An interesting interview with Hans Zimmer [Archive]

audiophile

04-18-2005, 12:31 PM

Glad you liked it.
Here is another one where he mentions his lack in formal musical training:

DC: How do you and Shirley Walker get on?

HZ: I love Shirley because I don't have to talk to her. We have telepathic communication. The problems I have with the score and the orchestra are never anything to do with Shirley, it is always to do with my writing. She will interpret exactly everything I've written, without me even having to talk to her about it.

DC: That's harmonious, the way you seem to play off each other without extensive verbal communication...

HZ: The thing is, I never went to music school and all that stuff. I had my two weeks of piano lessons and the teacher couldn't cope with me. So that was that. And then the thing with Shirley, she hasn't got the arrogance a normal orchestrator would have. They would take my score and say, "this is all wrong ! These notes are all wrong. This is not the way you are supposed to do it." Shirley knows I hear something in my head and that is what I write down on paper and that is how I want to hear it, so she doesn't play music teacher with me, which a lot of other people would do. So all that stuff makes me sound like Hans Zimmer. Because theoretically I think it's all wrong - I do a lot of parallell fifths that you're not supposed to do. My octaves are all over the place, you know, things doubling on octaves all the time.

DC: But it still works in a way.

HZ: It works. It's just me. It's what I hear in my head.

from
http://ifiji.com/yumbo/zoard/flyer.htm

Nayi

04-18-2005, 02:05 PM

StrangeCat

04-18-2005, 05:06 PM

wierd purists, because like music now is anything and everything. Man can you hate Zimmer the guy has written 100 and some films(and i can't even find work for one LOL) Parallel fiths octaves, dimished fiths on minor seconds, who cares. It's been done so it's alright. What they dont' like is V to I music (you know the whole classical master works are made up of it) so why not block up the harmony with the brass and winds(hey Debussy did it all the time)
go for it! I say...oh Cool Read. Read it before I think but forgot.

SeanHannifin

04-18-2005, 06:15 PM

No formal training? That's pretty inspiring, as I do not yet have formal training either . . . except I think Mr. Zimmer was in a band, was he? Kinda like Danny Elfman: no training, just in a band and was in the right place and the right time. Still, that's something I didn't know. :)

josejherring

04-18-2005, 06:22 PM

Man can you hate Zimmer the guy has written 100 and some films(and i can't even find work for one LOL) Parallel fiths octaves, dimished fiths on minor seconds, who cares. It's been done so it's alright. What they dont' like is V to I music (you know the whole classical master works are made up of it) so why not block up the harmony with the brass and winds(hey Debussy did it all the time)
go for it! I say...oh Cool Read. Read it before I think but forgot.

Yeah but if you read carefully you'll find that he admits that a lot of really high profile films where done by other composers.

So maybe he's only done about 50. Not so impressive now.....oh who I'm a kidding I'd give my left nut for 1 of Bruckheimer's films.

Jose

Herman Witkam

04-18-2005, 06:28 PM

Bruce A. Richardson

04-18-2005, 06:29 PM

"I do a lot of parallell fifths that you're not supposed to do."

hahahahaa

I do this a lot and I wonder why people always say you're not supposed to do.

I just hate pre-establish rules for something so unpredictable as music.
There should be no rules or preconceived ideas for the expression of the human heart.

I don't think it is so much that. Parallel fifths are a defect in a particular kind of chorale harmonization, because they create a stagnant motion for that particular style.

There's no rule that says parellel fifths or any device can't be used to achieve whatever effect the composer is going for. There are no rules, really. That is a mischaracterization. Anything that is called a rule in music is more an observation of how musicians expressed themselves during definable periods of time and schools of thought. As time passes, the rules are amended, so to speak, and they "live" in that way. Those which prove themselves over time become guideposts.

Even within a given period, you can break any rule you want. You must just have a musically compelling reason for doing it. The rules generally exist, in whatever form, because breaking them tends to make the music sound bad, and following them tends to make the music sound better. But it is how a person expresses himself within a boundary that expresses his artistry, anyway. It's the difference in an oil painting vs. a mixed media piece. If you're declaring something an oil painting, then you're producing an end work which is going to be constructed of oils, for better or worse. If you decide you're going to glue a milk carton onto it, and cover it with gold leaf, then that's no longer an oil painting...whether it's beautiful or not.

Likewise, if you're scoring a four-part chorale in the late-Baroque style, you'll be using that accepted bag of tricks. Any expression is valid expression, it just won't be an expression of the particular style. But it's all good. Or bad. If it sounds good, it's good. If not, those rules are sometimes worth a try.

scottnorma

04-18-2005, 08:02 PM

"I do a lot of parallell fifths that you're not supposed to do."

hahahahaa

I do this a lot and I wonder why people always say you're not supposed to do.

I just hate pre-establish rules for something so unpredictable as music.
There should be no rules or preconceived ideas for the expression of the human heart.
How does the old saying go - "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"? I'm sure that Zimmer thinks he's a real trailblazer for using parallel perfect fifths, but all that he's doing is betraying his own ignorance on the matter. (And nevermind that parallel 5ths can be found in virtually every score by John Williams, as well as the fact that they have been routinely exploited by composers for over the last 100 years - Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Holst, Vaughn-Williams, Copland, et al, the gang's all here.)

Parallel and hidden 5ths were never a "rule", it was just a common practice, and a very good one for that particular framework. Some only see it as a rule because they look at it from a 20th century viewpoint, with 20th century ears.

The perfect 5th appears very early in the harmonic series, and very prominently as well, not only as a perfect 5th with harmonics 2 and 3, but also as a perfect 12th with harmonics 1 and 3, and as such is a very foundational interval. This is why perfect 5ths were regularly sung in fact very early on by the Gregorian monks (that is, when they weren't pulling all-night keggers).

Then at some point in the music of the late renaissance (however imperfectly these developments can be traced), as the concept of voiceleading was developing, they began to notice that wherever a perfect 5th would arise in the voiceleading, it would stick out like a sore thumb because it robbed the lines in question of their independence - not altogether removed from an octave doubling in fact.

So, although the occassional perfect or hidden 5th can be found here and there in music of the common practice period, it was largely avoided as a *musical* matter, not an academic one, specifically because of the emphasis on the independence of the voices. But by the time the Romantic period was losing steam, the Impressionists picked up on the characteristic sound of the perfect 5th and began exploiting it for all it's worth.

