Prejudice of the Melodic
- This topic has 42 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see a thread on FSM discussing the age-old topic about melodies/themes vs. texture. And the contention many hold that something needs to have melodies/themes to be considered classics.
I’ve always found that to be a rubbish, conservative notion. I love melodies and themes as much as the next guy, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a lot of value in more abstract, textural approaches. Obviously in relation to the film itself, if it calls for it, but also on its own.
True, I’ve found that I am more scrutinizing when it comes to textural scores — they have to be interesting textures somehow; they have to display details or moods that do more than just noodle around. Right now, for example, I’m listening to Isham’s gorgeous CRASH — IMO one of the best ambient scores ever written, but it’s ambiance with vocals and lofty/dreamy chord progressions. Lots of stuff going on. I would consider it a classic amongst post-2000 scores.
Are defined themes easier to remember for audiences? Yes, probably. Most textural scores won’t make the charts a la DR. ZHIVAGO or STAR WARS. But they become reference points in different ways — the way we talk about scores like BLADE RUNNER, THE SHINING, THE TERMINATOR etc. make them cultural reference points as “beings” rather than memorable themes, if you know what I mean.
Anyways, just my two cents on the old and tired issue.
I absolutely agree! You always get me with a good theme – I grew up when tv series had themes and started collecting them as a child! 😉 – but music is so much more than just melody. One of my all time favorite scores is Goldsmith’s PLANET OF THE APES which surely has themes but no traditional ones you can whistle. And it is not even the most dissonant non melodic score at all.
I even can appreaciate noise as in the musique concrete meaning. Try and put your ear on your fridge especially when a bit older and starts to cool. Listen closely how many rhythms are layering on top of each other! In fact while studying I had some courses about “Noise” with a guy named Asmus Tietchens who aso works in the Electronic music field (Not sure if anyone knows him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmus_Tietchens). While I studied design/illustration but we also had film/animation almost all courses where crossover and open to all.
So I absolutely understand that current films don’t use the traditional way and even I see that it often wouldn’t fit to the tone. Not to say that lost of current scores exaggerate that approach. It’s often has no standalone value outside of the film (an old prejudice upon film music fullfilled that concert purist always mention first…)
Yeah, Goldsmith’s PLANET OF THE APES has themes, and a very pronounced theme that is elaborated on in many tracks, but it’s not a theme you’ll find people “humming”.
Two points on this.
To become a classic a score needssomething recognizable and uniquely special in some way. This can be a theme, a texture, a sound.
Most modern blockbuster scores neither have the one or the other.Secondly, if we are honest, the most famous movie themes are so popular because they are embedded in great textures, brillantly composed and arranged.
You recognize that when you listen to cruel pop versions of famous movie themes and you think, this way this would not have become a classic.
Of course there are exceptions.I agree. Needs to be a hook. Of course, there are some very well known movie themes, often songs, that have become famous on their own, often because they became popular songs. That includes songs like Giorgio Moroder’s “Take My Breath Away” or, to go back further, something like “Unchained Melody” by Alex North, which has become an iconic melody even though hardly anyone has ever seen the movie it was written for.
Henry Mancini’s “Baby Elephant Walk” is another such iconic film theme that has become famous “on its own”. Likewise “Moon River”, which has become such a famous song (whose original sung version by Audrey Hepburn, for whom the song was specifically written, ironically wasn’t released until Intrada’s BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S release).And Goldsmith’s music for PLANET OF THE APES, while not a “hummable” famous movie theme, has been parodied a number of times, including in at least two Simpsons episodes, so it did have some cultural impact.
But for obvious reasons, movie themes that feature easily recognizable, catchy melodies, like the Indiana Jones March or The Magnificnent Seven, are much more likely to become pop-cultural “hits” outside of their movies.
I think depends largely on the target audience what is considered a “classic” by whom. Geeks of a specific genre consider other things “classic”.Of course if knowledge to the “general crowd” is the guide it probably largely remembers and considers the catchy melodies. But also if the movies itself are classics. It also does not always have anything to do with quality.
If Williams wouldn’t have been so lucky to score Spielberg films and most of these huge successes, he might not be known as well as he his. Even if we wrote exactly the same music for lesser films.
Take Goldsmith who quality wise is more than up to Williams but has surely less of these “classics”. His Star Trek theme might be his top classic everyone knows and that probably owes a lot to Star Trek being famous and also being re-used for the TNG series.
Yes, songs or themes based on songs have a bigger chance to develop a life on their own. And even though we soundtrack fans fell in love with some soundtracks of movies we never have seen we cannot deny, that classics, especially those based on textures like Jaws of the murder from Psycho are often closely connected to the movie experience or even particular scenes and their popularity comes to a certain degree from quotes in tributes or parodies.
The Star Wars main title or Morricone’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly would never have become that popular music pieces without the movie association.
Take Goldsmith who quality wise is more than up to Williams but has surely less of these “classics”. His Star Trek theme might be his top classic everyone knows and that probably owes a lot to Star Trek being famous and also being re-used for the TNG series.
Just remember, Ave Satani! was even in the pop charts at the time.
Concerning quality of Williams and Goldsmith we really have to differentiate. Same quality when it comes to musical skills? Probably. Same quality when it comes to inventive contributions to the genre of film music? Probably yes.
But there are reasons apart from the choice of movies why Williams is in general more popular than Goldsmith.First, I believe that Williams took much more care about the representation of his music outside of the movies.
Secondly, Williams is obviously more a traditionalist when it comes to orchestral music. And that prevented him from some of Goldsmith’s lapses of taste in the 80s and 90s when it comes to sound and sound colors (even though Williams also has his share of weird experiments like Heartbeeps John Goldfarb).
And thirdly, I claim that Williams’ popular themes are overall better than Goldsmith’s. Melody and composition wise. No doubt, Goldsmith has great themes. And I would say, he sometimes was a little careless giving away the best ones for insignificant scenes or movies. But after all this carelessness is the biggest point that separates him for me from Williams.I still think that WIlliams just had luck and it is not the music itself completely. Because of the huge successes of the movies he got more oportunities to write other themes like Olympics. Also he was conductor of the Boston Pops and had a “platform” for also presenting his themes. And he was much more active in the concert field in general (both activity and writing concert music).
There are and were always a lot of great artists our there – of all genres beyond music – that just were not on the right place at the right time so their works never got the chance to become classics at all. Williams is great but he had a lot of luck.
I agree, that Williams was lucky in many ways. But it’s not just luck. Obviously Williams proved to have a strength in character and manners that led people to confide the lead of the Boston Pops to him and not to someone like Goldsmith who had a reputation of being kind of a diva.
And even on his original soundtrack albums Williams presented dedicated concert arrangements of some of his major themes. I think, Goldsmith never did that. The best he did was creating special album edits for the album presentation.
Oh wait, I think, Chinatown has a dedicated album arrangement of the main theme. And Pappillon, too. So, maybe I am wrong about this point.I agree, that Williams was lucky in many ways. But it’s not just luck.
Of course it is not just luck. If his music wasn’t that good it would not have become classics. We see this on lots of more recent films that were huge successes but their scores hardly will become real classics.
One point for sure where Williams was lucky was working with Spielberg who was a soundtrack geek himself. And he was, at least up to the early 90s was a director who left a lot of space in his movies for music. That means longer scenes with hardly dialogue or sound effects that leave room for music. Apart from Montage scenes (where today often directors rather use songs) there are usually not many scenes like that. But Spielberg provided that space.
And the movies of that director were even successes. Which also proofs my general point that luck has a lot to do with that 😉
We can probably say that it is not that easy to become/write a classic. Just as writing a real hit song is no save thing either. Otherwise everyone would do it 😉
We can probably say that it is not that easy to become/write a classic. Just as writing a real hit song is no save thing either. Otherwise everyone would do it 😉
But I am also wondering, if you might need to be in kind of a classical era to create classics. I think, we are currently not in a classical era. We were in the second half of the last century. But we left that step by step since the beginning of this one. Something got lost in the transition from making movies to creating content.
It is in a way similar with classical music. The eara of classical music which ended more or less with Beethoven afterwards generated a lot of famous music from famous composers. But who can hum a tune from Stravinsky’s Firebird?
Maybe there are eras for classics, eras for avantgarde and postmodern eras of formal reproduction like today.
