Consistent versatility – who has it?
- This topic has 29 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always been intrigued by composers who display consistent versatility – i.e. moving in and out various musical idioms with apparent ease. I mean, every film composer is a chameleon of sorts, but there are some who are so all over the place, it’s a marvel to behold. Orchestral, electronic, jazz, pop, whatever. Not just now and then, but on a consistent basis.
Some examples for me include Vladimir Cosma, Francis Lai and Michel Colombier. Maybe Pino Donaggio.
What are some others, in your view?
Jerry Goldsmith & Ennio Morricone
I’ve never thought of Vladimir Cosma, Francis Lai and Pino Donaggio as particularly “versatile” composers, though I like some or a lot or even all of their stuff, and would perfectly agree their music appears in different idioms.
However, the construction of their music itself does not vary as much.
And that’s where there is something about Goldsmith & Morricone, who have not just composed about anything from jazz to folk, from hard-core abstract 12-tone compositions to lyrical romantic ones, for both small or large orchestras, and yet maintained a clear, identifiable musical identity, that is pretty much unmatched. So it’s pretty much these two for me.
Hm. I find it important in regards of versatility wether a composer successfully adapts or reproduces a style or musical tradition or if he actually manages to make it something of his own. Goldsmith I would probably rather see in the first category, Morricone in the second.
When it comes to electronic music, almost every composer does it, even John Williams, but rarely orchestral composers really seem to be at home with it, and the other way around as well, skilled electronic musicians muddling through the symphony orchestra.
I’ve never thought of Vladimir Cosma, Francis Lai and Pino Donaggio as particularly “versatile” composers, though I like some or a lot or even all of their stuff, and would perfectly agree their music appears in different idioms.
Oh, I definitely think they are. Not necessarily in the “construction” of the music (not sure what that means, do you mean application?), but definitely across many different music genres, which is the versatility I’m speaking of.
As I said in the first post, almost every single film composer displays versatility to one extent or another. Their profession demands it. So yes, even John Williams, who we generally associate with a certain type of orchestral sound, has dipped into jazz, pop, rock, gospel, blues, avantgarde classical, even some synths.
But there are some composers out there who go back and forth between all these on a consistent, regular basis, and with almost equal skill in all of them. Like the ones I mentioned. Perhaps it isn’t always easy to find their “voice” in all of them (compared to a Williams or Goldsmith or Morricone), but the consistent versatility in itself is enough to impress.
Versatility was the term that came to my mind when I listened to the score samplers in my Lalo Schifrin box. At first you think, he is just the jazz guy. But he did allfrom avantgarde sounscapes over chamber music to orchestral adventure scores.
Listening to Craig Armstrong’s 1997 studio album THE SPACE BETWEEN US at the moment. Some of it sounds like outtakes from a James Bond film.
In any case, Armstrong is one of those guys with extremely consistent versatility – from lush symphonic landscapes (FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD, WORLD TRADE CENTER, LOVE ACTUALLY, PLUNKET AND MACLEANE) to interesting, pop-ified or electronic sounds (IN TIME, ROSA MORTA). Dig him!
Craig Armstrong also did all the song arrangements and music for Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge! and The Great Gatsby, so that’s yet another side.
I got to know Armstrong as an ambient wall of sound guy. And I found that style more or less in everything I heard from him. Therefore I would not fullheartedly agree. Of course you can change instruments and add folk flavours, classic flavours, oriental flavours. But that’s not how I understand the term stylistic versatility.
Or I just know him too little.I don’t think I’ve ever heard a “wall of sound” thing in Armstrong’s work, but I admit I haven’t heard everything. Any particular title?
armstrong never really clicked with me. If I remember right it was a bit too simplistic or the melodies just didn’t stick with me. I heard a few scores and have a few digital ones or so I haven’t listened to in ages (more ages than others probably ;-).
Of the newer composers I would say Bear McCreary and Daniel Pemberton certainly belong to this category. Pemberton maybe has to be a bit careful to not do all styles in every score at once 😉
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a “wall of sound” thing in Armstrong’s work
My interpretation on the way he uses strings and sequenced electronic sound patterns.
He might have flirted with those contemporary tropes in certain scores in recent years. I haven’t really been following his work since 2015. But it’s not something I associate with him.
Armstrong is good. His studio album AS IF TO NOTHING is also enjoyable. He also did good work with Pet Shop Boys.
BONE COLLECTOR, QUIET AMERICAN and BEST LAID PLANS are fine scores.
I just saw THE GREAT ESCAPER, and that score wasn’t too good though.
