The Dark Knight

Again, agreed. This is why I said it isn't for everyone and I completely recognize some choose this career while others do not. I do, however, find it somewhat curious when some composers opt to be highly critical of film composers when they themselves never have or never plan to write film scores. I'm not trying to point figures here- I just find it interesting. It would be like me being highly vocal about ballets when I have no prior experience writing for them.

Agreed.

Qccowboy, I find it rather disturbing how you used that analogy. The comparison from concert music to commercial high-rise buildings and film music to single-dwelling unit is very ignorant. I really don't want to start another thread war with you because this seems to be a recurring pattern with you on topics of film music. But your posts constantly treat lowly to film music. Anyone can see through your analogy that you're insulting film music. You need not to relate this topic to me in anyway, I don't intend on being any composer, I just write film music for fun since it's more applied. But I feel the need to suggest that all music are should be treated equally. Whether it's hip hop, film music, concert music, techno... they are all music, but the talents, skills, and purposes are fit to different areas. If you're really as old as your avatar shows... you need to stop making these comparisons.

Agreed.

Qccowboy, I find it rather disturbing how you used that analogy. The comparison from concert music to commercial high-rise buildings and film music to single-dwelling unit is very ignorant. I really don't want to start another thread war with you because this seems to be a recurring pattern with you on topics of film music. But your posts constantly treat lowly to film music. Anyone can see through your analogy that you're insulting film music. You need not to relate this topic to me in anyway, I don't intend on being any composer, I just write film music for fun since it's more applied. But I feel the need to suggest that all music are should be treated equally. Whether it's hip hop, film music, concert music, techno... they are all music, but the talents, skills, and purposes are fit to different areas. If you're really as old as your avatar shows... you need to stop making these comparisons.

Er. I could have sworn that he was saying "Don't knock people who write film music just because you don't do it"

Maybe you should reread it, homes.

That's not exactly an analogy I would use for people who choose not to write for films. He might not have intentionally targeted film music, but come on... that analogy was poor and can be misinterpreted easily.

Not really.

"I like designing flashy buildings with large budgets, while this other person enjoys designing small houses."

"I enjoy writing music for big budget films, while this other person enjoys writing chamber works"

It's a pretty good analogy, I feel. It helps bring forward the idea that it's a CHOICE, that different composers like writing different music.

You like what you like. It's when people are snooty about what they do or don't like that it becomes a problem.

It didn't seem to me that QCC was knocking film music or people who score for films.

That's not exactly an analogy I would use for people who choose not to write for films. He might not have intentionally targeted film music, but come on... that analogy was poor and can be misinterpreted easily.

First of all, I HAVE written professionaly for film, and no, you obviously did NOT understand my analogy.

At no point did I say that writing for film was equivalent to building either homes or skyscrapers. And I certainly never made ANY distinction of quality between the two.

The distinction I made was of functionality.

Unless you happen to think that designing a home is more important than designing a commercial building, or vice versa?

It was misinterpreted "easily" because you CHOSE to misinterpret my words.

Don't.

I said that creating music for films is a different vocation from creating music for the concert stage. Even composers who do both are in a different mind-set when working in each medium. In the same way that an architect who specializes in large-scale commercial edifices might not be interested in the intimate details of designing single-dwelling habitats. Is there anything judgmental there? I think not. So please, keep your misinterpretations to yourself.

Qccowboy, I find it rather disturbing how you used that analogy. The comparison from concert music to commercial high-rise buildings and film music to single-dwelling unit is very ignorant.

WHERE in my post did I equate concert music to high-rise buildings? and WHERE in my post did I equate filmscoring to single-dwelling units?

"As for not wanting to write for film, that's like asking an architect who only works on commercial high-rise buildings why not design single-dwelling units. It's a choice. Period."

Okay, please correct me if I'm wrong since I'm the only one with this opinion, and maybe there's just something that's not getting through to me. And I did jump to the conclusion that "non film music = concert music", my fault on that part.

But please stay with me on this. You first refer to the subjects who choose not to write for films. Then you refer to them as those that design commercial buildings, the reason why they don't want write films? because they choose not to. Same reason why high-rise architects choose not to design small dwelling units, it's not like they can't... they just choose not to. Am I misinterpreting this?

If I did understand that analogy correctly. Wouldn't it be better to compare two things more on the same level and simpler? Which is really what analogies are for. Your goal was to state it's a choice, not because someone can or can't do certain tasks. So comparing the commercial towers to single units is a little extreme.