Today the success of music or movies seems by 90% to be a matter of marketing, but neither quality nor originality. It is kind of an intersting highly productive era, that seemingly will leave hardly anything, that will be considered “Classics”.
Just a spontanious thought of mine. Not sure if there is any truth in this or if it is complete bullshit. But it kind of resonates with me.Oh wait, I think, Chinatown has a dedicated album arrangement of the main theme. And Pappillon, too. So, maybe I am wrong about this point.
There were quite a few albums where Goldsmith did specific album arrangements or made recordings just for the album. Apart from the ones mentioned stuff like HOUR OF THE GUN, CAPRICORN ONE, FIERCE CREATURES, UNDER FIRE, The FLYNN movies, and many more.
I agree with you that Williams is more “traditional”, while Goldsmith is more experimental (which is why I tend to prefer Goldsmith over Williams, though I both are obviously great). I don’t have any problem with all the later electronics in his music precisely because these were experiments and often unlike anything I have heard. LINK for example… an orchestra with Simmons drum performing aggressive circus music, RAMBO 2 with aggressive rattle snake like electronics, and so on. These were sounds I haven’t heard before, so that was interesting.
I also don’t think Williams is a better melodist than Goldsmith, but that is of course totally subjective. But Goldsmith wrote some of my all time favorite movie melodies (FIRST BLOOD, A PATCH OF BLUE, RIO CONCHOS, ILYA’S THEME, and more), and tends to have more varied and unusual instrumentation. So if pressed, I’d pick Goldsmith over Williams, but I’m sure most people would chose otherwise. (Then again, I’d pick Boulez over Shostakovich too, and I’m sure most people would chose otherwise.)There is no question that Williams is more in the public mind than Jerry Goldsmith, and that is because — apart from the undeniable quality of his music — the enormous amount of hyper-successful films — and perhaps even more importantly, film franchises — his name is attached to. JAWS, STAR WARS, INDIANA JONES, SUPERMAN, JURASSIC PART, HARRY POTTER… just a few examples… these are ALL still very much present in the public consciousness. And it’s hard to think of these movies without having Williams splendid film scores in the ear. Movies like PATTON, PAPILLON, CHINATOWN, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL are easily as good and have film scores just as good, but they are not “main stream franchise” event movies.
There were quite a few albums where Goldsmith did specific album arrangements or made recordings just for the album. Apart from the ones mentioned stuff like HOUR OF THE GUN, CAPRICORN ONE, FIERCE CREATURES, UNDER FIRE, The FLYNN movies, and many more.
Yes. Still Goldsmith’s special arrangements rather went into a pop direction. And Williams more into a classical direction. And that is then my personal taste. I dived into movie scores as kind of a subgenre of classical music and therefore have a preference for more classical scores. And you are right. Especially in his earlier days Goldsmith used to deliver there wonderful works. My favourite scores of his are then also the more traditional ones like Studds Lonigan, Hour of the Gun, Rios Conchios, Black Patch and from his later scores ones like L.A. Confidential, The Final Conflict, but also Legend, The Mummy and Alien. But when he was asked to “do the Williams” like in Star Trek (after Star Wars) or Supergirl (after Superman) or Quartermain (after Indiana Jones) I find his score MUCH less good and interesting than Williams’ originals.
My interest in classical music and film music also is intertwined. I think that SUPERMAN is both the better film and the richer score than SUPERGIRL (though I like both scores), and Quartermain is no match for Indy, but STAR TREK – THE MOTION PICTURE is, for me, perhaps the greatest film score ever written. Especially for the V’ger music, that’s among the music that made me become interested in film music. Though STAR WARS is up there too. STAR WARS is great music as well, and certainly also an initiating score for me.
From Star Trek I like Irina’s Theme, but never liked the main theme, that was reused for the Next Generation TV show.
And I liked the music of the Klingon attack until I recently found out, that this is pretty much exactly copied from The Wind and the Lion.From Goldsmith’s Star Trek scores my favourite is First Contact by far.
I like the Klingon music, but I don’t find it has even similarity to anything in THE WIND AND THE LION?
