• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    It's kinda funny how any analysis of Zimmer is automatically treated as a negative one, despite the fact, that once again...there's hardly anything negative in that paragraph aside from his proposition that "the results are quite effective but sound similar to one another.

    Do we have to judge Zimmer to a lower standard? Seriously, you'd think I'd posted a paragraph calling Zimmer, a 'typical, commercialized product of this blathering, mindless generation'.

    I mean...

    Sneering at self taught amateurs is intellectual arrogance...
    The author sounds like a Williams fanboy
    but to state that Williams' method of composition is the prime example of how to score filmmusic and then point out how other composers don't match that standard, is unfair and unacademic...You just expect an academic to be above this. (exactly when did he say this?)

    I hope I'm using the word "ironic" correctly, when I say that it's ironic everyone's criticizing a paragraph for not backing up sources...by attacking the paragraph for things it doesn't say.

    @Thor specifically: I think there's a difference between making an unprofessional value judgement about a composer (i.e: his music is bad), and, later on in a book, during a section devoted to the future of film music, writing a brief summary of a composer based primarily off personal observations. Zimmer is the focus of a single paragraph in the book. Primarily because his assertions, such as "no contrapuntal writing" are assertions about the lack of something, not the existence of something, I think it's unfair to demand he backs up every one, as to provide proof would be to go through every single track Zimmer's ever written and prove there's not a single instance of contrapuntal writing, whereas you could easily refute it by showing an example. That seems a little overbearing, to demand that you can't talk about a composer unless you're willing to go through his entire catalogue of music to back up every point. Do you have an example of Zimmer's contrapuntal writing? I'm sure he's done it once or twice.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    What Bob said. Could it be that you perceive is as objective statements, because you lean towards Emilio's evaluative stance on Zimmer, Aidabaida? For me -- who's read my fair share of academic prose over the years (both good and bad) -- the criticism and rhetorical fallacies in the paragraph are fairly transparent.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    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. tongue
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  1. I already thought I was imagining things but Bob read the quote exactly the way I did.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    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. 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.


    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.
    I am extremely serious.
  2. Aidabaida wrote

    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.


    That's fine and dandy. It's what I mean when I called Zimmer the rock star of film music. But doesn't that render the (btw arbitrary) comparison between Williams and Zimmer trivial? It's like stating that Beethoven's 9th is better than Jackson's Thriller.
    I wouldn't compare Zimmer to classical trained symphonic composers but rather to the big names of electronic music. He stands tall and proud in their company.

    Volker
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    I only contest your idea that saying Zimmer doesn't have virtuoso pretensions is some kind of terrible criticism,


    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?).

    Aidabaida wrote
    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.


    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.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Thor wrote

    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.


    I actually edited my post to add that yes, he is self-deprecating.

    But is he wrong? Is it actually negative? I don't think there's anything inherently bad about simple music, and I don't think the quote says there's anything bad about it. Is your argument that "Zimmer's music isn't simplistic?" or "Zimmer's music is simplistic, but that's not bad." Or is it somewhere in between?

    It seems to me that whenever someone points out the simplicity in Zimmer's music, the assumption is that this is some elitist attacking his music... I think Zimmer is a simplistic composer, but I love everything he's written except his more recent 2010 stuff. Because simplicity isn't a bad thing...it's just a tool.

    But doesn't that render the (btw arbitrary) comparison between Williams and Zimmer trivial?


    That quote didn't mention Williams...

    I still think that, aside from two cues ("Coward" in Interstellar and the Gladiator Waltz), this quote His idiom can be recognized by simple motifs characterized by hompohony, basic chord progressions, no contrapuntal writing or use of inner voices, synthesizer pads as harmonic backing for the acoustical instruments, a pounding rhythmic section, and overwhelmingly low frequencies. Like techno music, all these elements have a strong, visceral, and immediate impact on the listener. is still accurate. I'm interested in what you are thinking of when you say, There's far more to it than 'simple chord progressions'. He also has plenty of contrapuntal writing."

    Specifically in his recent stuff like Dunkirk, I'd totally agree that there aren't simple chord progressions...occasionally there's no progressions at all (i.e. Supermarine). tongue
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Oh, and may I suggest this piece as a fine backdrop to this discussion? tongue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39TD8x … CE5299AECF
  3. That quote didn't mention Williams...


    I thought the book was all about Williams.
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    BobdH wrote
    Oh, and may I suggest this piece as a fine backdrop to this discussion? tongue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0YkCSjYqd4


    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!

    Captain Future wrote

    I thought the book was all about Williams.


    That chapter was just about the future of the neoclassical style...it wasn't comparing Zimmer to anyone.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    BobdH wrote
    Oh, and may I suggest this piece as a fine backdrop to this discussion? tongue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0YkCSjYqd4


    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!


    It's also an example of a more elaborate theme written by Zimmer, contrapunted (?) by the string-like writing, which then goes on into its own theme. wink
  4. Aidabaida wrote

    Captain Future wrote

    I thought the book was all about Williams.


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


    Aidabaida wrote
    I recently picked up a book called "John Williams's Film Music", which is essentially a scholarly deconstruction of John's neoclassical style, with a whole chapter devoted to analyzing Raiders of the Lost Ark.


    My mistake then. smile
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    But is he wrong? Is it actually negative? I don't think there's anything inherently bad about simple music, and I don't think the quote says there's anything bad about it. Is your argument that "Zimmer's music isn't simplistic?" or "Zimmer's music is simplistic, but that's not bad." Or is it somewhere in between?