Kaiyoti- I think QCC is trying to use an analogy where the tasks are very different while alike at the same time. Both commercial high rises and homes require many of the same principles and knowledge but they also require unique approaches and skill sets. While someone can do both, you cannot use the same approach and attitude towards a one story home as you can a high rise commercial building. There are just too many different factors.

QCC, in my understanding, is using this analogy to make the same statement about film score and other forms of musical composition. Both require much of the same knowledge and skill sets while requiring very different approaches and considerations. I don't think he means to put down film music and he has already gone on the record as saying so. If you feel it was a bad analogy- then that is how you feel. Let's move on please. :)

What is everyone's favorite color? Mine is green. :)

What Kaiyoti seems to be stuck on is the analogy aspect of the whole thing.

He appears to think I was equating the two types of architecture with the two types of musical composition. Which is just not the case.

It was an analogy about two different types of architects (just as there are different types of musicians), who chose to work in different fields. The analogy with composers was in only the fact that there are different fields in architecture, as there are in music.

I was NOT equating high-rise buildings with any type of composition, nor was I making an analogy about single-dwelling homes representing any OTHER type of composition. The analogy was between two of the MANY kinds of architects, and two of the equally many kinds of composers.

Each have their specialization, and each have their interests.

OK?

@Nathan

I think part of the issue with "concert" composers and their sometimes less-than-favorable attitudes towards composers of film music, is that to be perfectly frank, there ARE too many composers of film music who are getting by on clich

For myself, I didn't enjoy working in film for the simple reason that I do NOT live in Hollywood, and I did NOT have the opportunity of working with directors who understood music and its important role in a film.

I think directors (including the Hollywood directors) should be forced to take music appreciation lessons.

I saw the film a while back and while I'm not going to comment on the quality of the music, I did notice that often Zimmer would use the same music or very similar music to depict completely contrasting events. The music in the bank robbing scene was very similar to the music that played in the car park 10 or so minutes later with the fake batmans going about their 'job'. Even when the actual Batman entered for the first time, there was little variation if I recall. At this particular point I found myself longing for Danny Elfman's Batman leitmotif, or at least a score that made an attempt to reflect the on screen action in a more intimate way. This wasn't true of the entire score, but it did leave me with the opinion that either Zimmer was not given enough time to complete the score, or that his efforts were lacklustre. If the former, why don't we hear this excuse from the man himself? Of course I am aware that these Hollywood directors often do not leave much time for scoring, but I thought this was true from way back when.

Now I have a question: Do you think a goldenage Herrmann-esque score would have worked for this film, or perhaps a slightly more modern variant, e.g Goldsmith perhaps even Kamen (Sadly they're both dead...!)? My opinion is fairly predictably yes!

YouTube - Part 2 - Stokowski - Debussy Nocturnes-Fetes 1940

Don't laugh! There is a reason I'm posting a completely unrelated piece of music! Skip straight to 2:15 - 3:38, whilst ignoring the pictures if possible! Now imagine Bruce Wayne in the Batcave getting kitted up or an upfacing shot of Batman marching to his next battle walking down a corridor holding a shotgun or something... Now, I'm not suggesting we dig up Debussy in order to score the inevitable third installment in the Batman franchise, but there is no good reason why this sort of music shouldn't be written for it. That's my personal opinion anyway.

I really can't sit here and debate such an awesome movie. Ledger made the movie, hands down, and he's the reason why I went and saw it a second time. I thought it was brilliant, especially how they introduced the joker (i.e. "I'm going to make this pencil dissapear")

I haven't seen the film, but I plan to see it soon, maybe this week. Zimmer may be hated by lots of people here, but I still find some of his works great to listen to. Not all, but some. Ironically, he is famous for his action scores, but I think they are all kinda bland. Remember the Lion King? I think that's one of his best works to date.

Another work of his I pretty like is the Soundtrack for "The Holiday". Has anyone watched it? It's sounds a little poppy, but it fits great for the setting (romantic-comedy thingy, don't cringe ;)). Let me show you:

The Holiday

I'm not a Zimmer fanboy, I'm merely stating the fact that he can write some good motifs, instead of all being 2 notes. ;)

Another note, comparing Williams to Zimmer is just plain silly IMO. Williams composed for all Spielberg movies, and Spielberg always had this melancholic/imagination thing going on in most of his movies (AI, Memoirs of a Geisha, The Terminal, just to name a few), which gave Williams much "room" to let his imagination run free. However, it would be interesting to see Williams score something far too Hollywood-y like Dark Knight. Who knows, we may all be humming the theme just after we leave the cinema ;)

What Kaiyoti seems to be stuck on is the analogy aspect of the whole thing.

