StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I constanlty hear about how he's so good as far a composing goes. Maybe I don't prefer his style of composing, but what is so great about him??Peresonally none of his scores have immpressed me, they are ok and he is good in setting mood while watching a film. But that's all I get out of his works. I can't buy his scores and listen to them over and over. IMO I think he gets more praise then he deserves. But that's me, what do you guy think?

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:I constanlty hear about how he's so good as far a composing goes. Maybe I don't prefer his style of composing, but what is so great about him??Peresonally none of his scores have immpressed me, they are ok and he is good in setting mood while watching a film. But that's all I get out of his works. I can't buy his scores and listen to them over and over. IMO I think he gets more praise then he deserves. But that's me, what do you guy think?

HEATHEN!

"The Battle" and "The Barbarian Horde" from Gladiator were classics! As was "Show Me Your Firetruck" from Backdraft, "Devoe's Revenge" from Peacemaker, and the main theme to Crimson Tide!

Roll Tide: Crimson Tide
All of The Rock
His Gladiatior work

Hans Zimmer is a damned good composer.

I would say that Zimmer is better than even John Williams. While Williams' stuff is good, he just can't get the same "somebody's ass is gonna get kicked" feeling that I get from Zimmer's stuff. Plus he uses too many flutes. I hate flutes.

That's not to say that I hate William's stuff, but the things listed above are what put William's work one notch below Zimmer in my opinion.

Zimmer's work on Gladiator and Black Hawk Down was spectacular to say the least.

I'd rate him FAR above John Williams.

I enjoy Zimmer's work, though one could argue that he copies much of his style off of Wagner and Holst.

phongn wrote:I enjoy Zimmer's work, though one could argue that he copies much of his style off of Wagner and Holst.

You can only have so much new stuff. He takes from great composers and mixes it into something new and very good. Thats fine by me. Its the same way that Jamers Horner has managed to use some similar music styles in different movies and still have it sound really good.

weemadando wrote:Zimmer's work on Gladiator and Black Hawk Down was spectacular to say the least.

I'd rate him FAR above John Williams.

Williams' problem is that he does way to many films. Indiana Jones and Star Wars both have good, fairly unique music. The rest of his shit sounds like the rest.

John Williams kicks the shit out of Hans Zimmer. All of Hans Zimmer's music sounds the same. Compare the Rock and Crimson Tide for example. His music is still good, but John Williams is far more original.

Vympel wrote:John Williams kicks the shit out of Hans Zimmer. All of Hans Zimmer's music sounds the same. Compare the Rock and Crimson Tide for example. His music is still good, but John Williams is far more original.

Cmon. Listen to John Williams. With the exception of a few standout works it is all VERY samey.

The beauty of Zimmer is that he makes the music that fits the scene perfectly. It complements the movie without BECOMING it.

Jurasic Park
Superman
Last of the Mohicans
Star Wars
Indiana Jones

John Williams has done some good stuff. But he has also done a LOT of other music that wasn't so great.

Hans Zimmer has done some really good music. The Rock and Crimson Tide are not THAT similar.

IMO these are the best composers (in no particular order)

Jerry Goldsmith
Jamers Horner
John Williams
Hands Zimmer

In one of the arranging classes I took, I learned that John Williams actually doesn't write the music you hear in the movies. At least, he doesn't write it in the way you probably think he does. He sketches out a theme, and where he wants the thematic idea to go (speaking in terms of instrument timbre/colour and register), then hands it over to his evil henchmen (aka assistants) so they can do the orchestrations for him. He does the final tweaking to what they've done, but.....yeah. To my knowledge Hans Zimmer does not do that; therefore, I think he's the better composer.

Howard Shore, the guy who did music for LotR--now, he is a kickass composer (as far as cinematic composers go). He even wrote additional music to go along with the extra scenes found on the extended edition of LotR (the one being released on DVD soon), instead of just recycling music they had used in the original edition of the movie. Very cool of him. Way better than either Williams or Zimmer, in my opinion.

Zimmer's battle waltz for Gladiator was simply amazing.

Zaia wrote:In one of the arranging classes I took, I learned that John Williams actually doesn't write the music you hear in the movies. At least, he doesn't write it in the way you probably think he does. He sketches out a theme, and where he wants the thematic idea to go (speaking in terms of instrument timbre/colour and register), then hands it over to his evil henchmen (aka assistants) so they can do the orchestrations for him. He does the final tweaking to what they've done, but.....yeah. To my knowledge Hans Zimmer does not do that; therefore, I think he's the better composer.

The horror.......the horror....

I just can't believe that is how Williams composes! That's just....shocking.

However, I think Zimmer's action music is just like Rainbow Six music (Bill Brown's music) except without good melodies. With the exception of one track in Gladiator (which was basically a copy off of Mars, the Bringer of War), I didn't really like anything.

I think Williams' themes are better:

E.T.
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
all of Star Wars (C'mon he gave us the Imperial March for God's sakes!)
Schindler's List
Jurrasic Park (first one only...don't remember the other music)
Indiana Jones
Superman

What themes does Zimmer have that can match ONE of those movies?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I just can't believe that is how Williams composes! That's just....shocking.

Why is that bad? Shouldn't he concern himself only with the major melodies and themes, rather than spending his time with the nitty-gritty work? A lot of engineers let a junior staffer handle drawing details; their job is to get the whole thing right, not to personally perform every single step.

!!!!!!!!!!

This is a COMPOSER we are talking about here! Not an engineer! That's like saying it wouldn't matter if we discovered Beethoven's Ninth Symphony wasn't really entirely HIS work but the work of some of his students!

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:!!!!!!!!!!