    Neither. He's simple when he needs to, and complex when he needs to. There are pluses with both, depending on project. What I refute is the entire simple-complex spectrum in this particular context. It doesn't make sense to use it when the two comparative sizes operate with different ways of realizing simplicity and complexity.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    BobdH wrote

    It's also an example of a more elaborate theme written by Zimmer, contrapunted (?) by the string-like writing, which then goes on into its own theme. wink


    Yeah, through the early 2000s, he wrote probably his best stuff!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Thor wrote
    Neither. He's simple when he needs to, and complex when he needs to. There are pluses with both, depending on project. What I refute is the entire simple-complex spectrum in this particular context. It doesn't make sense to use it when the two comparative sizes operate with different ways of realizing simplicity and complexity.


    So you think it's inherently fallacious to try to summarize Zimmer's work? Or to try to find a single thread running through most of his music?

    Might be an obvious metaphor, but in math there's the 'line of best fit', and to draw it, you ignore (or give less attention) to the outliers.

    I don't think that, if I said, "John Williams writes primarily symphonic music", you would throw "Heartbeeps" at me, and say I'm wrong.

    Do you think that Zimmer is so diverse a composer that it's just pointless to attempt a summary?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    So you think it's inherently fallacious to try to summarize Zimmer's work? Or to try to find a single thread running through most of his music?


    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.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Thor wrote

    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.


    It's not a strawman; it's a question. You wrote, What I refute is the entire simple-complex spectrum in this particular context and He's simple when he needs to, and complex when he needs to., which led me to wonder if you are solely against the "Zimmer is a simplistic composer" language, or if you are against all attempts at summarizing someone's work. In hindsight, given your views on Giacchino and Desplat, I should've known you have nothing against sweeping generalizations.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    It's not a strawman; it's a question. You wrote, What I refute is the entire simple-complex spectrum in this particular context and He's simple when he needs to, and complex when he needs to., which led me to wonder if you are solely against the "Zimmer is a simplistic composer" language, or if you are against all attempts at summarizing someone's work.


    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"?

    In hindsight, given your views on Giacchino and Desplat, I should've known you have nothing against sweeping generalizations.


    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 am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    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 didn't come to a conclusion, that's why I asked a question. Your words, He's simple when he needs to, and complex when he needs to made me wonder if you are against all attempts to summarize a composer's work, or if you just rejected the concept of summarizing Zimmer as simplistic.

    See, I've tried to debate before with people who had such radically different ways of approaching music that a discussion was almost impossible, and I find that if I even think someone I'm debating might be looking at this from an angle incompatible with mine, I should try to rectify that first so that we both agree on the basic building blocks of our arguments.

    I wanted to make sure you weren't the type of person who would never be happy with any kind of summary. In hindsight, given that you often summarize the music of composers you dislike (such as Giacchino as "wallpaper"), I should've known that was a silly question.

    ...so now that we've established you have nothing against summarizing or identifying trends in Zimmer's work, tell me, why do you react so negatively against calling his music simplistic, when he himself admits that?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    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?
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    I wanted to make sure you weren't the type of person who would never be happy with any kind of summary. In hindsight, given that you often summarize the music of composer's you dislike (such as Giacchino as "wallpaper"), I should've known that was a silly question.


    You should perhaps tread a bit more carefully since you're new to these forums, and perhaps not privvy to all the previous discussions. When I first started disliking Giacchino and Desplat several years ago, I went into more detail as to why. But later, once it had been established and pretty much everyone knew my stance, shorthand descriptions work best. Like when we do the "NP" posts. Would be a hassle if we couldn't employ just a sentence or two to convey our thoughts. This is the place to do generalizations. An academic text -- like the one you quoted -- is not, especially not when they are either false/uninformed. Big difference.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    ...so now that we've established you have nothing against summarizing or identifying trends in Zimmer's work, tell me, why do you react so negatively against calling his music simplistic, when he himself admits that?


    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 am extremely serious.
  5. Aidabaida, there IS a difference between "simplistic" and "simple", the latter not being a loaded word.

    Hans is an insanely modest person. He might not be that great with reading notation, but I know he: a) can follow a full score during recording session; b) can make specific remarks to a specific part and change dynamics and even articulation during redording, referring to a specific bar. So his sheet music reading is effective enough.

    To the overall discussion of trends, I haven't read the John Williams book, but I am not quite sure I'd dub Williams' style neoclassical as it's also potentially simplifying Williams' very output. Can you or Thor elaborate why is Williams dubbed neoclassical? Is that just because he writes for a full orchestra? Because he features actual themes?
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    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?
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017 edited
    PawelStroinski wrote
    To the overall discussion of trends, I haven't read the John Williams book, but I am not quite sure I'd dub Williams' style neoclassical as it's also potentially simplifying Williams' very output. Can you or Thor elaborate why is Williams dubbed neoclassical? Is that just because he writes for a full orchestra? Because he features actual themes?


    Complicated question....actually the whole book is an attempt to define the boundaries and features of that style :P
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBobdH
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    But, in general? wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    Aidabaida wrote
    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?


    As I said, I've rarely (if ever) heard much of techno in Zimmer's music. Techno is a specific subgenre of EDM, and he's not really ventured into that territory much. There are rock elements, for sure, and he often treats the orchestra more as a singular instrument for colourization, especially whenever there is an intended 'blend' of the two.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2017
    PawelStroinski wrote
    To the overall discussion of trends, I haven't read the John Williams book, but I am not quite sure I'd dub Williams' style neoclassical as it's also potentially simplifying Williams' very output. Can you or Thor elaborate why is Williams dubbed neoclassical? Is that just because he writes for a full orchestra? Because he features actual themes?


    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.
    I am extremely serious.