He appears to think I was equating the two types of architecture with the two types of musical composition. Which is just not the case.

It was an analogy about two different types of architects (just as there are different types of musicians), who chose to work in different fields. The analogy with composers was in only the fact that there are different fields in architecture, as there are in music.

I was NOT equating high-rise buildings with any type of composition, nor was I making an analogy about single-dwelling homes representing any OTHER type of composition. The analogy was between two of the MANY kinds of architects, and two of the equally many kinds of composers.

Each have their specialization, and each have their interests.

OK?

Ok, the analogy is loaded, and it becomes painfully obvious in which direction when you factor the two. There are no good analogies to compare film composition with concert music without making or implying a weighted argument for concert music. But one thing is definitely clear in these realms of music... concert music pays a hell of a lot more attention to film composers than film composers pay attention to most concert composers. And perhaps if they cared to post here and actually respond to this, they would see the negative quality associated with these kinds of references.

I think part of the issue with "concert" composers and their sometimes less-than-favorable attitudes towards composers of film music, is that to be perfectly frank, there ARE too many composers of film music who are getting by on clich

It's a shame, Antiatonality, that you decided to weigh in on this subject, since you ALSO appear to have entirely misunderstood and pre-judged well.. pretty much everything I said. I'll forgive you're entirely too lopsided interpretation of my words.

No, there IS such a thing as "bad film music". Mind you, I also happen to think there is such a thing as bad concert music as well. Only time will tell us which ones those truly are (in both cases).

And if you are reading what I'm saying, instead of carefully trying to rebut every word I write, you will see that I am NOT passing judgement on anything at this particular time. And right now, the only person full of themselves, is you.

Like I've said, sorry you had a bad experience in university, but don't take it out on the rest of the planet. Get a therapist instead.

...the only person full of themselves, is you.

Like I've said, sorry you had a bad experience in university, but don't take it out on the rest of the planet. Get a therapist instead.

Being a mod, and being older (you're 45 right?) surely you can debate with someone and not come off as insulting right? From his previous post, AA isn't attacking you- he is disagreeing with you. There is a major difference. So why the statements above? Everything else you said was pretty much fine, but this just comes off as back handed, immature and unnecessary. I was agreeing with you (for the most part) before I got to that sentence.

People can have conflicting opinions and should be able to share them in a public forum without having to risk being insulted... especially by a moderator. (That is, of course, unless they deserve it which I don't think that is the case here.)

Being a mod, and being older (you're 45 right?) surely you can debate with someone and not come off as insulting right? From his previous post, AA isn't attacking you- he is disagreeing with you. There is a major difference. So why the statements above? Everything else you said was pretty much fine, but this just comes off as back handed, immature and unnecessary. I was agreeing with you (for the most part) before I got to that sentence.

People can have conflicting opinions and should be able to share them in a public forum without having to risk being insulted... especially by a moderator. (That is, of course, unless they deserve it which I don't think that is the case here.)

Nathan, he accuses me of being "full of myself".

Then goes on about how I can't judge music, since I'm "not in the industry".

And to boot, he did not get my analogy (making the very SAME association that the other poster did, that somehow I view one type as more improtant or more serious than the other).

I am not "insulting" AA with the "full of yourself" comment, I'm tossing right back at him an accusation he makes.

As for the "therapy" remark, it's not an insult either. AA has very strong, negative feelings about his experiences in academia, which he seriously needs to deal with. I think he would benefit from speaking to a professional about them. I have tried, very peacefully in the past, to let him know that his experience is not "the norm". However, he prefers to paint all of academia with the same broad brushstrokes. This appears to have left him bitter. I am not saying he's crazy or sick or anything like that. I am just saying he has some issues that he would be a lot happier were he to find some way to deal with and get past.

I think, both as a professional composer, and as a moderator on this forum, I deserve at least the same respect. I am also allowed to get angry when someone says something that gets my goat. Being a mod or a professional doesn't stop you from being human.

Now, back to music, even if it IS slightly off topic.

I happen to think there IS such a thing as a bad soundtrack.

Take for example the score to Emmerich's Godzilla, by David Arnold.

I don't necessarily blame the composer for the "badness" of the score. However, it is a bad score in the simple sense that it confuses the tone of the film. Is Godzilla nothing more than a giant Bambi? Is Godzilla a monster or not? Are we supposed to be frightened or go "aw gee, shucks, ain't he cute".

