Star Wars Battlefront II: Battle of Geonosis Official Trailer

"That's badass !! fucking epiiiiiiiic !!"
User avatar
DarkestShadow
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat 21 Apr 2018 15:06

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II: Battle of Geonosis Official Trailer

Post by DarkestShadow » Sun 23 Dec 2018 19:24

Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26

To fully understand the criticism towards this modern style you must keep in mind two things :
1_the comparison point : movie scoring BEFORE Zimmer and epic stuff.
2_the context : the overuse of this modern style

You must look at the wider picture : the past, the present, the general trend and its influence/consequences...instead of staying focused on your personal taste.

This modern style is wrong and represents the wrong way not only because it disowns the legacy, not only because of its low artistic level but also because he seduced/seduces too many people and became the new reference.

How many young composers want to be the next Williams (or any other orchesta master) ? This time is over.
I certainly don't buy that it's over. Reduced, but not over... JW's soundtracks are way to popular and beloved for that. Perhaps they now want to be the next John Powell...? Ain't to bad either, heh...? ;)
Hans Zimmer has probably taken the main place in the heads of most. Easier to get in and as usual with trends they tend to isolate certain styles, which is a shame. What is so hard about diversifying rather than replacing? Why do trends have to wreck each other - new replaces old - rather than appreciating both? That's at least what I do.
That's why Thomas Bergersen is my top composer. He can write wonderful and sophisticated orchestral pieces and at the same time very interesting "modern-style" and reduced "pad + keys" type pieces. And everything in between and beyond. :)
But well, if the overall trend of the HZ-style is on it's way to push out the classical approach (which may well be - I don't have a good overview over trends in filmmusic ATM) then this would be horrendous. There should be room for both.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26

Most of them follow Zimmer's path, not only because they love him but also because it opens up the prospect of success without much effort.

Someone who grew up only with Pirates of the Caribbean, Gladiator, Transformers and Dark Knight doesn't give a fuck about true orchestral writing. Remote Control stuff doesn't lead young people interested in film music to learn and make efforts.

This modern style is the embodiment of laziness at all levels : easy to access, easy to do (even if a good production requires some nonmusical knowledge)
There are way to many horrible epic/modern style pieces to believe it is easy to do - especially compared to the great (IMO) ones. Certainly easier than sophisticated orchestral arrangements, but most people who put out epic tracks don't do it very well (ideas, arrangements - not just production) so it I won't consider it easy per se.
But that also depends on the piece. I think it's fair to say that most of Hans Zimmer's "Time" for instance is rather easy to do. Most of the Interstellar score not so much...
Or Michal Cielecki's "Phaedra". Certainly fits the modern-style bill but man... MAN! Such textural sophistry and emotion, although it ain't coming from traditional orchestration.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26

"it doesn't bother me = it can't be bad"
"I like it = it can't be bad"
"My feeling/perception is the only valid criterion"
"The way I perceive things define their reality"


The vast majority of people reason that way : "How could I enjoy something objectively retarded or bad ?! How could there be objectivity in art while everything is a matter of feeling ?! How dare you judge my feelings !!!
If I enjoy something it can only be of GOOD QUALITY !!! Everything has the same value !!! Only a nazi could think otherwise !!! HATE IS BAD, LOVE IS GOOD !!!"


Everything on earth is subject to a scale of value/quality. Music is no exception.
Only half of these would by my words lol...
Of course everything is subject to a scale of value/quality. But who creates this scale? People! Individuals based on what they appreciate and find valuable. :P
Of course I, like most others I sometimes can see the quality of things I don't appreciate (several classical pieces, Jazz etc), so that isn't fully taste based. But "value" certainly is, because recognizing the quality of a thing doesn't result in a perception of value, at least not on my end.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26
DarkestShadow wrote:
Sat 15 Dec 2018 15:50
And I will certainly not learn music if it narrows down my musical preferences (makes me dislike most "modern-style" pieces). Although I don't really think that will happen.
Image

Learning music will not make you hate what you like. But learning to enjoy classical music will refine your sensitivity and open your mind : you will then realize that there are much richer and subtle sensations than what modern music gives you.

Someone who mainly eats junk food just can't imagine ​​the pleasures of Haute Cuisine and will even mock it...the mouth and the soul full of big mac sauce.
No need for imagination if you try it and don't like it. That might however then still be a case of simply lacking the sensitivity or not being used to it...
I'm already on board for the most part regarding orchestral sophistry, and no less than with the modern-style (one of the benefits of musically "growing up" with Master Bergersen yeay) and I love some classical pieces (Daphnis Et Chloe!!!, most of Debussy's work, Scheherazade etc). But there is a lot of room for more access and appreciation.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26
DarkestShadow wrote:
Sat 15 Dec 2018 15:50
- I see the difference between the modern style and the classical approach.
I'm not sure.
The "modern" approach is mainly about putting a background music on a scene : no more musical language and musical discourse. You reduce what you call classical approach to an elaborate orchestration, while the art of movie scoring is the art of DISCOURSE.
Film music has become like advertising music : an interchangeable background music more or less effective and often based on repetitive patterns, ostinato strings, ambient pads...
I only mean musically. Crystal clear differences mostly. I couldn't really care less about the art of movie scoring itself... I mostly didn't watched the movies that the soundtracks I listen originate from. To me scoring to picture has, aside inspiration, only draw-backs and limitations so I don't really want to think about the work of film-scoring itself. Just the music and the style. I could as well be talking about filmic production-music.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26
DarkestShadow wrote:
Sat 15 Dec 2018 15:50
- With "rudimentary and repetitive language supported by effects, no matter if it doesn't bother DarkestShadow or if DarkestShadow is not convinced. This is not a matter of taste or perception, this is a fact from a technical point of view" you are of course describing some pieces and not others.
I was talking about the general trend (as Bruce Broughton did in 2007). I only care about the general trend because it defines the present and the future.
Yea, OK. As I said, if that trend is indeed taking over too much then it's a shame. The classical and modern style both have their places. Depending on the movie.
Although I was VERY annoyed that Indepence Day 2 had a classical orchestral score. Was soooooo wrong IMO. It should've been a super dark and dystopian trailer-music style score. It just didn't work.
On the other hand, I vastly prefer David Arnolds more classical scores for James Bond over Thomas Newman's (some beautiful string writing though), particularly in action scenes (Submarine!!!). I'd love both to score different scenes of the movies... 70-80% Arnold though.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26

Could you explain what does a total investment mean when you know nothing about orchestral music ?
What is "hard work "when you don't even know the general principles of harmony and orchestration ?
Well, he didn't say you should work hard and be very invested without studying, only that it must be combined and the first defines the results more. But well, still - just writing music and learning while doing so can certainly also lead to great results. Maybe not regarding the most complex JW style orchestrations, but you can find out many things about harmonization and orchestration yourself by just writing. Although I don't question that studying is a very significant elevation.
Headshot wrote:
Fri 21 Dec 2018 20:26

Of course :"studies not make a composer great"...but :
1_I don't know of any great composer who didn't study (or self-study).
2_only a lazy or arrogant person could conclude that studies are not essential just because they are not enough to make a composer great.

Again, when it comes to writing orchestral music, a full investment implies the fundamental basis : studying the masters.

This applies to all areas that require serious knowledge.

Well, then I'll certainly soon study Thomas Bergersen. :D Transcriptions will do I think.
*of course not only haha.

Post Reply