HANS ZIMMER

The thing for me about that paragraph was, at first glance it sounds very fact-driven, objective journalism. He seems to strictly refer to elements that can be checked and he doesn't use words that overtly relate to subjectivism. However, you feel like it's coming from a negative place immediately. He's not really objectively describing Zimmer, he's criticising him. However, he still tries to hide this criticism within an academic piece of writing.

What tips me off? It starts with him pointing out Zimmer "doesn't have virtuosic ambitions", which is value-based, by the way, because what is the definition of "virtuosic"? It means: skill, or artistic excellence, and Zimmer is certainly experimenting and trying to improve, just in other ways than the classical sense. But it's clear he means to use "virtuoso" in that classical sense, or his phrasing would have no basis or would be in need of clarification. This betrays where he's coming from.

He goes on to state he "writes simple chord progressions", "no contrapuntal writing or use of inner voices". It's these writing techniques that are utilised by a composer like John Williams, and therefore it apparently should also be utilised by a composer like Hans Zimmer? He's not saying this, because he's 'academic', but he makes sure it's there between the lines. The reader is required to fill this in for themselves. Why point it out otherwise?

Maybe Zimmer did make use of these techniques somewhere in his career, maybe he didn't, but if he did or not is not really the point. It's how he feels the need to point this out, combined with generalisations ("he seems to be more of a producer or coordinator than a composer") which suggests towards Hans Zimmer not composing his own scores, while this is easily proven as false, but is also a go-to thing from his criticisers. Meanwhile, he's sticking to his action music, even though Zimmer has composed many outside of the genre, with many a work not within what he's describing, so it's a very limited description, one that doesn't represent Zimmer's output as a whole. It's a generalisation to the point of caricature, and that's precisely what all the detractors have done about Zimmer in the past. So no, it's nothing new, and that's probably the point.

Great post, BobdH, I agree that perhaps the author should have avoided the criticisms about him acting more as a producer. There's debate to be held on that topic, but he makes it sound like an empirical fact.

I only contest your idea that saying Zimmer doesn't have virtuoso pretensions is some kind of terrible criticism, and your idea that the "writing simple chord progressions" and "no contrapuntal writing" is any kind of false statement. I don't view this as objective because I agree with it, I view it as subjective because Zimmer himself has admitted this.

"I write stupidly simple music — there isn't a theme I've written you can't play with one finger on the piano" - Zimmer.

Of course, he's known for being self-deprecating.

Well, if you know Zimmer's view on his own music, and his personality, you'd also know that what he says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. He almost appears desperately humble and self-deprecating on occasion (much like Elfman, in fact). You only need to look at his work yourself to see that there's far more to it than 'simple chord progressions'. He also has plenty of contrapuntal writing.

But if 'complexity' is one's be-all, end-all criterion for music, Zimmer's modus operandi -- or type of complexity -- is different than that of Williams. That's a given. Which makes it absurd to compare to the two on the same terms.

My point here is: the statement is value-based and it's false. You can certainly make a strong case for Zimmer being virtuosic in his electronic experimentation, for example, but he once again points it out as empirical fact. You could only do so, if your reading of the term "virtuosic" would be in the tradition of classical orchestral composers. Because I'm more inclined to go with the sentiment that Zimmer doesn't have ambitions to go into that direction (anymore?).



Well, I do have to say I don't necessarily argue with the statement, and there's a debate to be had over it. Zimmer also comes from the idea that, the simpler a theme is, the more easy it sticks in the head, the better you can memorise it. And there's certainly something to be said about it. However, like Thor says, there's so much more to his music than just a bunch of simple themes. It's lazy to leave it at that and write his career off as someone who writes simple themes, without context. Then you're just looking for ways to criticise, and you're not being objective. Or, indeed, academic.

Oh, and may I suggest this piece as a fine backdrop to this discussion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39TD8x … CE5299AECF

I think that's an interesting case, because you can see how Zimmer is attempting to incorporate Spanish music with the Flamenco guitar/chord progressions, while still fusing it with his aggressive, bass-string chopping. I think its a microcosm of what makes Zimmer's music unique; he's always taken a genre and merged it with his own sensibilities to create something new. Thanks for the link, great piece!



That chapter was just about the future of the neoclassical style...it wasn't comparing Zimmer to anyone.

My mistake then.

Yeah, through the early 2000s, he wrote probably his best stuff!

No, I never said that. That's a strawman. There are plenty of recurrent features in Zimmer's music that are worth pointing out; and different "trends" in different periods for the years he's been active. What I refute is a veiled value judgement behind seemingly factual observations, and a comparison based on false equivalence.

No, you can't come to that conclusion based on those words. What gave you the impression that I had anything against identifying trends and sounds in a composer's music? What relevance does that have to "veiled value judgement behind seemingly factual observations, and a comparison based on false equivalence"?



I don't even know what that means, or its relevance. I've explained plenty of times why I don't like those two composers.

I think you're now confusing a piece striving for academic objectivity and the arguing of the fallacy (or not) of its arguments, versus the opinions of an individual on a message board?

As I said earlier, what or how he describes his own music is really irrelevant. Nobody (except maybe Leonard Rosenman, bless his soul) would describe their music as complex and extremely sophisticated.

I react negatively to the word 'simplistic' because a) it's a negative word to begin with, and b) it is in no way representative of Zimmer's music. It is not one of those 'recurrent features' I would list in an attempt to 'summarize' his work, as you say.

I react negatively to the word 'simplistic' because a) it's a negative word to begin with, and b) it is in no way representative of Zimmer's music. It is not one of those 'recurrent features' I would list in an attempt to 'summarize' his work, as you say.

Okay, thanks for the explanation. So, looking back at the actual quote, do you disagree that Zimmer's music is essentially techno/rock fused with orchestra?

But, in general?

I've never liked the term 'neo-classical' as it's rather vacant in meaning. I much prefer neo-romantic, which has more specific meaning relating to late 19th century musical styles. It's definitely appropriate to use 'neo-romantic' as a term for much of Williams' output, although I always start my Williams lectures by saying he's certainly about more than that. It's more of the stereotypical or 'clichéed' view of him.