Of course, I just realized the headline sounds a bit like I want to know about an ailment you have. Like an ad:
“Do you suffer from consistent versatility? Fear not, try the HOMOGENUS pill for instant standardization! Available now for only $999.99!”
I think, the difference between older generation masters like John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith and even James Horner was that when they wanted to sound modern, they often sounded modern in a quite old fashioned way, like they had stopped listening to pop music after 1972. That is a difference to composers like James Newton Howard or Danny Elfman who manage to sound modern or up-to-date in a contemporary way, but are also capable of a timeless romantic sound.
I think, the difference between older generation masters like John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith and even James Horner was that when they wanted to sound modern, they often sounded modern in a quite old fashioned way, like they had stopped listening to pop music after 1972.
That’s a fair point.
If you’d asked me in 1975 (although that was 2 years before I was born), I would count Williams among the ‘consistent versatility’ guys. He kept in tune with certain contemporary trends up to that point, whether it was tapping into Beach Boys-like songs or current jazz, but after that not so much.
Whenever he’s tapped into current trends later on, it’s usually with the help of other people. Like the pop backbeats in HEARTBEEPS or SPACE CAMP, or the drum kits and synths in things like SLEEPERS, A.I., MUNICH.
I think, the difference between older generation masters like John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith and even James Horner was that when they wanted to sound modern, they often sounded modern in a quite old fashioned way, like they had stopped listening to pop music after 1972.
I have to agree as well. As much as I love them, they probably indeed stopped in 1972 😉
If you’d asked me in 1975 (although that was 2 years before I was born), I would count Williams among the ‘consistent versatility’ guys. He kept in tune with certain contemporary trends up to that point, whether it was tapping into Beach Boys-like songs or current jazz, but after that not so much.
Indeed when I heard MISSOURI BREAKS the first time I totally surprised. I was not that familiar with his earlier work but a score totally without orchestra was not what I expected.
I think, the difference between older generation masters like John Williams or Jerry Goldsmith and even James Horner was that when they wanted to sound modern, they often sounded modern in a quite old fashioned way, like they had stopped listening to pop music after 1972.
This is one of the reasons I love pop music in film scores. The composers are woefully out of their depth, but paradoxically come up with fake pop music that is much more interesting and subversive than what the kids are producing.
Yes, that’s a great appeal. Or the other way around, i.e. if you’re a pop producer who dabbles in film music (like, say, Giorgio Moroder).
Among composers you would generally consider “versatile,” do you find that some tend to maintain their own signature sound more than others, and if so, is that an asset or a drawback?
For example, I consider Morricone – who is my top film composer, incidentally – to be very versatile, yet he still manages to consisentently sound like Morricone to my ears.
On the other hand, I think Goldsmith is equally versatile, but he can completely fool me. I remember picking up Sebastian and thinking that it sounded like a Euro score. It didn’t even sound like the scores for the Flint films, which cover similar territory and date from the same period.
It’s interesting that you mention Morricone and Goldsmith, but I had the experience the other way around, at least back when I got to know them, in the days when I was more or less discovering them. I found Goldsmith very versatile, but he may have been the first film composer who I could immediately recognize when I saw a movie. There was just something in his music I picked up on quite early, whereas Morricone, who I found equally versatile, surprised me a few times (oh, that’s Morricone too?).
I think I was always able to glean Morricone or Goldsmith, despite the different idioms and styles they worked in. Maybe the theme from Goldsmith’s THE LAST RUN is hard to glean (its baroque jazz melancholy is very European, sounds like something a Francis Lai or Michel Legrand could have composed in the late 60s, early 70s, maybe), but the rest of the tracks are unmistakably Goldsmith.
But yes — some of the other composers mentioned here, I have a harder time gleaning their voice throughout the different genres. Not quite sure what makes up the DNA of Colombier, Cosma or Armstrong, for example, even though it’s all well-composed within their respective genres.
Some composers have a more easily to recogonize style than other. But might have to do with familiarity, too.
Maybe the theme from Goldsmith’s THE LAST RUN is hard to glean (its baroque jazz melancholy is very European, sounds like something a Francis Lai or Michel Legrand could have composed in the late 60s, early 70s, maybe), but the rest of the tracks are unmistakably Goldsmith.
It even has a bit of Roy Budd I think. But right the 2nd track on the album “exposes” Goldsmith elements I think (if I recall right)
When I think about it, I’d say all composers I rate high have a voice that is clearly their own and is noticeable throughout their life and work.
Yeah, I rate those highly too. But as we talked about in this thread, there are also other criteria I use to rate something, and pastiche or versatility is just one of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.