Leaderboard

@Siwi and Gardner: Consumed and understood, and I appreciate what you have to say. It occurs to me now that perhaps my attitude was a little too strident in my earlier comment, which comes of having heard my work ruined to some degree on more than one occasion. Let me step back from that a bit and clarify some things. Being primarily an 18th Century Historicist (Classical and Baroque), I actually conceive and score my music for period instruments - in this case, natural horns. However, this doesn't mean I'm going to turn down a performance by a modern orchestra, even if it wouldn't be my first choice; after all, modern orchestras play 18th Century music all the time. Even so, I don't approach my work on the assumption that only modern players will be performing it, as my preference would invariably be a performance on period instruments. I want to make that very clear. Next, I should mention that I have been asked to make concessionary re-writes in my symphonic works to accommodate modern horn players, and these revisions I did make, however begrudgingly; yet despite these accommodations, there were still problems in performance that in my opinion should not have been an issue, because these same players would have performed similarly-scored music by Mozart or Haydn or Beethoven with as much technical prowess as they possessed, resulting in far fewer errors. I gave my horn players their parts well in advance of the first rehearsal, so they knew what they were in for. Why, then, was not the same effort and preparation put into my work as would have been put into that of the aforementioned masters, whose techniques I follow practically to the letter? In light of this, the issue then becomes, for me, one of professional integrity and respect for the composer - and therefore, it's personal. Whether my work compares to the masters in quality is immaterial, particularly when I have gone to the trouble of re-writing a part I should not have had to re-write, for no other reason than to make the players' lives easier. Siwi's analogy that my horn writing is the equivalent of writing a violin part for the viola doesn't really apply here, because in fact, horn players can and do play this kind of music all the time, whether it's difficult or not. In my historicist work I operate as an 18th Century composer (were I to do otherwise, the authenticity I demand of myself would be compromised), and as I am in no way equivocal about this, I have every reasonable expectation of being interpreted as one. As for possible solutions to the issue: if a player thinks that it would be easier to play something I've written on an instrument other than a modern horn in F (descant horn was mentioned), then more power to him. Whatever will solve the problem is fine with me, though I have yet to have someone even bother to suggest such a solution; the players I deal with seem to prefer complaining to solving the problem, which is ultimately theirs to solve. But I'm not going to change the way I score, which is exactly the way my models scored in their day, and their pieces are still played by what is in standard use today, regardless of what they were actually written for. Do you see where I am coming from here? Another thing I'd like to address, for what it's worth: while the parts written for natural horns and trumpets in the 18th Century may seem relatively undemanding compared to Mahler (to quote Siwi's example), let's not sell the musicians who had to play them short, nor underestimate their stamina. A fact that is not generally known is that horn and trumpet players were formerly trained on horseback, their primary purpose having been to serve as signal instruments for hunting and military use. Hence these players were rather overqualified for sitting comfortably in an orchestra, no matter what they were asked to play. In light of that, I don't think it's accurate to assume that they would not have been the equal of any modern player in sheer stamina. Quite the contrary, in fact, since I don't believe modern brass players are typically trained on galloping horses anymore. Put yet another way: if 18th Century composers' experience of brass players had been that they were not capable of playing the music they wrote for them, would they have continued writing it that way? Probably not. But the fact is, they did continue in the same vein (though music got less demanding for trumpeters as clarino technique went out of favour), and in the case of Beethoven and his contemporaries, the music written for the natural horn in particular only got more challenging. It's therefore logical to assume that the players were more than capable of accurately executing what was written for them most of the time. These same parts are played by modern players today with a reasonable degree of accuracy, difficult or not. Therefore, why should I be obliged to operate any differently than my models did in this regard? As I see it, the answer is: there is no defensible reason why I should, and I won't. All this notwithstanding, in light of my real-world experience, if I were ever asked to write a Classical piece specifically to be played by a modern orchestra, I might think twice before doing so in any key higher than F; but that is the only concession I am inclined to make. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.

I think this has been hinted at in previous replies, but I will say it again: as the melodic content of the music is intentionally limited to just one interval, you need to expand the other parameters in order to generate the necessary sense of development. Particularly so with rhythm: I think a more innovative palate of rhythmic devices would bring this from being a promising piece to being a good piece. The lack of contrast in m. 7-14 is one example of a place where the music becomes static due to circling round the same pitches with no rhythmic development. Also, the near-verbatim copy+paste of the opening section seemed to me rather lazy and was something of an anti-climax. It needs a more intense way to finish. Technically little of concern. The open D at 79-84 could mask the upper register notes, but a good player will be able to control this.