This is a COMPOSER we are talking about here! Not an engineer! That's like saying it wouldn't matter if we discovered Beethoven's Ninth Symphony wasn't really entirely HIS work but the work of some of his students!

You're missing the point. An engineer still legitimately designs something even if he passes off some of the grunt-work to an apprentice. His job is to control the finished product, not to dot every "i" and cross every "t".

True, but this is art; and it's rather dishonest if you claim an artistic expression to be your very own and then delegate half the work to underlings, and thus have no direct input in what ultimately is expressed.

Cyril wrote:True, but this is art; and it's rather dishonest if you claim an artistic expression to be your very own and then delegate half the work to underlings, and thus have no direct input in what ultimately is expressed.

Bullshit. Please explain why you lose control over the ultimate product by delegating the grunt-work to underlings. Do you believe that he also cedes complete creative control to those underlings, ie- he does not give them any instructions or direction and abdicates any right to judge, revise, or reject their work if it displeases him? Does the term "leap in logic" mean anything to you?

I just explained how an engineer does not lose control over a project just because he assigns some of the grunt-work to underlings. You cannot dismiss that simply because it's not "art". Art is not some kind of mythical thing to which someone like me is a complete alien; you cannnot dismiss an analogy without explaining why it is false.

I`m an idiot. John Williams did Last of the Mohicans? He also did the score for the '79 Dracula, you can hear a reminiscent theme in TESB during the aproach to Cloud City.

I just explained how an engineer does not lose control over a project just because he assigns some of the grunt-work to underlings. You cannot dismiss that simply because it's not "art". Art is not some kind of mythical thing to which someone like me is a complete alien; you cannnot dismiss an analogy without explaining why it is false.

You cannot compare the two. As long as the engineer's underlings are competant, the project will turn out as it is supposed too.

This is not true with 'art', i.e. literature/music/drama, because there is no set formula that controls what will occur. Art is supposed to be a form of expression, and if you delegate that, it is no longer your work. You are no longer the driving force behind it because it is no longer your expression, and claiming that it is is dishonest.

Darth Wong wrote:Why is that bad? Shouldn't he concern himself only with the major melodies and themes, rather than spending his time with the nitty-gritty work? A lot of engineers let a junior staffer handle drawing details; their job is to get the whole thing right, not to personally perform every single step.

I think I have an issue with Williams calling himself the composer if he only sketches ideas and has others turn those rough ideas into a two-hour score of music. If he writes down an 8-measure phrase and says to an assistant, "I think the trumpets should carry this first, and then maybe a clarinet choir or perhaps a flute duet should take it next--throw in whatever harmonies you like," that (to me) isn't composing. That's coming up with the foundation for a potentially good piece of music, but not the good piece of music itself. After taking two years of orchestration classes, I have learned how skillful you need to be to create the nuances that people mostly don't even consciously notice. They sometimes just feel a certain way when listening to a piece of music, and part of that is the melody, but a larger part of that is what voice is playing the harmony? In what style? With what accompanying it? The instrumentation, the warmth of the sound, the timbre of the sound (full orchestra? strings only? brass choir? brass and low woodwinds? low woodwinds and low strings?)--all are extremely important in creating good music, and all that is handled by people other than Williams. It bothers me that he gets all the credit from the public (and sometimes from the press too: "Music by John Williams, Performed by the LSO" and that's it!). Erg.

Cyril wrote:This is not true with 'art', i.e. literature/music/drama, because there is no set formula that controls what will occur. Art is supposed to be a form of expression, and if you delegate that, it is no longer your work. You are no longer the driving force behind it because it is no longer your expression, and claiming that it is is dishonest.

Why? He knows what it's supposed to sound like, it certainly wouldn't sound the same without his creative control, so he composed it. What's the problem? Does anyone say that George Lucas is not the creator of Star Wars because he doesn't set up the lighting for the cameras or make up the CGI wire-meshes himself? Do you believe it would sound different if he sat down and did all the drudge-work himself?

Zaia wrote:I think I have an issue with Williams calling himself the composer if he only sketches ideas and has others turn those rough ideas into a two-hour score of music. If he writes down an 8-measure phrase and says to an assistant, "I think the trumpets should carry this first, and then maybe a clarinet choir or perhaps a flute duet should take it next--throw in whatever harmonies you like," that (to me) isn't composing.

Are you saying they should list 30 people as the composers because they contributed? Large-scale projects usually involve more than one person. There's always a "head" person and that person generally gets the credit. Call it unfair if you like, but that's the way it works in many professions, and I don't see why music should be an exception.

That's coming up with the foundation for a potentially good piece of music, but not the good piece of music itself. After taking two years of orchestration classes, I have learned how skillful you need to be to create the nuances that people mostly don't even consciously notice. They sometimes just feel a certain way when listening to a piece of music, and part of that is the melody, but a larger part of that is what voice is playing the harmony? In what style? With what accompanying it? The instrumentation, the warmth of the sound, the timbre of the sound (full orchestra? strings only? brass choir? brass and low woodwinds? low woodwinds and low strings?)--all are extremely important in creating good music, and all that is handled by people other than Williams. It bothers me that he gets all the credit from the public (and sometimes from the press too: "Music by John Williams, Performed by the LSO" and that's it!). Erg.

Heh heh ... OK, it bothers you. It also bothers me when hundreds of engineers apply years of skill and knowledge to a problem and the guy running the department is congratulated for designing the thing. But that's the way it works; whenever you have any kind of collaborative work, one person's name has to go on it sooner or later, and it's usually the person held responsible for it.

I think it would be a lot different. A lot of Star Wars isn't George Lucas' creation. All of the weapons, the vehicles, the technology isn't George Lucas' creation. I think it would be drastically different if he made it all himself.