Another example is Horner's score to "The Perfect Storm". The issue there is not so much one of quality of music but rather of the fact that the score blankets the film... drowns it, actually. There is almost not a single minute of film that does not have music.

The fault does not lie with the composer, but with the type of collaborative work the composer and director did together. At some point, the composer should have "just said no" to the director.

Somehow, I doubt ANYONE in this discussion would say that ALL soundtracks are "good". If you are to be honest, you ALL have heard scores that you thought were terrible.

What *I* call a "bad soundtrack" is one that could have been "composed" (or rather constructed) by a sound-engineer instead of a composer. A soundtrack that is nothing but held notes, held chords, with a beat-box. Something that could have - and just MIGHT have - been created using some sort of "Band-in-a-box" programme. How about those 1970's films with the scores that sound like bad porn film music? It's just tacked on, it doesn't actually have ANYthing to do with the action on screen. Is that a "good soundtrack"?

There's an awful lot of "high and mighty" attitude from filmscore afficionados when the discussion turns to the "quality" of filmscores. They rear up, and accuse anyone who objects, of being either snobs or academics.

I've belonged to more than my fare share of filmscore forums, and let me tell you! there is no one more critical and snobbish than a filmscore fan.

Oh, and just a quicky correction: filmscore composers sure DO mind what is going on in the concert world. They DO have opinions, and they also participate in the concert world, actively. I've discussed the issues that concern me, as a composer for the concert stage, with a number of Hollywood people, and the SAME issues concern them. One would have to be quite deluded to think this was not the case.

Being a mod or a professional doesn't stop you from being human.

Really? All of the mods I know are robots. :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll go back and re-read some of AA's posts to see what you're referring to. Keep in mind, I wasn't saying I agreed with everything AA said- as I already posted I was actually agreeing with you. I just felt that final "stab" wasn't really warranted.

I am also allowed to get angry when someone says something that gets my goat.

True, but I've always been advised that moderators should be able to rise above the temptation to respond in emotion and rather respond with logic and reason. I'm not saying you don't respond with either- but I do notice a bit more emotional flare in your posts than in other mods I've seen.

Being a mod, and being older (you're 45 right?) surely you can debate with someone and not come off as insulting right? From his previous post, AA isn't attacking you- he is disagreeing with you. There is a major difference. So why the statements above? Everything else you said was pretty much fine, but this just comes off as back handed, immature and unnecessary. I was agreeing with you (for the most part) before I got to that sentence.

People can have conflicting opinions and should be able to share them in a public forum without having to risk being insulted... especially by a moderator. (That is, of course, unless they deserve it which I don't think that is the case here.)

Thanks, Nathan. Let me take it from here for a moment to just clarify a few things with our illustrious Cowboy.

It's a shame, Antiatonality, that you decided to weigh in on this subject, since you ALSO appear to have entirely misunderstood and pre-judged well.. pretty much everything I said. I'll forgive your [sic] entirely too lopsided interpretation of my words.

I've misunderstood and pre-judged nothing. What we have here is a fundamental difference in our philosophies of music. You don't appear to understand this, and it is regrettable that you still argue as though my circumstances are "unfortunate" instead of understanding my position and attempting to see my position for what it really is. You've made your position abundantly clear, almost offensively if I might add. It's not that you have been "careful" to be fair and balanced. You do as Fox News does. You're careful with your words as to appear fair and balanced when you are clearly not.

No, there IS such a thing as "bad film music". Mind you, I also happen to think there is such a thing as bad concert music as well. Only time will tell us which ones those truly are (in both cases).

Yes, only time will tell.

In the mean time, your claims are made in ignorance, at least with this presumption of authority on the matter. "There is such a thing as bad film music. I know this because I've composed for film before, but I don't compose for film for a living because I don't live in Hollywood so I have no access to directors who appreciate music in their film. Even though I am not technically a part of this industry and actually compose concert music for a living, I can make a judgment that there is good and bad film music. Because I've written this music before and can pass judgments of good and bad on concert music, I can determine for you what film music is good and what is not."

The hypocrisy inherent in your desire to pass judgment of the music of other composers is all underwritten by the very statement, "only time will tell..."

And please, before you lash out with something to the effect of, "Stop putting words in my mouth, I said no such thing..." review your posts and be clear on what you've said thus far. You have a tendency to forget, then avoid the argument entirely.

And if you are reading what I'm saying, instead of carefully trying to rebut every word I write, you will see that I am NOT passing judgement on anything at this particular time. And right now, the only person full of themselves, is you.