So it's not really about adhering to a set of dogmatic and arbitrary "rules", but rather it's about understanding the principles on which certain practices were based.

For all of the complaints about parallel 5ths being a "rule" I've ever heard from people that didn't understand all this, I've often had to remind them that a considerable amount of great music was written with these principles in mind.

SteveHanlon

04-18-2005, 08:05 PM

Great read! Thanks for posting it.

Re: Par. 5ths and their use.

If I were writing heavy metal, I'd definitely want parallel fifth in there.

If I were writing a tune dedicated to Wes Montgomery, I'd definitely want parllel octaves.

But for sure there is a more familiar harmonic sound when fifths and eigths are not strung out. The music tends fit together like a puzzle.

Whereas fifths and eigths consecutively is like pulling all of the furniture in your living room together. It's cool. But not for long.

StrangeCat

04-18-2005, 08:10 PM

interms of voice leading having parallel fifths all the time sounds horrible in most cases, even using huge uper extention harmonies. But really i dont' see anything wrong with exploiting them. Like Bruce said though writing choral music you are not going to be doing any parallel fifths or octaves, sounds bad, really bad...crap even. Then again I think everything is subjective.
Mr. Zimmer did 50 films LOL~! The guy is still a world class Film Composer.
Did he do the music for the upcoming film Kingdom of Heaven?
He did Gladiator right?

cjsm

04-18-2005, 08:11 PM

From what I recall from my music theory classes in college, the reason for the no parallel fifths, fourths, and octaves rule is because the counterpoint/harmony line gets lost when they are used, eg., becomes muddled or indistingishable. Of course, there is in reality no reason not to use parallel fifths in order to create a certain sound. Another part could keep a harmony line going, or you could choose to lose the clear harmony line for the sake of the parallel fifth effect. But the rule makes total sense in certain contexts, and from a certain viewpoint.

cjsm

Jimi

04-18-2005, 09:10 PM

What century is this guy (Zimmer) in? Does he actually think he's being somehow "radical"? Gimme a break, those "rules" never existed outside of harmony texts, and parallel fifths have been a rampantly common device for well over 100 years. Sheesh. Maybe a little "education" would save him from making such cheesball comments!

;-)

"I do a lot of parallell fifths that you're not supposed to do."

hahahahaa

I do this a lot and I wonder why people always say you're not supposed to do.

I just hate pre-establish rules for something so unpredictable as music.
There should be no rules or preconceived ideas for the expression of the human heart.

Journeyman

04-18-2005, 09:29 PM

I've always noticed that those with little or no training are very quick to hold it up as some demented "badge of honor". It's really pathetic....

scottnorma

04-18-2005, 10:21 PM

I suppose the most irritating thing about his statement about parallel 5ths is this: He lifted quite blatantly from The Planets for Gladiator, and the part in Mars that he lifted is full of parallel 5ths in the form of parallel triads. I guess he "innovated" those as well. Now that's what I call chutzpah!

SWL

04-18-2005, 10:24 PM

I've always noticed that those with too much training are very quick to hold it up as some demented "badge of honor". It's really pathetic....

** fixed **

scottnorma

04-18-2005, 10:32 PM

SWL, I'm sure that Journeyman appreciates your having reworded his post. A very classy move!

Journeyman

04-18-2005, 11:17 PM

SWL,

Evidently I've either touched a nerve with you, or you're just one of those trolls that gets their kicks stirring things up. Rather than posting childish insults, why not have a mature conversation like an adult?

Do you think that there's something especially nobel about someone being too lazy to bother learning basic literacy? I'm not talking about those without college level training; I'm talking about those who the mass media loves to point out, "and he never learned to read a note of music! Isn't that wonderful?" It's not even the fact that they have no training that bothers me; it's that they somehow think that their illiteracy makes them special. And before you go to the trouble of rewriting my post again for me, do most successful musicians go around touting their extensive training? Not usually; their accomplishments will speak for themselves. Whether Danny Elfman has training is irrelevant to me. He earns my respect with his accomplishments.

josejherring

04-18-2005, 11:32 PM

I always love it how the same two guys get held up has having "made it" with no musical training. Truth is people that most that do make have extensive musical training. Whether they be jazzers, rockers, film scorers what have you.

It may be fine to be an idiot sevant in this day and age but don't bank on it. Get trained. Training is only harmful if you accept stupid rules like, "no parallel 5ths" that squash inspiration. If the training is good then it's well worth it. And if the training is good then there's no such thing as too much of it. True pros train their whole life.

What's always overlooked in these discussions is that these same two guys are constantly surrounding themselves with people who are very, very well trained musicians. Hmmmm, I wonder why they would do that?

Jose

scottnorma

04-18-2005, 11:38 PM

What's always overlooked in these discussions is that these same two guys are constantly surrounding themselves with people who are very, very well trained musicians. Hmmmm, I wonder why they would do that?
An excellent point Jose.

SeanHannifin

04-19-2005, 12:18 AM

I think what they mean by no "training" was that they never formally took music classes. They had to have learned their stuff from somewhere, though, so it's not like they weren't trained at all.

Also, I don't think they're trying to brag or say that music classes aren't important. They are just saying that in the end, it's the music that matters, not where you went to school. (And if you want to be a film composer, you're also going to need a good amount of luck on your side.)

SteveHanlon

04-19-2005, 01:25 AM

luck...and orchestrators and engineers and musicians and phenomenal software...and techie who come to your work place to fix computer problems.

There is no such thing as a Hans Zimmer music.

Now on a small scale with some of us, that scenario changes. But the big boys sound good for a reason for sure.

I know when i work with other cats my music sounds better.

Samplecraze

04-19-2005, 02:01 AM

This debate, for me personally, is very interesting.

I do not have half the knowledge or training that some of you possess in music theory. I learned enough in theory to string a few chords together and knock out a tune. My main forte is in sound design and production. I can create 3 minute wonders in Dance and Hip Hop, but get stumped at anything that involves classical lines. What I can categorically state, and a throwaway comment that always incences me, is that what I 'hear' in my head takes time to articulate, structure and present on paper (or computer).
We all have the gift of putting down what we hear in our heads, but for people like me, it is a process that entails a lot of thought and preperation, and is frought with obstacles and dilemmas. Others have the exact opposite problem.

