Posted on 04/05/2013 2:56:10 PM PDT by Perdogg
Warner Bros. is taking another stab at Superman with this summer’s Man of Steel, and on top of the pressure of delivering an entertaining and successful take on Supes in the wake of Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, the film also follows in the footsteps of Richard Donner’s iconic take on the character. Fans are crossing their fingers that director Zack Snyder has done Superman justice, but composer Hans Zimmer also has some big shoes to fill with regards to the pic’s score. John Williams’ classic theme from Superman is synonymous with the character, and so Zimmer tackles the challenge of crafting something entirely different for this new iteration of Superman.
(Excerpt) Read more at collider.com ...
Actually both Man of Steel and Into the Darkness OST are available for pre-order.
Zimmer produces some great coloring but I find his music lazy and directionless. Williams was just a talented plagiarist.
Wonder if this will be the superman that renounced his US citizenship.
I was hoping to talk about the music, not the movie.
It's not unusual for composers to be inspired by other composers, and even quote from them. