[Closed] HANS ZIMMER

Well, it has heart too.

Southall's reviewed it!

Extract from the SHERLOCK HOLMES review over at soundtrack.net

(review here http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/databa … age=review)

"In the interview mentioned above, Zimmer says that he has given up on large orchestras because it puts a blanket over the music. Music can still sound massive without being massive, while bringing out solo performances as individuals make their instruments sing. Zimmer found his favorite soloists and went from there so the score would feature the emotion of the players in ways a large ensemble cannot."

(interview here http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2009/12/16/ex … ck-holmes/)

So, this is the stuff we are going to be getting from him from now on? (although one cannot trust his sayings a lot, remember when he said he was going to take a year or two off?)

Exactly. What an odd comment. By that standard, Wagner must have been the worst composer ever.

Over the movie. not over the music.

I think I know where he's coming from and, coming from his lack of musical education, stating it this way is somewhat unfortunate.

I think that he (right now, it may be a phase as he said with Daniel Schweiger, it's just another reinvention after he got bored with his recent ideas) says that you can get massive emotions with a set of soloists with a personal touch (like the Triology in Sherlock Holmes) and with big orchestras you lose the "personal" touch (string analogy would be the best - 50 violins sounding in unison).

He'll get over in two years, when he'll be asked to do some epic and agrees for it. Angels and Demons had 32 pieces only though.

Well, that depends on multiple other aspects, doesn't it? The quality of the thematic material, the composition itself, approach to the movie. The recipe itself has nothing wrong in it.

No, I think what he says is that smaller ensembles and soloists let him more precisely influence the final performance and sound of he score, or to rephrase, he is more secure and sure that the score will sound finally how he wants it to sound (knowing the soloists' styles he can pick Triology for a comedy/quirky score and Joshua Bell for something like Angels and Demons or, had he scored it, Defiance).

Well, Pirates 3 seems to actually have a huge ensemble and Spanglish list over 120 performers, as I once counted with a friend.

I must say that the attacks on Zimmer's versatility annoy me. He is so easy to attack, since he has no formal education and has a different approach to other. It's easy to name as a wrong one. Anyone can say that. What we tend to forget is that cinema has changed too in the recent years and Zimmer's style fits the modern filmmaking more than Rozsa or Tiomkin, how much I love them. In fact, of Golden Age, I believe that the only composer that would make it today very well, would be Bernard Herrmann. Nobody tries to see things from his point of view and nobody wonders what is he asked for. Thus, when Zimmer does the same, he's attacked. When Zimmer tries something new, he is attacked. I know that a lot of people (some on this very board too) would want Hans Zimmer to finally die (I am NOT aiming it at anyone personally) or get something debilitating that would make it impossible for him to make music anymore, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. It's easy to make jokes about him or stuff. Sometimes his music is not good, sometimes it is very bad even (Toys, King Arthur, Madagascar, Shark Tale, Modern Warfare 2), but first, except some projects (yes, I would add King Arthur here), Zimmer genuinely tries to give something to the films he scores. So cut the guy some slack and try to find something effective not only say he sucks, because he is Hans Zimmer

Sorry for that rant, but this has annoyed me for a while. On my website there was a discussion on the forum that in 10 years, Zimmer and Thomas Newman are finished and the biggest name will be Brian Tyler. With all due respect, I'd pick Zimmer any day over Tyler.

It's amazing to me that people still think Zimmer writes traditional orchestral music and that he should be judged thereafter, when he has - in fact - never written a traditional orchestral score in his life. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Just because he uses orchestral elements as colourization in a prog rock idiom doesn't mean he should be judged the same way we do Stravinsky, Bach and John Williams.

Add Radio Flyer, The Prince of Egypt and Invincible (although this one may be Badelt´s work?) to the list.

Still, I see Thor´s point of view. Zimmer, as traditional as he tries to be with his works (the ones we´ve mentioned for instance) has always that thing that makes it Zimmerish, if you know what I mean.

His education is immaterial to me, whether his approach is similar to others is immaterial to me. Danny Elfman has no formal education and I think he's brilliant. Ennio Morricone has a different approach to others and I think he's brilliant. The proof is in the pudding. If he's easy to attack, it's because people don't like his approach to film music. No more, no less.

I don't agree here. Why the hell did Horner have to refer to Zimmer in Avatar? I don't think that is an accident. Zimmer is not limited, because he treats orchestra as an instrument, but because he can't fully work in the orchestral idiom. Still, I would hire Hans Zimmer for every movie I'd make. Seriously. Another thing I am very sure of is that James Horner would get fired on day one. I usually like composers' approaches to film (how I would love Carter Burwell to get something like Kingdom of Heaven, Broughton do more work, I love Desplat's approach), but Horner is the person in Hollywood I trust the least.

The reason why I'd want Zimmer to work for me on practically everything is The Thin Red Line. Did you expect this from Zimmer? A largely organic score for an off-beat war drama? (let's not discuss the greatness and uniqueness of The Thin Red Line, which happens to be my all-time favourite movie). He was pushed forward by Malick to bring in his best work ever. Horner would be capable of doing it? No. Because he fails to communicate. Would Zimmer do a great score to Apocalypto? Yes, I think so. With Horner's approach - for sure (I wouldn't give him Braveheart though, so don't think I'm an idiot, which I guess you already do. Though GIbson was an idiot there. Reportedly said that he wants Horner to give him electronics and choir, to which Horner said "No, you don't". And the rest is history).

I don't think it's Zimmer's fault in the end when it comes to some projects. The success of the music isn't with Zimmer about his limits or not (if he is so limited, why then he is so hired? It's more than the popularity, did Zimmer have a commercial success with any of his Ridley Scott collaborations before Gladiator? Well no, those scores still don't have an official release in full, except four tracks on Black Rain and a 5 minute suite of Thelma and Louise). He gave Scott what Scott wanted. I actually think Zimmer's scores for Ridley are his most effective in the film (with his comedies, Lion King, Prince of Egypt, Crimson Tide and Driving Miss Daisy, why nobody talks about this one?). Zimmer either cares for his projects or he does not. He cared for Da Vinci Code (directed by Ron Howard, not entirely famous for his narrative subtlety), The Last Samurai (Zwick, also not famous for that, in fact the score would have worked much better if the final scenes were left unscored, something I blame on Zwick, not Zimmer), Frost/Nixon, the Batman movies (you don't agree for Zimmer's convention, that's what the director wanted and I agree with that approach, except final minutes of Dark Knight, which ended up too intense in the movie), Spanglish and a few others (Matchstick Men and Black Hawk Down for sure). So yeah, you can blame Zimmer for everything, which you do. He's so easy to pick on, but MAYBE it's not all HIS fault?