What I do find even more interesting is the fact that any composer can get 'carried' for over 50 films without being exposed.

So, on the one hand I am impressed by HZ's resume, and on the other hand feel nauseous at the 'I put down what I hear it in my head' number.

Maybe I am being naive, but I would have thought that there is a great deal of thought and intended process in composing a classical score, and that even the best of us take time to think it through and annotate it correctly.

StrangeCat

04-19-2005, 02:56 AM

no that is incorrect. Sometimes there is a lot of thought with music like when you have writers block, but usually most of the time you start composing the music you play what you have written then you hear what comes after it, atleast that's how I do for all styles of music. I'll admit that this jpop song I just wrote I had to delete the bridge part and write something else because to me it didn't fit. But right now for fun I am writing a Vienna style string quartet in Sibelius using GPO(GPO in Sibelius is new to me) and I am just writing what i hear after what i play till I know it's done, just hear the rest of the music. Others might do it differently.

Also Film composing is very very different you might have to redoo tons of music to fit certain areas of the film, I remember reading Howard Shores interview about how much work went into the Extended versions of Lord of The Rings(crazy work!!!)How much music he redid to fit this and extend that...yea WOW! :eek:

Samplecraze

04-19-2005, 03:04 AM

I understand the method of writing, listening back, writing etc...but I am talking about 'I hear it in my head..' syndrome. I hear 'pop' tunes in my head and start by transcribing whatever it is I hear, and it is usually the hook or the b-line or the drum loop. There is obviously more, but it does not need me to think of major theory in the form of the strings section meeting the percussive section, then being interjected or added to by choral parts etc...With these components I need to sit down and think a lot more about the flow of the music. With 'pop' records I have the advantage of the vocals, and the confines of 'time'. With classical I find that the musical piece has to narrate a wordless story, and in no given time structure, and that for me needs thought.

I have written 3 film scores till date and find that, apart from the mechanics of the 'matching' and incidentals, I still need to think it through when it comes to any classical scoring.

Maybe for me the electronic side of music, and the synthesized sound, is far simpler to understand and hence use as a medium to 'narrate' and get the feel/message across?

Maybe I need to rethink my methodology.

StrangeCat

04-19-2005, 03:06 AM

wait a sec were talking about production verses composition....on you just through some notes down the instruments play it, the other hell yea longer harder, you have to record everything, get the levels right, get your compressors in there, your reverb, your delays, fx, whatever, then you have to have your mix just right, and then there is the mastering...in other words of course what your are doing is going to be a longer harder process. Composition is just writing some notes on paper for various instruments and ensembles. Of course there is a lot of orchestration that takes a lot of thought.

Samplecraze

04-19-2005, 03:20 AM

Sorry SC, I edited my post and wasn't aware of such a quick response from you.

I hear you pal. I am not talking about the production stage, that is completely different. I am talking about the creative process.

I think, because I understand the synthesized sound, I can use that pallette far more successfully than classical instruments. I can fully appreciate that a sound is a sound, and it is what you hear and feel that ultimately counts. But I do find that writing classical pieces is a far more thought ridden process for me than using synthesized sounds. But then, I am used to electronic music, so the same analogy can be drawn with someone's knowledge of acoustic instruments.

spectrum

04-19-2005, 03:56 AM

Hans Zimmer gets the gigs because he has a phenomenal command of the language of film music....in EVERY sense...compositionally, technically, and professionally. His particular gifts make him probably the most perfectly suited person to this particular era of film scoring...this combined with his creative ambition and big ideas has made him extremely successful in his field.

He is also a very gifted synthesist, which often gets overlooked. He's someone that understands the electronic and acoustic worlds equally well, and has been very masterful at creating a hybrid of the two approaches that is widely emulated.

The "sound" of his writing is very much his own style. The "Zimmer score" sound and compositional style was just as clear with his earliest scores like Rainman and Driving Miss Daisy, which he created and produced almost entirely alone. It's easy to hear the same personality in all his scores. And yes, his themes are very much composed "in his head" before committing them to paper or the sequencer...he's one of the unique people who have the gift of hearing things fully realized in their mind first. For this kind of composer, the rest of the process is more of a mechanical thing until it gets to the performance of the work....so for him, ultimately it doesn't matter how it gets there...as long as the end product is what he heard in his head. Pop songwriters are not the only ones who work this way.

In terms of his support staff...it's not unusual when you consider the size and scope of projects he does. Hans thinks very BIG!

Hans is also quite honest about his own limitations....he's not bragging about them, but he doesn't hide his background or what he's not good at. I find this honesty a quality that is extremely rare in Hollywood...especially when you see the scorn it sometimes gets!

He has also generously credited many of his collaborators and given them opportunities and contacts that they would have never had otherwise. For example, Harry Gregson-Williams used to be Hans' orchestrator and co-composer, and now he's got a thriving career of his own...after all, it's Harry that's got the new Ridley Scott Kingdom of Heaven filmscore this time...not Hans! The same generousity has been given to many other composers that Hans has collaborated with as well. Hans is one of the few composers I've worked with that truly has a passion for bringing new people into the business.

I can also say that it's very unlikely that tools like Gigastudio, Kontakt and the huge sample libraries we enjoy we be where they are now without Hans Zimmer. I can tell you first hand that he has had a huge impact on the sampling community that should be acknowledged. He's definitely been a big inspiration to us at Spectrasonics.

Just wanted to dispel a few of the misconceptions floating around here. Whether you like his music or not is up to you, but you have to respect the guy's accomplishments....he absolutely deserves that.

All the best,

spectrum

ELP71

04-19-2005, 07:22 AM

The other thing about parallel fifths/fourths is that they sounded like crap (instrumentally) before equal temperament. Vocally, they were associated with Roman Catholic institutions like organum; so big-shot Protestant musicians (read: J.S. Bach) railed against the convention when realizing/harmonizing chorales and ultimately their compositions. Thus a style was defined. I am convinced these practical and philisophical matters contributed to the "rules" regarding parallel fifths and fourths.

I find a parallel (hahaha) in jazz - if I see a C7 on the chord chart, I could easily just play a root position C-E-G-Bb voicing in my right hand. But I know that the style dictates something like E-Bb-D instead. Is it a "rule"? No. But it will sound like crap if I play the first voicing if I'm trying to play in a specific style. Thats what its all about.