I love all the Goldsmith STAR TREK scores, including FIRST CONTACT, which would be my least favorite of the bunch though. 🙂
My favorite STAR TREK score is clearly the motion picture, I don’t have a problem with the theme at all, but it’s the V’ger/Cloud music that sets it apart as a favorite. 2nd would probably be STAR TREK V – THE FINAL FRONTIER, which opened up a whole palette of new motifs into the Star Trek music that would be used, then INSURRECTION (which would be my second favorite Star Trek movie), then NEMESIS, and then FIRST CONTACT.Orchestral scores with big, brassy themes was definitely what got me into film music in the first place, but that isn’t really that important anymore. Sure, I still can enjoy a big orchestral score, but it has to be done really well to hold my attention these days. So yeah, I’ve gradually been drawn to quieter and more textural, ambient and moody stuff, and recognizable themes are no longer a requirement. But of course, this also has to be done right. Just some dude hitting some buttons or running a program on his synth won’t cut it 😊.
I have no problem with dissonant or atonal stuff either – I often found them difficult to listen to when I was younger, but now, if done right, instead of finding them disconcerting, they just «tickle the ear» and can be very enjoyable.
Some examples of ambient, textural scores I’ve enjoyed a lot are APOLLO: ATMOSPHERES AND SOUNDTRACKS (Brian Eno), SOLARIS (Cliff Martinez) and BLADE RUNNER (Vangelis). (BLADE RUNNER does have some themes, though)
And I liked the music of the Klingon attack until I recently found out, that this is pretty much exactly copied from The Wind and the Lion.
There is a similarity, sure, but it’s basically just an interval (open fifth) being repeated several times, functioning as a fanfare-ish motif in both cases. The instrumentation, rhythm and overall sound is very different between the two scores, and I wouldn’t go as far as calling one a copy of the other.
Orchestral scores with big, brassy themes was definitely what got me into film music in the first place, but that isn’t really that important anymore. Sure, I still can enjoy a big orchestral score, but it has to be done really well to hold my attention these days. So yeah, I’ve gradually been drawn to quieter and more textural, ambient and moody stuff, and recognizable themes are no longer a requirement. But of course, this also has to be done right. Just some dude hitting some buttons or running a program on his synth won’t cut it 😊.
This reminds me — I remember many years ago, you and I had a very different opinion of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Of course, it has themes, but it’s rather static and slow-developing in nature. I didn’t like that as a restless youngster, while you recognized its more subtle details. Well, these 20+ years later, I can see more clearly what you saw, and now love it. Don’t know how that relates to the discussion at hand, but I just thought of that.
Okay, that interval is used in other movies too (like the un-used TIMELINE), but the Klingon theme is very different in tone from the Wind and The Lion motif (which opens the score and is developed through).
I have listened to music most of my life, I became “serious” about it in my early teens and spent lots of money (well, lot of money for me) on first LPs and then CDs. I never “lost” my affection to a piece of music I enjoyed… STAR TREK-THE MOTION PICTURE and STAR WARS were the first film scores I ever got to listen to on soundtrack albums away from the film, and I never stopped enjoying them one bit.
I also enjoy textural scores, like Cliff Martinez SOLARIS (which I incidentally just listened to a couple of days ago), but it’s a completely different listen.
Different types of music demand a different “setting”. I remember conductor David Zinman saying in an interview, when his recording of Gorecky’s Third Symphony actually hit the charts, that it’s because of recording technology. No one would go to the concert hall to listen to a piece where nothing happens for 20 minutes, but at home, it unfolds its serenity. I tend to agree. For example, one of my all time favorite composers is Mahler, I have all of his symphonies and song cycles in various recordings and read several books about him and his music. Yet I don’t listen to Mahler all that often, because his music demand attention. You can’t listen to Mahler “on the side”, that’s annoying. His music unfolds like a movie where you can’t afford to miss a scene, or you’re out. SOLARIS, on the other hand, is like a warm “bath” of a score, you can just relax, perhaps talk a bit on the couch or browse the net or in a magazine. It doesn’t demand attention, it’s setting a mood. There’s of course lots of music in between.Also, when I started out listening to music, I had certain composer as a starting point, like Wagner, Beethoven on the classical, and Williams, Goldsmith on the film music side. Some composers did not interest me that much right away, like Mozart or Bach or Vivaldi (I was in my early 30s when I first heard “The Four Seasons”, which was kinda a funny moment). Composers I liked right away were Stravinsky and even Schönberg, whereas it took me a long time to even pay attention to British composers such as Ralph Vaughan-Williams… today, I love his music a lot. So over time I grew and learned “more” music, but I never stoppend liking any piece of music, because not matter what, I always remember why I liked it in the first place.