Like I've said, sorry you had a bad experience in university, but don't take it out on the rest of the planet. Get a therapist instead.

No, you are passing judgment on a general category of composers who write music for film that is not conducive to a concert environment.

EDIT: I was busy posting this when you replied. I'll review and respond accordingly.

The fact that anyone here might profess a dislike for writing for film has nothing to do with the quality or lack there-of of a score for a film. I expect the same amount of work' date=' and originality, to go into a filmscore as I do into a symphony[/u']. If a composer doesn't meet my expectations, then too bad, my opinion of him drops...

I remember not being particularly impressed with the score to the first "new" Batman film. It must have been functional, since it didn't annoy me in any way. However, it didn't stick out in a memorable way either.

This is the fundamental difference I see in our philosophies. I see composition as a service to our society and to those who are reasonably educated in it. You see composition as a service to the culture of music and its interests... which is where I see a problem in the philosophy of music adopted by the academic establishment that you appear to have adopted as well.

And this is the difference I have in the academic setting of music education. The pure interest in servicing the culture of music has an adverse effect on its growth and development, presuming that the purpose is to do something that the culture of music hopes a future society will hold in high regard. We do our society a disservice by operating under the pretense that a reasonably educated person of our own society cannot form an accurate opinion of their own if they aren't specialists of music. We don't represent the aspirations of our society on the whole, nor do we accurately portray that to future generations.

Music, like many other artistic forms, has been relied upon by historians of our time to provide an overall picture of the societies of the past. What will historians say about music with regard to our culture: that we are unique and innovative or that we stopped caring about cultural identity in the hopes that history would favor our innovation? My money is on the latter, and I can only hope that historians are resourceful enough to develop an accurate interpretation of the times in which we live and unwilling to settle on the generalities forwarded by the academic elite. The general public is more forgiving today, and I credit this to their disinterest in debating the merits of this schism as composers like Zimmer are out there doing their job. I can only hope that future generations of the academic realm will see it for what it is and develop an interpretation that appropriately addresses this for what it is.

So, your snide comments about my views of music are nowhere close to the mark, and I need no therapist to determine if these assessments warrant discussion. It is regrettable that your interpretation of my views is so far off the mark. Surely you must find it embarrassing when at every turn, your snide remarks only make you look more foolish and naive. I can't really decide which is more unfortunate for you, that you fail to understand this or that you refuse to address it.

To AA - since you're whining, I'll ignore the main point of this thread (I don't know if I already commented, but Zimmer's music to Dark Knight was appalling) and hit you on a grammar issue.

You've totally missed the point of using [sic]. Why use something if you don't know how to use it?

Anyway, you first corrected an error, and then placed [sic] after it.

Sic literally means 'thus', and it follows a mistake, which is unaltered. That's the point. The only point is to show that the error was not made by *you* in repeating it, but was present in the original. It is not to be used snidely to make a dig at someone's error.

This is how it should be used:

In the mean time [sic], your claims are made in ignorance

By the way, just what is this rubbish? :-

And this is the difference between a concert composer and a film composer. A stereotypical concert composer is going to have this presumptuous attitude that there is such a thing as "good" and "bad". Sure, we all have our own opinions of what we like and don't like. It's fine to have those. But concert composers tend to go to the extremes of taking some kind of "authoritative" position in the topic, as though they have a reasonable capacity to pass judgment, often without any industry experience at all. You may have some experience, QC, but by and large you are admittedly not a part of the industry. Yet, you believe you can pass such judgments as "good" and "bad" when you are not an active participant.

Film composers that are active in this industry, well, don't really give a crap about concert music because they're too busy working in their industry and getting paid for it. Sure, they may score the film with a concert approach in mind, but they aren't even concerned with these "good" and "bad" judgments. It's doubtful that they really even care what concert composers' opinions will be. You're free to have your opinions, but just realize how ridiculous such judgments of film music are when they come from a concert composer, who has a stigma that is uniquely their own - being full of oneself.

Nathan, he accuses me of being "full of myself".

Then goes on about how I can't judge music, since I'm "not in the industry".

And to boot, he did not get my analogy (making the very SAME association that the other poster did, that somehow I view one type as more improtant or more serious than the other).

I am not "insulting" AA with the "full of yourself" comment, I'm tossing right back at him an accusation he makes.

As for the "therapy" remark, it's not an insult either. AA has very strong, negative feelings about his experiences in academia, which he seriously needs to deal with. I think he would benefit from speaking to a professional about them. I have tried, very peacefully in the past, to let him know that his experience is not "the norm". However, he prefers to paint all of academia with the same broad brushstrokes. This appears to have left him bitter. I am not saying he's crazy or sick or anything like that. I am just saying he has some issues that he would be a lot happier were he to find some way to deal with and get past.