As for training - the whole "badge of honor" regarding no formal training only bothers me if it is worn with the air of "I have had no formal training so that makes me even more talented and amazing and you are just a trained monkey with no soul see how talented I am I've had no formal training". Otherwise its awesome :)

Chadwick

04-19-2005, 07:38 AM

What's wrong with composition being a team effort?

If he didn't have to communicate what's in his head, and the sounds he can pull out of a wall of synths and samplers, to conservatorium trained musicians, Hans would probably work alone with ease.

I don't see any problem with handing your work to a translator who can lay it out in a form playable by people who can't read your mind.

Do you think Michael Schumacher should be able to build a Ferrari before he's 'allowed' to win his next F1 grand prix?

Maraxalamanta

04-19-2005, 08:22 AM

I agree with Spectrum. People are just jealous of his success imo. People make up all kinds of stories in attempt to tear his integrity apart. He's a film score legend regardless of his parallel 5ths or not (oh give me a break - all the major composers out there use that, JW included). Treat him with the respect he deserves. He's obviously got something all you whiners don't have. I'll never forgive him for accepting Pirates Of The Carribean and ruining what could have been an amazing Silvestri score, but I guess that's just the industry. Even the evergoing debate on how he ripped off Holst in his Gladiator score.. Sure, it's in 5/4 and it's got chromatic movement of block chords but even so it's still full of Zimmers personality and I would never call it a ripoff. Another classic is the "I-IV-V composer". So what? That sequence is a large essence of popular music and you can't blame Hans Zimmer for appealing to the masses? He invented a new style, adapted the rather simple harmony language of pop music to orchestral music and mixed it with a certain touch of his own unmistakable personality. Surrounding yourself with awesome musicians will of course benefit your music but to use it as an argument against him is just ridiculous. What people usually mean by this is "well... my music isn't quite up there with Hans Zimmer, but man if I only had access to the musicians/orchestrators etc. that he uses.. I'd show the world!". It's a psychological way of bringing people down to a level on which you can relate to them, and as such see a better possibility of doing as good a job as them. I've met so many people who walk around saying things like "well.. I could be as good as JW or Elfman if I only had their orchestrators and recorded with the same orchestras .". Less gifted musicians who are aware of their own limitations tend to like other less gifted musicians. "I know I'll never be able to do what Williams is doing so I'll just settle with X or X". Less gifted musicians without any selfawareness tend to reach for the sky (ex. Williams again) and diss all the others. Truly gifted musicians more often see things less black & white and tend to recognize real talent, in whatever form, when they see/hear it.

Instead of hating the concept of a music production factory (MV), why don't you commend him for his efforts and his achievements? Afterall the "MV factory" has opened up a door of possibilities for many young talented composers. I doubt anyone here would decline a job offer at MV if they were looking to get into film music. Maybe if you're arrogant, ignorant and too proud. Anyway, stop complaining about other people's success. Work on your own career instead.

JonP

04-19-2005, 09:34 AM

Anyway, stop complaining about other people's success. Work on your own career instead.

Absolutely. The guy's written some great film music. I can respect Holst was a big influence for Gladiator but I'll never forget watching the movie in Leicester Sq and it really blew me away. It reminded me of those huge sprawling biblical epics from way back whenever.

There was another interview with him in Sound on Sound a couple or so years back. It went into his preferred arsenal of gear and so on. Very interesting.

Samplecraze

04-19-2005, 10:21 AM

That interview was quite searching.
Great info.

Tomke

04-19-2005, 11:32 AM

I've always noticed that those with little or no training are very quick to hold it up as some demented "badge of honor". It's really pathetic....
I think this thing of defending one's own work, using preset ideas or "rules" is present amongst both very educated and less- or non-educated people. It's an attitude with some people - regardless of training. IT probably comes from lack of self-trust and is meant to serve as a protection against anyone not liking their work in question.
I know of some really talented people who are sadly misfortunated in the business. Of course they sometimes get frustrated by this and goes into defensive mode. People who has had the fortune seldom does go into defensive mode, because they are more into accepting and enjoying what is, rather than despairing about what is not. That's what I think :)

People are just jealous of his success imo. People make up all kinds of stories in attempt to tear his integrity apart /../ Stop complaining about other people's success. Work on your own career instead.
It might be envy, but I think most of these misconceptions happens when people (like us here) try to simplify and put into simple words a describtion of what has made a certain gigant successful.

In a TV interview, I heard actor Will Smith say that in his young years he summed up the ten most commercially successful films or recent years and recognized that those were all action- alien- and monster-films. So he decided that whatever film he was to be in, should be such a film - to get successful.

He is a successful actor today, but certainly not due to the fact of simplifying things into such terms that he said in the interview. That was most likely just a Very compressed describtion - a neat and entertaining thing to say. The way to success is never a recipe that can be described in a few sentences and be all-working, fool-proof. From all people working with music and film that has been an "elephant in the djungle", there are an equal numbers of completely varying success-stories.

So, it may be envy, or it may not. However, I definitely agree with "make your own story happening" instead of trying to copy anyone elses. Using the same guitar Steve Vai uses, will not take you up there :)

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 12:44 PM

I agree with Spectrum. People are just jealous of his success imo.
Here we go again. Zimmer is somehow above criticism. What is it with the Zimmer crowd that can't handle their patron saint being taken to task for damn near *anything*.

Look, it works like this. If Zimmer is above criticism, then we're *all* above criticism. But if we're not, then *he's* not either. Understand? Fairly simple I would think.

Now, if anyone would care to take me up on my very specific criticism of his ridiculous posturing and ignorance regarding parallel 5ths, then I'm all ears. There is, after all, some factually objective truth here - not just one man's opinion. So, show me my error. But if all you have is the "jealous" charge, then you're basically admitting that you have no *actual* argument against these things that have been said.

What I think is that people that put up this tired and fallacious charge of "jealousy", object to the less than favorable things that one may reasonably aruge about Zimmer because they hit too close to home.