Speaking AS a woman, I find this to be incredibly offensive, and especially what is stated above. Imagine the tables turned- you cheat on her, she breaks up with you, then wants to control your mind through music so you fall back in love with HER again. Would you not feel used and un-valued? I would find it incredibly sweet if this album you are trying to make had sweet lyrics, a piano sonata dedicated to me, or something similar. But the use of music as mind control to get my feelings back? It doesn't show that you love her- it shows that you view her as an object. My two cents.

The biggest problem I have with Zimmer isn't the quality of his work-- I mean, we can argue about that for ages, because although it isn't ever complex or challenging, it is almost always effective, and whether or not you think its good has a lot to do with which half of that equation you think is more important-- but the fact that, once a year, he puts out a score, and then every other score has to be just like it. Remember Pirates? I was sitting in the theatre, thinking to myself "this is a fun score, even if its kinda' cheesy", and then all of the sudden I hear it everywhere, and every movie starts trying to copy that sound. Its infuriating that one man (well, one man and a little composer sweatshop) can dictate the entire sound of Hollywood for months on end. Really, the inception sound isn't terribly different than the Dark Knight sound (DK had its share of massive digital brass hits too, remember?), and now we're seeing that evolve and show up everywhere. Just the other day I went to see RED with my wife, and, look at that-- half the trailers featured trailer music that totally ripped off the BWWWWWAAAAA..... BWWWAAAAAAA.... sound of the Inception score. (Heck, even some of the Starcraft II trailers had little bits of it here and there). I don't have a problem with Zimmer-- I mean, I think that the Massive MediaVentures Brass Hit was actually kind of cool... the first time. But why can't the rest of Hollywood's bigwigs try at least something different? (End rant)

That sound was all the film needed. It was a perfect way of capturing two of the main ideas of the film: that what we see/hear/feel while we're sleeping influences our dreams, and that dreams have a distorted sense of time. Those massive, slowed-down brass BRRRMs derive from the Edith Piaf song. Just like the Joker sound in TDK, having this recurring, instantly recognizable sound motif really helped the film. I don't know how you could say that Zimmer's music is boring in films. His music always complements the pacing & tone of the film really well. If anything the more legitimate criticism of him is on the CDs: the music doesn't work as well as it does in the movie, and comparing movie to movie his self-plagiarism is totally shameless. I guess you could take either view of the way his scores have a lot in common and how they seem to fixate on very small musical ideas - either he is a self-plagiarizing hack who churns out a lot of work without much artistic consideration OR he is thinking about creating a film score rather than independent music, and he focuses on creating these small motifs that have a lot of emotional/psychological impact. :hmmm: Personally I would put him in the second category... now James Horner on the other hand... :rolleyes: BTW on the CD there was one track that was esp. interesting, the music from the movie's ending. It's got a little bit of Chevaliers De Sangreal feel to it.

For the love of doughnuts, is there ANYONE on this site that doesn't state their opinion as fact? Dear gosh... Yes, I also thought the score for Inception was boring. But does that really mean the Zimmer isn't a good composer anymore? Bull crap. His recent scores have been excellent, (Sherlock Holmes, TDK) but he has one misstep and we automatically jump to the conclusion that he's a washed up artist, a has-been. I personally don't think Zimemr is boring at all. That is your opinion. I think the majority of people on this site like Zimmer (at least something of his.) And honestly, did the score for Inception really need to be very complex? I personally appreciated the fact that it wasn't there very often. I think a big, brassy, typical Zimmer score would have distracted from what really mattered: the plot of the film. I think he showed artistic restraint and did what the film needed. Not every score needs to be a stunning work of stand-alone art. The point of the score is to compliment the film in such a way that enhances the experience over-all. I think that, despite the score being boring (IN MY OPINION) it did what it was supposed to be doing.

The loud horn in Inception was pretty awesome.. that's about it, but then again.. that's all there was.

Maybe this is why you people will always remain amateur no matter how hard you try to be good. I knew I'd get negative responses like this. You people don't want this to work. I just came here to have you folks agree with me, and perhaps throw in some input. I know this will easily work. Quite obviously you experts were oblivious to the fact that my post contained only perhaps 10% of the complete system to get her mind controlled. She will be much happier in the long run this way. I know all the tools, rules, and systems to use so that I may get this to work exactly the way I want it, with the exact outcome. I hope you all have a wonderful day while I go to the next step, the next level of music.

I can't piece together still, why everyone is so worried about my girlfriend? Are you guys like trying to put yourselves in my place? Get your own girlfriend and treat her so nicely that she leaves you. Girls do not like nice guys, and get out of my shoes please. Don't worry about my girlfriend. This is a music forum, not a relationship forum, and yet all of you still are bashing my idea because I am trying to use it on my girl? Seriously man, get a grip somewhere.