My experience in academia only motivates me to produce quality work that interests the public. I spent years in school being told it's about the music, not the audience, and being labeled as a popularist, out of touch with the world of music, or even, as is clear now, in need of therapy. But I advocate a sound position and a reasonable concern I have FOR THE SURVIVAL OF MY ART.

I think, both as a professional composer, and as a moderator on this forum, I deserve at least the same respect. I am also allowed to get angry when someone says something that gets my goat. Being a mod or a professional doesn't stop you from being human.

You have just as much right to be angry as I have a right to point out your short-comings in this and other discussions we've had. But rather than argue the merits of the discussion, you argue the merits of the man making the statement. This is where we differ in our approaches to such discussion.

Now, back to music, even if it IS slightly off topic.

I happen to think there IS such a thing as a bad soundtrack.

Take for example the score to Emmerich's Godzilla, by David Arnold.

I don't necessarily blame the composer for the "badness" of the score. However, it is a bad score in the simple sense that it confuses the tone of the film. Is Godzilla nothing more than a giant Bambi? Is Godzilla a monster or not? Are we supposed to be frightened or go "aw gee, shucks, ain't he cute".

Another example is Horner's score to "The Perfect Storm". The issue there is not so much one of quality of music but rather of the fact that the score blankets the film... drowns it, actually. There is almost not a single minute of film that does not have music.

The fault does not lie with the composer, but with the type of collaborative work the composer and director did together. At some point, the composer should have "just said no" to the director.

Somehow, I doubt ANYONE in this discussion would say that ALL soundtracks are "good". If you are to be honest, you ALL have heard scores that you thought were terrible.

What *I* call a "bad soundtrack" is one that could have been "composed" (or rather constructed) by a sound-engineer instead of a composer. A soundtrack that is nothing but held notes, held chords, with a beat-box. Something that could have - and just MIGHT have - been created using some sort of "Band-in-a-box" programme. How about those 1970's films with the scores that sound like bad porn film music? It's just tacked on, it doesn't actually have ANYthing to do with the action on screen. Is that a "good soundtrack"?

There's an awful lot of "high and mighty" attitude from filmscore afficionados when the discussion turns to the "quality" of filmscores. They rear up, and accuse anyone who objects, of being either snobs or academics.

I've belonged to more than my fare share of filmscore forums, and let me tell you! there is no one more critical and snobbish than a filmscore fan.

Oh, and just a quicky correction: filmscore composers sure DO mind what is going on in the concert world. They DO have opinions, and they also participate in the concert world, actively. I've discussed the issues that concern me, as a composer for the concert stage, with a number of Hollywood people, and the SAME issues concern them. One would have to be quite deluded to think this was not the case.

I imagine both sides can be equally disgruntled with the idea that someone comes along with a working system for them that pleases the audience. John Adams, concert composer, has had a working system in effect for making music, and people had similar complaints regarding his methods. Yet you seem to agree with me that much of his music is interesting and enjoyable for you. Why should we allow this disgruntled attitude access to our academic education system? This does nothing to assuage the issues facing music, and really only makes matters worse by allowing educators to subscribe to such attitudes, let alone promote them in class.

To AA - since you're whining, I'll ignore the main point of this thread (I don't know if I already commented, but Zimmer's music to Dark Knight was appalling) and hit you on a grammar issue.

You've totally missed the point of using [sic]. Why use something if you don't know how to use it?

Anyway, you first corrected an error, and then placed [sic] after it.

Sic literally means 'thus', and it follows a mistake, which is unaltered. That's the point. The only point is to show that the error was not made by *you* in repeating it, but was present in the original. It is not to be used snidely to make a dig at someone's error.

This is how it should be used:

Thank you for the clarification, Daniel. I've seen it used both ways, but I never really bothered to research it for accuracy. Now I know. :)

However...

"In the mean time" in this grammar context is a prepositional phrase. Beginning a sentence with a prepositional phrase requires a comma to separate it from the subject matter of the full statement. There was an error in that statement, but you applied [sic] to the wrong portion. I corrected it for grammatical accuracy. It now reads:

"In the mean time, your claims are made in ignorance, at least with this presumption of authority on the matter."