Journeyman

04-19-2005, 12:51 PM

Scott,

Regardless of whatever posturing he may or may not be guilty of, it seems that there are those here who have personal, first hand experience with Zimmer, and say that he is a generous, talented person who does in fact have his own "personal sound". Whether or not he's guilty of a bit of "posturing" doesn't change that fact. Do you really feel it necessary to completely malign the guy and everything he's accomplished just because of a minor display of ego or insecurity? I'm inclined to believe Eric. If Eric's personal experience says that Zimmer is "the real deal", then I believe him. Is it really necessary to castigate the guy any further over one foolish statement?

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 01:30 PM

Do you really feel it necessary to completely malign the guy and everything he's accomplished just because of a minor display of ego or insecurity? I'm inclined to believe Eric. If Eric's personal experience says that Zimmer is "the real deal", then I believe him. Is it really necessary to castigate the guy any further over one foolish statement?

1) I wasn't speaking to the totality of the person that is Hans Zimmer, and to say that I "completely maligned the guy and everything he's accomplished" is a bald-faced lie. Where, I must ask, did you get this from? My comment was in fact quite narrowly and specifically focused.

2) Regarding my having "castigated" the man, again, you're reading things that are not there. I did not "castigate the guy any further over one foolish statement". What I did was to take him to task for a certain statement, a kind of ignorance I have seen too much of over and over again from various quarters, and that is *all* that I did. Is there some sort of obligation on my part to simply accept everything I hear, or at least shut up about it if I don't agree? All that I heard from Mr. Persing was fine as far as it goes, but it was perfectly irrelevant to my point of discussion.

3) At this point, it's not even about Zimmer's original statement anymore. What it's really about is that some people simply will not stand for anything less than glowing adulation regarding their icons, such that we are routinely subjected to various forms of fallaciousness, rather than specific, corresponding counter-arguments. In other words, it's the attitude that some people are inexplicably above criticism - existing somehow on a plane of existence which precludes such criticism - that keeps these matters going, not the original catalyst of the discussion.

spectrum

04-19-2005, 01:32 PM

Hans certainly shouldn't be above criticism, but maybe a little too much is being read into the parallel fifths comment that Hans made and his larger point is getting lost in the battle over whether this is really a rule or not. He was simply saying that the collaboration that works best for him is when someone simply does what they are good at (in this case orchestrating), and doesn't act in a patronizing way about their area of expertise.

Read the whole thing he says again. It's a really good point that he's making about how to work with people in collaboration (and film is one of the most collaborative creative mediums that exists). The best collaborators know that there's a time and place for everything, and are wise about how and when they impart their knowledge.

I remember one of the biggest mistakes I made when I first started doing sessions:

A good friend of mine got me the chance to work on his arrangement for a well known artist and producer. All the people involved were "A-list", very talented people. When I got to the session, I was so excited about what I was doing, that I explained everything to everyone that I was doing, why I was doing it, what was new about it, why it was better than previous methods and what all the other creative options were too. In my mind, I was just being enthusiastic and eager to please...and also to educate them about my process and what the new production and sound possbilities were now available (after all, this was in the very beginning of MIDI and sequencing)! Since I was one of the only people who had a MIDI sequencer (hard to believe...but true!) and understood how to use it, I thought that explaining everything to them was being really helpful. I was stoked about the experience and confident that I had done a great job on the gig.

After the project was finished, my friend took me out to lunch and told me very honestly that after I left, everyone thought I was really arrogant and pushy and that they would never ever work with me again!

Whoa!!! Talk about a reality check! That was really tough to hear, and luckily my friend had the guts to tell me honestly how I was coming off....even though I was just excited and trying to be helpful on the gig.

It's one of the best lessons I ever learned, and I don't think I would have had a session career without having grown from that experience. Luckily, I did get called for other gigs, and I learned how and when to bring up ideas. There's a certain flow to it all....and basically, you have to remember that you are there to serve the project, the producer and the artist....let them lead it and you follow.

If you've ever produced a project, you understand how valuable it is to have collaborators that work harmoniously with you....it makes all the difference in the world.

spectrum

-Ed

04-19-2005, 01:47 PM

1) I wasn't speaking to the totality of the person that is Hans Zimmer, and to say that I "completely maligned the guy and everything he's accomplished" is a bald-faced lie. Where, I must ask, did you get this from? My comment was in fact quite narrowly and specifically focused.

Maybe he had read the other things said in that other topic.

And criticism is fine, just not when it gets really really stupid.

Ed

audiophile

04-19-2005, 02:05 PM

This world would be a better place if only the masters were allowed to criticize. But these days anyone thinks he is in a position to do that.
Ok, there are different tastes, one may not like everything, but why go that far to critisize a person who poured his heart into creating something he thinks is beautiful. Positive feedback will give this person better chances to grow, otherwise he will be more and more afraid of creating at all, being afraid of being hurt again.

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 02:09 PM

Maybe he had read the other things said in that other topic.

And criticism is fine, just not when it gets really really stupid.

Ed
Ed, that other thread wasn't fundamentally about Zimmer, it was about *you*. You never really understood that, and I know you never really will. I only entered the fray when you had been repeatedly insulting Dave by calling him deaf, and then you followed that up with your statement that you would rather listen to Zimmer than Mozart, as well as revealing your fondness for Eminem. And there, just like *here*, you never really understood what I was and was not saying, and I know you never will.

As for critisicm which is borne out of stupidity, I'll gladly cede that you are an expert in this area.

Cheers, and bye.

Journeyman

04-19-2005, 02:45 PM

Scott,

I have no desire to argue with you. All I'm saying is this: If Zimmer said something that you interpret as foolish, then fine, it was foolish and leave it at that. People make mistakes, and famous composers are no exception. In the larger view of Zimmer's career, one arguably foolish remark isn't worth getting so worked up about. You obviously have a pet peeve about "the attitude that some people are inexplicably above criticism - existing somehow on a plane of existence which precludes such criticism". I don't necessarily disagree with you at all. But since you admittedly have no need to malign the "totality of the person that is Hans Zimmer", then let it go, already. You even said, "At this point, it's not even about Zimmer's original statement anymore." Fine, then why pursue it further in a thread that is about Zimmer?

Now if you were to have a separate thread regarding egomanaical musicians, I'd have no argument with you whatsoever....

