peers, not to mention classical
> composers.

> Not a chance. It works even less in the movie than it does on album. Every
> time there's a wide shot of a ship or the horizon, you hear french horns
> blaring.

> "Alle Meine Entchen" is also amazingly intuitive, and yet I
> wouldn't dare calling it good music.

> That he's trying is not the question. But diverse he's definitely not.
> Trust me.

> We'll have to agree to disagree to pretty much everything said between us.
> I suppose with all compopsers (yes, not just Zimmer) I look at the work
> with more of a "glass-is-half-full" attitude whereas you, not
> only is the glass half-empty, but it has lipstick all around the rim.

> See the good in the world and stop nit-picking at the faults.

No, actually, in the case of Zimmer, the glass has nothing but a few drops left at the bottom, the rest was already sucked out by the time Gladiator was released.

That's the pain with about everyone who tries to defend Hans Zimmer to his death. As soon as someone with a musical background surfaces and reveals the rotten core of Zimmer's music, they start to generalise, because they can't bring up any valid points anymore. And they really can't.
Because music is notes on paper, and is open for close examination to anyone who has the will and the knowledge to do it.

No doubt Zimmer can write entertaining music for the easily entertainable musical illiterate, but he's in a world of his own, and I refuse to call his music "film music". At best, it's "orchestral pop music based on a motion picture".

> Let me just say that you perfectly express my opinion on Hans Zimmer, one
> that I've tried to convey for a long long time. He's simply not a very
> good musician. "Pop music for orchestra", perfectly put.

> That's why Zimmer's albums are bestsellers, because they also appeal to
> the people that listen to the Top 10 way too often, and have as much
> knowledge of music as a banana peeling schimpanse (really, no offense).
> That's also why you're reading so many customer reviews at amazon or
> similar places that proclaim At World's End is amongst the best film
> scores ever. The thinking process of those folks is not "Hey, this is
> good film music", they simply think "sounds great! So this is
> film music?" And they think they like film music in general, but all
> they really like is Hans Zimmer's music, which sounds unlike any other
> film composer (for better or worse), but which is far less effective, and
> requires less to no attention and "insider-knowledge".
> Sure, if you're a fan of your pop stars, scores like At World's End sound
> like Götterdämmerung. But if you regularly listen to classical music and
> real maestros of film music, then Hans Zimmer simply comes off as a
> talentless hack. That doesn't mean his music can't be enjoyable from time
> to time, but as a musical product, it's utterly worthless.

It's not a good idea to make global statements characterizing the people who like Hans Zimmer's music as being simplistic pop music schimpanses. I, for example, have no interest in pop music, with only rare exceptions. I was raised on classical music and opera, and my all time favorite composer (for his music, not for his personality or politics) is Richard Wagner. My second favorite is Ludwig Van Beetoven. Third is Jerry Goldsmith. Fourth is Vangelis. People can like both Zimmer's style and other styles of music, and that doesn't make them a "schimpanses."

Incidentally, critical and public reaction to Wagner's music in his time split along lines which were very similar to the battle lines being drawn over Zimmer's music today. That's not to say that Zimmer is as good as Wagner, so don't go launching any vicious attacks claiming that I've made such a comparison. However, Zimmer does sometimes make musical choices similar to those Wagner made, and people either love it or hate it.

> It's not a good idea to make global statements characterizing the people
> who like Hans Zimmer's music as being simplistic pop music schimpanses. I,
> for example, have no interest in pop music, with only rare exceptions. I
> was raised on classical music and opera, and my all time favorite composer
> (for his music, not for his personality or politics) is Richard Wagner. My
> second favorite is Ludwig Van Beetoven. Third is Jerry Goldsmith. Fourth
> is Vangelis. People can like both Zimmer's style and other styles of
> music, and that doesn't make them a "schimpanses."

I didn't make any global statements about the folks liking Zimmer, I'm saying that the people outside the film music community that love Hans Zimmer most likely know nothing about music itself.
And it's certainly not good that a composer as one-dimensional and simplistic as Hans Zimmer represents the fine art of film music in the general public. He simply doesn't stand for what film music has stood for since it came up.

And I don't believe people proclaiming At World's End the best film score ever deserve any better description than schimpanse.

> I didn't make any global statements about the folks liking Zimmer, I'm
> saying that the people outside the film music community that love Hans
> Zimmer most likely know nothing about music itself.
> And it's certainly not good that a composer as one-dimensional and
> simplistic as Hans Zimmer represents the fine art of film music in the
> general public. He simply doesn't stand for what film music has stood for
> since it came up.

> And I don't believe people proclaiming At World's End the best film score
> ever deserve any better description than schimpanse.

Though I don't agree with the people (if they exist, I haven't encountered them) claiming "At World's End" to be the best film score ever, I would not stoop to calling them bad names. When you call people names, it says more about you than about them.