I hope this is satisfactory grammar for your reading pleasure. :P

By the way, just what is this rubbish? :-

Uhm... It speaks for itself. QC argues it's okay to pass judgments on the music of composers like Zimmer who compose only for film, and I am responding to his position. In context, this portion points to a difference between QC and I concerning our philosophies of music.

If you are referring to the comment, "being full of oneself," what can I say but that I believe this to be the truth considering the context of the discussion. It may be "rubbish" to YOU, but I feel it is warranted considering the mentality I observe on a daily basis among concert composers here at this forum alone, specifically the willingness to pass such judgments whimsically without regard for the shortsightedness inherent in their own views.

Whining? Well, whatever. I won't sit here and say I'm happy with the way it happens. If I'm guilty of "whining", then so be it. I'd rather express myself than sit idly by as academia continues encouraging such attitudes. SOMEONE has to say something. If not me, then who? Obviously not you as you don't appear to share this view... and that's fine, too. Do what you will.

The point AA seems to belabour is that he thinks I insist on making absolute judgements on filmscores.

He rather creatively quotes me as saying that

I can determine for you what film music is good and what is not

I have no such pretence.

I never made any such comment.

I can only determine for myself what I believe is good and bad. In the very same way that all other audience members will.

Please' date=' don't assign intentions to me that do not actually exist.

If you think that not making a living working in film music [u']at this time[/u] means that I cannot express opinions on what value I personaly assign to which soundtrack I listen to, then I suppose this means you yourself cannot express opinions in that regard either. But that would be silly, wouldn't it.

I happen to think we are ALL free to express our opinions on the relative merits of filmscores, or concert pieces, as long as we do so from our own experience and try to not assign absolute value based entirely on nothing more than "I liked it / I didn't like it".

I honestly don't care to discuss the shortcomings of AA's university education, or the terrible injustices he appears to have suffered at the hands of whichever evil entity controlled whatever Barad-d

I think it is ironic that I was eating popcorn while reading this thread

I think it is ironic that I was eating popcorn while reading this thread

LOL!!! :)

The point AA seems to belabour is that he thinks I insist on making absolute judgements on filmscores.

He rather creatively quotes me as saying that

I have no such pretence.

I never made any such comment.

I can only determine for myself what I believe is good and bad. In the very same way that all other audience members will.

Please, don't assign intentions to me that do not actually exist.

I fail to see how the intention is not made abundantly clear, unless you are simply trying to be "diplomatic" by not directly stating as much. Your analogy is loaded. Your support for your position, "Oh, but I've composed film music before, I just didn't like it because I'm not working with the people who really appreciate music," is entirely transparent.

I fail to see how I'm reading too much into this or putting words in your mouth, but whatever. If you say so...?

If you think that not making a living working in film music at this time means that I cannot express opinions on what value I personally assign to which soundtrack I listen to, then I suppose this means you yourself cannot express opinions in that regard either. But that would be silly, wouldn't it.

I happen to think we are ALL free to express our opinions on the relative merits of filmscores, or concert pieces, as long as we do so from our own experience and try to not assign absolute value based entirely on nothing more than "I liked it / I didn't like it".

Yeah, right?! This is exactly what you are doing and precisely what you are condemning. You're free to express your opinion, but the whole point is that you're not being honest with yourself or with others on the forum about your qualifications for making such judgments. If you were a composer who exclusively writes for film (as Zimmer does), then you might be able to make a case for going any further than stating your opinion. Being fair, you're speaking as a concert composer about film composition, using your "fair and balanced" statements/analogies (These are two different industries, and you don't ask a commercial architect to design residential structures, etc.) as if you are qualified to make your judgments. It's misleading and transparent.

Trying to be unbiased is different than trying to "sound" unbiased. You are clearly influenced by concert music and should represent yourself as such, not some intermediary authority on all things music as you do time and again.

Make no mistake, it is common for such authoritative views to be less "transparent" to younger, more trusting minds. Who is to know among them what to believe or how to make sense of your indirect statements of non-bias.

Maybe you see yourself as being "fair" to such interests, but you aren't really stepping out of your mold to really appreciate some of this work for what it is... where much of the collaborative efforts are under meticulous scrutiny up to the date of the film's release. You are admittedly a concert composer, and whether you like to think you can make informed judgments of such things beyond this, you are anything but qualified.

I honestly don't care to discuss the shortcomings of AA's university education, or the terrible injustices he appears to have suffered at the hands of whichever evil entity controlled whatever Barad-d

I fail to see how the intention is not made abundantly clear, unless you are simply trying to be "diplomatic" by not directly stating as much. Your analogy is loaded. Your support for your position, "Oh, but I've composed film music before, I just didn't like it because I'm not working with the people who really appreciate music," is entirely transparent.