SeanHannifin

04-19-2005, 03:04 PM

This world would be a better place if only the masters were allowed to criticize. But these days anyone thinks he is in a position to do that.
Well, film composers do not write their music for the masters, they write it for the general audience, so they better get used to being critiqued by them as well. Film scoring is not an area to be a creative individual, it's an area to sell your music commercially and make money. Of course, you can be creative if you want, but it's ultimately the audience, the general public, not the masters, that are paying your salary, so make sure it's the audiences you want to please the most.

Veron

04-19-2005, 03:24 PM

About Parallell fifth`s and octaves and so on,
I learned that its just a rule if you going for
a rich sound with few voices or instruments.
So its kind of a "How-to get a rich sound with few voices & intruments".
Well at least thats how I learned it ....

And thanks for the interesting interview, audiophile :)

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 03:26 PM

I have no desire to argue with you. All I'm saying is this: If Zimmer said something that you interpret as foolish, then fine, it was foolish and leave it at that.
If by "leaving it at that", you mean I oughtn't have commented on it at all in the first place, I have to ask, *why*? I made a fair and simple criticism, nevertheless, the republic will endure.

People make mistakes, and famous composers are no exception. In the larger view of Zimmer's career, one arguably foolish remark isn't worth getting so worked up about.
Well, I didn't get worked up about it. That's just your characterization, and an inaccurate one at that. What I get worked up at is the same attempts at manipulation I see from certain kinds of people that are too fragile to hear certain things said. Do I delude myself that there is any combination of words I can string together that will convince you otherwise? No, I do not.

You obviously have a pet peeve about "the attitude that some people are inexplicably above criticism - existing somehow on a plane of existence which precludes such criticism".
It's not a "pet peeve", it's a legitimate objection.

But since you admittedly have no need to malign the "totality of the person that is Hans Zimmer", then let it go, already. You even said, "At this point, it's not even about Zimmer's original statement anymore." Fine, then why pursue it further in a thread that is about Zimmer?
Well, who's the one "not letting it go"? I'm not pursuing anything other than this: if someone wants to offer a counter-argument based on what I *actually* said, then I'm all ears. But instead, what I see, yet again, is that the very *fact* of my having laid out a criticism in the first place has been mapped off into an area of questionable motivation. And trying to shut certain matters down, closed for discussion, is a form of intellectual fascism, and I'm not terribly fond of it. So, if you and the others truly don't want this to be pursued, then my best suggestion would be that you not pursue it. Why do you not understand that I haven't continued on yesterday's original point, but instead have only addressed a certain fallacious attitude which I find to be counterproductive, if not insulting. Is this yet another matter too sacred to speak of? I would be more than happy to be done with all this, but I'm not the one that needs to let it go. (Hint, hint.)

Lastly, yesterday I spoke up on your behalf when someone reworded your post in a derogatory fashion. Now I'm sorry I did.

Thanks, and bye.

Maraxalamanta

04-19-2005, 03:35 PM

Scottnorma, I think you're one of those people who simply cannot appreciate musical talent for what it really is. A raw undeveloped competence/inclination towards something of artistic nature. It is entirely up to the musician to choose how to develop these unique abilities. In many ways it is the natural purity of the path that Hans has chosen that really illustrates the limitations of his abilities, and he's not ashamed of that. Other people would hide behind "rules of music" and spend every chance they got to diss the "lesser" composers to boost their own ego. Music really isn't just about complexity, maths or rules. That would a certain musical style; The musical style that incorporates complexity, maths and rules. The analysts thrive with such music, but give them the love song from Titanic they would be at loss. "What's evoking all these emotions in this music?". Music can be so astonishingly simple, yet so immensely powerful, when written straight from the heart (Like Zimmer does) and the analyst will not be able to put his finger on anything and go "that's what's doing it.. the modulation from blah to blah and the change of timbre to blah and blah, and the brilliant rhythmical pattern and yadayadayada". Sometimes these people are at loss and that's when, in my opinion, you're faced with TRUE music. I'm not a Zimmer fan but I enjoy his music a lot. Of course you can criticise him for being simplistic etc. but you really can't argue with the fact that he HAS talent, his talent is GENUINE and he has used his abilities very well.

Btw, regarding the parallel 5ths that was obviously just an example of his lack of theory knowledge, and as for ripping off Holst: That's called musical evolution. You take something you like and turn it into something that has your personality to it. Out comes a fresh and original perspective on the music. Then someone with absolutely no knowledge of Gustav Holst hears Zimmers music and does the exact same thing. Out comes something that is even further away from the original piece. Musical evolution at its core. I doubt any composer could ever craft anything of significance without inspiration from other composers. And it's not like the Gladiator waltz is a complete note by note ripoff at ALL - it's clearly inspired by it, but it oozes Zimmer. That is a huge testament to his musical integrity.

Journeyman

04-19-2005, 04:05 PM

Scott,

All I see is someone who's all bent out of shape over relatively nothing; a subject that happened to touch upon one of your pet peeves, however legitimate it may be. Then when you're asked to see that for what it is, you get even angrier. Now you've let it snowball into a full blown tantrum. Are you enjoying this?

Lastly, yesterday I spoke up on your behalf when someone reworded your post in a derogatory fashion. Now I'm sorry I did. And I appreciated the backup, because you were right, at the time. But does that then obligate me to agree with everything you say from here on out? Don't worry; I have no allusions that I can get through to you, so I'm done fanning your flames. BTW, I doubt that you'll believe this (or anything else I have to say at this point), but I'm not a fan of Zimmer's at all. My tastes run along the lines of Claus Ogermann. But feel free to find fault with him too.....

josejherring

04-19-2005, 04:20 PM

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

audiophile

04-19-2005, 04:24 PM

Well, film composers do not write their music for the masters, they write it for the general audience, so they better get used to being critiqued by them as well.

Writing for one person, writing for millions, this is not the point.
The point is entirely: has the person who criticize the authority to do so?
What is the worth of a critique of someone who simply does not have a superior understanding of the subject. Just an expression of ego, hurting the creator - thats it.

Film scoring is not an area to be a creative individual, it's an area to sell your music commercially and make money. Of course, you can be creative if you want, but it's ultimately the audience, the general public, not the masters, that are paying your salary, so make sure it's the audiences you want to please the most.

One may like one thing not like another thing. There are different tastes in this world, of course. But my point is not about having different tastes but about people saying, this is bad, ugly, inferior ...without being in a position to found that judgement from the position of own mastership of the subject.