Great post, Nick! You describe very well how different types of music require different “listening contexts” and various degrees of attention. Totally agree about Mahler (one of my favorite classical composers, too!). You just can’t have Mahler on in the background, and his symphonies needs to be listened to in full (although I might allow myself to give the gorgeous Adagio movement from his 5th symphony a stand-alone listen 😉).
And as you say, things like SOLARIS is something different altogether, and works fine as background music, but I sometimes find it rewarding to give this my full attention, too. With minimalist music even the smallest shifts, like a subtle chord change, become important, and these things can be fascinating to follow.
And indeed, STAR WARS and STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE were among the scores that ignited my passion for film music too, and they’ll probably remain among my favorites forever.
This reminds me — I remember many years ago, you and I had a very different opinion of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Of course, it has themes, but it’s rather static and slow-developing in nature. I didn’t like that as a restless youngster, while you recognized its more subtle details. Well, these 20+ years later, I can see more clearly what you saw, and now love it. Don’t know how that relates to the discussion at hand, but I just thought of that.
Right! Had I been much younger the first time I heard SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, that probably would have been my reaction, too. It’s fascinating how one’s tastes and preferences change and develop. I guess (hope..?) it has something to do with maturity? 😊
nd as you say, things like SOLARIS is something different altogether, and works fine as background music, but I sometimes find it rewarding to give this my full attention, too. With minimalist music even the smallest shifts, like a subtle chord change, become important, and these things can be fascinating to follow.
Oh, for sure. It’s very hypnotic score that can pull you “all in” too. Like Philip Glass, who opened a whole new world of music for me when I encountered KOYANISQAATSI (a movie I’ve seen with the Glass Ensemble performing the music live… one of the “movie concerts” that made sense).
I like the movie too. I’ve even read the novel SOLARIS twice (last time a couple of years ago on vacation). Martinez music is very introspective, meditative, I like it a lot.
I have no problem with dissonant or atonal stuff either – I often found them difficult to listen to when I was younger, but now, if done right, insteauzzd of finding them disconcerting, they just «tickle the ear» and can be very enjoyable.
That’s interesting. Because for me it appears to be the other way around. I used to be more into dissonant music when I was younger.
One of my all time favourite orchestral works always was Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No.2.
But when I recently listened to it again after almost 10 years I suddenly realized how much dissonance is in there, which never bothered me. Suddenly it felt particularly bulky.
I still know why I loved it, but I realized that my musical sensitivities changed.Same but the other way around with some stuff of Ennio Morricone. Some of is music I found terribly sentimantal and cheesy in my younger years. Now I enjoy that a lot.
I don’t think — as far as I can conceive — that my musical sensitivities have ever changed. They have expanded, no doubt, but I don’t think they have ever really changed. Heck, as I sometimes note, I attended two kindergartens, three elementary schools, and four high schools… so in a way, music is the one constant in my life. Even the earliest pieces of music I remember enjoying… stuff like the “Pink Panther Theme”… I enjoy to this day. 🙂
As many I got to film music via the catchy hummable themes and even more pop orientated things via the 80s as discussed on our “origin” topic. The more dissonant/atonal music I had to work on to get into. It’s still challenging to listen to but it can be rewarding. I think my musical sensitives just broadened over time but I never stopped liking what I liked before.
That’s interesting. For me the broadening of my musical experience was alwayws accompanied with variations and changes in preferences.
Suddenly I couldn’t like things anymore, that I liked before, because I realised how comparably dull they were in comparison or that they were just copies of what I later learned was this or that original. That’s for me a part of the journey.
Of course from a certain point on you don’t commit as many youthful sins anymore and my preferences became more stable.But you, Malte and Nick, seem to have had a quite safe and constantly progressing journey through the wild oceans of music to have never experiecned anything, that made you revise your one or other oppinion on any musical piece.
For me a new discovery of anything fundamentally new always also has an impact on my experience and reception of what I already know, for the good or the bad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.