I fail to see how I'm reading too much into this or putting words in your mouth, but whatever. If you say so...?

ok, first of all, let's be clear.

I never said that I don't like working in film "because I'm not working with the people who really appreciate music".

I said I don't live in Hollywood.

I don't have ACCESS to those great film directors who DO appreciate music and its important role in the filmic experience.

So, yeah, you didn't read my post correctly.

Yeah, right?! This is exactly what you are doing and precisely what you are condemning. You're free to express your opinion, but the whole point is that you're not being honest with yourself or with others on the forum about your qualifications for making such judgments. If you were a composer who exclusively writes for film (as Zimmer does), then you might be able to make a case for going any further than stating your opinion.

Like I said, that means that you, since you aren't making a living making music, are not qualified to make ANY statements regarding music, film or concert. Right? That follows from YOUR statement, not mine.

Actually, from YOUR statement, not mine, just about no one on this forum would have the right to make ANY subjective statement regarding film music, since so few people here are actually making a living writing music.

Who's being a snob and a hypocrite now?

Being fair, you're speaking as a concert composer about film composition, using your "fair and balanced" statements/analogies (These are two different industries, and you don't ask a commercial architect to design residential structures, etc.) as if you are qualified to make your judgments. It's misleading and transparent.

The only misleading here, is you. About your own qualifications.

And since you bring it up AGAIN, I'm going to have to ask point blank: are you a moron? or are you doing it on purpose?

I NEVER at ANY POINT equated film music with commercial architecture.

I NEVER at ANY POINT equated concert music with residential design.

I used two DIFFERENT fields of the same discipline, as an example.

There was NEVER any question of considering "commercial" versus "residential" as ANY form of analogy to "film music" versus "concert music".

Had I said them in reverse, would you STILL have doggedly latched on to the false analogy? "Oh jee, you're such a big meanie! you think that concert music is better because it's bigger and film music is smaller because it's like a residential house". Jeeze, you really are an idiot, aren't you?

Trying to be unbiased is different than trying to "sound" unbiased. You are clearly influenced by concert music and should represent yourself as such, not some intermediary authority on all things music as you do time and again.

Make no mistake, it is common for such authoritative views to be less "transparent" to younger, more trusting minds. Who is to know among them what to believe or how to make sense of your indirect statements of non-bias.

Maybe you see yourself as being "fair" to such interests, but you aren't really stepping out of your mold to really appreciate some of this work for what it is... where much of the collaborative efforts are under meticulous scrutiny up to the date of the film's release. You are admittedly a concert composer, and whether you like to think you can make informed judgments of such things beyond this, you are anything but qualified.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Actually, you're just talking out your donkey right now.

You have NO idea what goes into the collaboration of composer and director from "first hand experience".

So lest someone take YOUR statements at face value, let's be perfectly clear here:

1. You have never worked in Hollywood as a film composer.

2. you have never worked professionaly as a compsoer for the stage.

And yet! YOUR opinion should count more than... what mine? anyone else's?

No, you're just being an asshole, and I'm really just getting tired of your commentary (unless you just completely failed to read and comprehend my posts). Do some research into John Coolidge Adams and learn about it. Your whole diatribe regarding these "issues" you and others have with the "cookie-cutter" composers of film music falls in line with concert music as well, yet points to your inability to separate your views from your concert background. Refer to your previous post, research early criticisms of Adams, and see for yourself how these criticisms parallel one another.

And speaking of assholes, I never got into a "diatribe" (you really need to buy yourself a dictionary) about cookie-cutter composers.

I said what *I* don't like in some film music.

YOU are the one who is painting with broad brushstrokes and attempting to make that statement into some sort of manifesto by which I live. It's a loving opinion, for god's sake. MY opinion, which last I checked, I was permitted to express. Stop being such an arrogant little prick.

I honestly don't care about what criticism may have been levied against John Adams. I don't read critiques of music in the press. I see no need for it. I'm sorry you find so many parallels between what I wrote and what you seem to have read in the past, but that's - AGAIN - your problem and not mine.

Since you can't disociate yourself from your miserable experiences in the academic world, and feel the need to misrepresent to others what academia is, there is no point in discussing with you. Your limited experience and insistance on agrandizing yourself make it moot.

What don't you both continue this discussion via PMs and leave the thread alone. While I do see some value in having some of this conversation publicly, I think we've gone past that point and now this is more a face off between two folks and not really benefiting the forum that much.