One may not like Zimmer's music, thats perfectly ok, but for someone not playing in Zimmer's professional league to say it is bad or inferior music is wrong, to express it mildly.

mbmb

04-19-2005, 04:36 PM

ok so what's the point ....

50% people will say Zimmer cant spell music

and the other 50 % will say Zimmer is music

WTF....this topic and a few others regarding boosting and bashing Zimmer gets boring...guys you made your points, now lets move on

Lets discuss something else like production tips he uses or why he is using Cubase and not protools or Nuendo and his new sample libraries and why he use 5 pc's on top of each other and his co-worker usu 10 pc's running giga at the same time.

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 04:40 PM

Scottnorma, I think you're one of those people who simply cannot appreciate musical talent for what it really is.
Be assured that what you think is at the very top of my list of concerns. And congratulations by the way on your uncanny abilitiy to size me up so accurately with nothing to go on. A unique talent of yours I would suppose.

...A raw undeveloped competence/inclination towards something of artistic nature. It is entirely up to the musician to choose how to develop these unique abilities.
When did I say otherwise? Quote me please.

Other people would hide behind "rules of music" and spend every chance they got to diss the "lesser" composers to boost their own ego.
This is probably true of some people. I've never personally known anyone like that, but the law of averages would lead me to believe that there are indeed some people out there like that. What I'm not clear on is how this is relevant in the present context. Now, if you're saying this applies to me, then I must again ask that you tell me specifically how I:

1) Hide behind the "rules of music". (Because in fact I did clearly say that there were *not* any rules of music, but merely principles.)
2) Spend every chance I get to diss the "lesser" composers to boost their own ego. (Not only are you wholly unaware of what I spend every chance doing about *anything*, but I never said he was a lesser composer on account of his statement. As for the "ego" part, you'll need to crawl inside my head and tell me how you were able to determine my true motivation.)

Music really isn't just about complexity, maths or rules.
Thank you for the lecture on what music is not about. But when did I say otherwise? Quote me please.

The analysts thrive with such music, but give them the love song from Titanic they would be at loss.
Well, first of all, I'm a composer, not an "analyst". Second of all, how many musicologists (analysts) do you actually know? I've known a number of them and what you have said here doesn't apply in the least to a single one. They became musicologists in the first place because of their love for music.

Music can be so astonishingly simple, yet so immensely powerful, when written straight from the heart.
When did I say otherwise? Quote me please. As for listening to music which would appear to be "simple" on the surface of things, I prefer Mozart's approach, or Faure, or any number of other composers, but that's just silly me.

......the analyst will not be able to put his finger on anything and go "that's what's doing it.. the modulation from blah to blah and the change of timbre to blah and blah, and the brilliant rhythmical pattern and yadayadayada".
What's this obsession of yours for denigrating musicology? Are you betraying your insecurities on the matter?

Of course you can criticise him for being simplistic etc. but you really can't argue with the fact that he HAS talent, his talent is GENUINE and he has used his abilities very well.
Again, I find myself at a loss. When, sir, did I criticize him for being "simplistic"? And when did I argue ANYTHING AT ALL about his talent? Geez! Can you please quote me on this?

Btw, regarding the parallel 5ths that was obviously just an example of his lack of theory knowledge, and as for ripping off Holst: That's called musical evolution.
One minute you're railing against musicology, the next minute you're lecturing me about music. Which is it!? As for this being called "musical evolution", well, I know a lift when I hear it. Musical evolution is The Well Tempered Clavier, Mozart's body of work, Beethoven's 6th and 9th, Symphonie Fantastique, Wagner's Musical Drama & chromaticism, Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun, Petrushka, Rite of Spring, et cetera and so forth. What musical evolution is decidedly not, is a blatant lift. Yes, I know, lifting is done all the time in film scores by many composers for various and sundry reasons, nevertheless, a lift is a lift is a lift.

And it's not like the Gladiator waltz is a complete note by note ripoff at ALL - it's clearly inspired by it, but it oozes Zimmer. That is a huge testament to his musical integrity.
Musical integrity in a lift? Where do I begin.

That is all. Thank you and goodbye.

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 04:47 PM

Scott,

All I see is someone who's all bent out of shape over relatively nothing; a subject that happened to touch upon one of your pet peeves, however legitimate it may be. Then when you're asked to see that for what it is, you get even angrier. Now you've let it snowball into a full blown tantrum. Are you enjoying this?
And I appreciated the backup, because you were right, at the time. But does that then obligate me to agree with everything you say from here on out? Don't worry; I have no allusions that I can get through to you, so I'm done fanning your flames. BTW, I doubt that you'll believe this (or anything else I have to say at this point), but I'm not a fan of Zimmer's at all. My tastes run along the lines of Claus Ogermann. But feel free to find fault with him too.....
Journeyman, I find it simply astonishing that you don't seem to have understood a single, solitary, word, I have said. But I had a very strong sense that this would indeed be the case. To quote my earlier post:

Do I delude myself that there is any combination of words I can string together that will convince you otherwise? No, I do not.

Journeyman

04-19-2005, 04:48 PM

So now that we're all in agreement that none of us are willing to agree, can we drop it already?:rolleyes:

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 05:01 PM

So now that we're all in agreement that none of us are willing to agree, can we drop it already?:rolleyes:
I'm elated that you're finally willing to drop it. Congratulations!

Evan Gamble

04-19-2005, 05:06 PM

GAWD DAMMIT I CANT TAKE IT ANYMORE..EVERYONE JUST COMPOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO AND LET PEOPLE LIKE WHAT THEY LIKE!

SeanHannifin

04-19-2005, 05:10 PM

Writing for one person, writing for millions, this is not the point.
The point is entirely: has the person who criticize the authority to do so?
What is the worth of a critique of someone who simply does not have a superior understanding of the subject. Just an expression of ego, hurting the creator - thats it.
He who listens has the authority to critisize. Music is not some secret language that only the elite can participate in. When a film composer composes, his music becomes a product for theater audiences. The music is meant for them. They should not have to train themselves in the language of music to be able to state whether or not they like it. And if a film comoser wants to sell his soundtracks, it is every potential buyer's authority to critique the music. I of course agree it's a waste of time to offer unconstructive criticism, but if that hurts the composer, he needs to suck it up and learn to get use to it.

