> I really hope you're not comparing Zimmer and his power anthems with a
> film scoring artist like Hermann, much less Stavinsky, whose works will
> still be performed and marvelled at when an algorithm has been invented to
> construct Zimmer-esque action scores automatically.
Let´s see if I understand it: When someone´s music is performed for years to come or people marvel at them (for the work´s complexity, I assume) means that the music is good?
So, when I go to a classical concert, and 1 out of 3 pieces is from a classical composer of the XXth century whose music nobody in the hall can´t stand for more than 5 minutes, I have to assume that the music is good?
Probably is. But I still don´t see how.
The only thing I know is that Saint-Saëns went to the premiere of "Sacre du Primptemps" (Sp?) to Paris and he didn´t like it a bit.
I have to assume that Saint-Saëns knew more about music than me (and more than a lot of people I know) and that even though he was able to appreciate Stravinky´s piece from a technical standpoint (something I´m not able to) he didn´t like it either.
More than probably he was as conservative for music as I am myself, but I´d have liked to know his opinion about music being "something to admire to" because its perdurability or complexity.
> Anyway, you touch on the problem - neither of the Pirates scores (okay, I
> haven't actually heard the second one, but I doubt it's very different by
> any indication...) amounts to much in the way of an original concept.
In fact when I saw the first film and during a sword fight (I think. I don´t remember it properly) I heard The Rock, I thought that the music sucked big deal. Which, now that I think about it, was perfect for the movie, because it also sucked a lot.
But, yeah, I hated the music.
I understand why people complain.... but sometimes I guess people complain also about composer´s styles. And let´s assume no one is objective about music. I can´t stand Williams´ music to listen to on CDs. It´s his STYLE, because it always sounds to Williams to me. On the other hand, I love Thomas Newman´s style, who lots of people complain of being always the same.
> Stock progressions and themes along with the standard (and increasingly
> dated-sounding) electronics do not make for particularly interesting
That´s almost true. It´s not particularly interesting when you have heard the same thing 100 times in 100 different films. But sure the first time it was used, it was interesting.
> But to take the "controversial -> real substance" argument at
> face value, we'd then conclude that John Cage's music (well, pieces) has
> substance, would we not? Substance in this case would seem to imply a sort
> of artistry or unique expression.
Yeah. And also Stockhaussen (sp?) piece for I don´t remember which instruments and plane engine roaring in a hangar must be considered a sort of artistry and unique expression. Anyhow, sure most people don´t consider it even music, nor worthhearing.
> At this point, the standard Zimmer score has little of either. When it comes > to considering the substance of creative works, do you think people will
> still be listening to Zimmer action scores in 25 years? Fifty years?
And that´s the curious thing: People don´t only listen to music for the substance of creative works. Folk/Different cultures´music (at least the 6th folk tune you hear from the same place) are not very creative. And people still like them, though it´s only ordinary music.
> Of course, the same could be asked
> of *any* film music, but where the music of Williams and, yes, even
> Horner, has long since entered the public consciousness (and the concert
> hall, at least for pops concerts), I see Zimmer's more standard fare as
> merely ephemeral.
I don´t know what to think: must I assume that Williams´and Horner´s music have entered the public consciousness and the concert hall because their:
b) popularity of the films they were written for?
d) people´s ability to remember the tunes?
I can see that Horner´s and Williams standard themes are usually more complex than Zimmer´s ones, but that doesn´t make them less "ephemeral". As I see it. most of a composer´s music that is remembered has much to do with the popularity of the film itself and the ability to make a "different hummable" tune for it. To enter the concert hall, some degree of complexity or orchestration....but I think that even that don´t assure it to be good.
The problem with music is that though you can analize it from diferent points of view (to be creative, having reached public consciousness, having reached concert hall....) it still is something about feelings. And not everyone´s feelings are moved by the same things.