One may not like Zimmer's music, thats perfectly ok, but for someone not playing in Zimmer's professional league to say it is bad or inferior music is wrong, to express it mildly.
And would it be equally just as wrong for someone not playing in his league to say it is wonderful, beautiful and compelling?

SeanHannifin

04-19-2005, 05:29 PM

By the way, off topic of these fun little arguments, whenever I read these kinds of interviews, I can't help but imagining I was being interviewed and I start to answer the questions myself. This is very annoying, because it's first of all not going to happen anytime soon, and it makes me waste a lot of time. Does this happen to just me? :D

Herman Witkam

04-19-2005, 05:48 PM

It doesn't make sense discussing harmony without keeping in mind that everyone has his own set of musical rules that he uses or ignores. I honestly don't care what some French guy called Jean Pierre Rameau thought in the 18th century or so. Those who appose may join the orthodox church of Harmony. Amen. :D

audiophile

04-19-2005, 06:09 PM

He who listens has the authority to critisize. Music is not some secret language that only the elite can participate in. When a film composer composes, his music becomes a product for theater audiences. The music is meant for them. They should not have to train themselves in the language of music to be able to state whether or not they like it. And if a film comoser wants to sell his soundtracks, it is every potential buyer's authority to critique the music. I of course agree it's a waste of time to offer unconstructive criticism, but if that hurts the composer, he needs to suck it up and learn to get use to it.

Made my point, nothing to add.

And would it be equally just as wrong for someone not playing in his league to say it is wonderful, beautiful and compelling?

It all burns down to the difference of personal taste and objective judgement.
Every expression of personal taste is natural - be to positive or negative: I like this, I dont like this.
All expressions of a more absolute nature should be left to the authorized - especially when used in the public - this is inferior, this is superior, this is bad, this is good.
You are right, to say "this is wonderful music" is an absolute statement, and according to my theory should not be used. In real life I use such expressions, because they put no harm to anyone.
I am sorry, it is getting a bit mental here. I just don't like this culture of critics we created which is so much harming creativity.

Maraxalamanta

04-19-2005, 06:33 PM

Scottnorma, easy easy... Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't mean to lecture you in any way. I was simply presenting a couple of viewpoints to everyone involved the discussion. I didn't expect you to take it personal. You've replied to most of my points in a condescending fashion as if I was addressing you specifically. I was NOT, so don't flatter yourself.

To answer the questions specifically pointed back at me:

I know several musicologists, having worked with quite a few of them myself and my impression differs quite a lot from yours. They became musicologists in the first place because of their love for music they found could be deconstructed by analysis. Their general conception of music is that it can all be broken down into theoretical explanation. Breaking down a Zimmer piece would never bode well with these people.

Let me ask you something, Scottnorma. You're saying the Gladiator Waltz is a complete ripoff or "lift" of Mars. In that respect you're also saying the Zimmer piece evokes the exact same emotions as the Holst piece. It's not in the same key, it's not in the same tempo, it's orchestrated totally different, it's got a completely different structure, style and most importantly "FEEL". In my ears the only thing that's similar is the motif, and quoting a motif (and being completely open and honest about it) does absolutely not qualify for the use of the words "lift"/"ripoff". If anything I'd use "homage". What exactly does it take to qualify in your opinion? You obviously disagree with a lot of people, but please explain in detail what it is that makes this such a blatant ripoff. Perhaps we can come to a better understanding of each others viewpoints and discuss this in a more civilized manner.

One more point that I'd like to make (although I'm not sure if it applies or not) - Zimmer probably engaged a musicologist to make sure his tribute to The Planets movement was "legit". Obviously they must have found the substantial lack of "musical rules" in Zimmers piece to throw it too far off track for a direct link between the two pieces to be made. I don't know, just speculating.

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 06:38 PM

Scottnorma, easy easy... Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I didn't mean to lecture you in any way.
Well, you began your post with my name. What was I supposed to think?

As for the rest of your last post, I'd rather just leave it at that and call it a day if you don't mind.

Thanks.

-Ed

04-19-2005, 06:40 PM

Ed, that other thread wasn't fundamentally about Zimmer, it was about *you*. You never really understood that, and I know you never really will. I only entered the fray when you had been repeatedly insulting Dave by calling him deaf, and then you followed that up with your statement that you would rather listen to Zimmer than Mozart, as well as revealing your fondness for Eminem.

No Scott, it was about Zimmer. I called Dave deaf because he thought the VSL mockup sounded more live and better than Zimmers live version, this has nothing to do with musical taste to which you falsely compared. When I said I would rather listen to Zimmer over Mozart it wasnt anything to do with the genius of Mozart. Dave said he likes to listen to some Linkin Park occasionally, and I find some things interesting about some Eminem songs (though I am hardly a fan). That was the problem. You misrepresented my position. I told you how, but you ignored it and continued saying the same thing anyway and I dare say you will do it again just like you also did it here.

And there, just like *here*, you never really understood what I was and was not saying, and I know you never will.

Actually I do understand.

Ed

scottnorma

04-19-2005, 06:43 PM

Ed, if it will help you out here, I'll just cede that pretty much everything you've ever said is right, brilliant, and spot-on.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm kind of busy this afternoon, so I don't really have time for you to put me in my place anymore. Let's let sleeping dogs lie, shall we?

Thanks.

-Ed

04-19-2005, 06:46 PM

Ed, if it will help you out here, I'll just cede that pretty much everything you've ever said is right, brilliant, and spot-on.

Yea, ok..That sure is an interesting way of avoiding it.

SeanHannifin

04-19-2005, 06:59 PM

It all burns down to the difference of personal taste and objective judgement.
Every expression of personal taste is natural - be to positive or negative: I like this, I dont like this.
All expressions of a more absolute nature should be left to the authorized - especially when used in the public - this is inferior, this is superior, this is bad, this is good.
You are right, to say "this is wonderful music" is an absolute statement, and according to my theory should not be used. In real life I use such expressions, because they put no harm to anyone.
I am sorry, it is getting a bit mental here. I just don't like this culture of critics we created which is so much harming creativity.
If a composer understands the subjectivity of music and opinions, then receiving an unconstructive negative comment should not harm him at all. Therefore, creativity is not harmed by negative opinions, it is harmed by over-sensitive artists.

Sorry it seems to sometimes get so mental in here, but I thank you for maintaining your professionality. :)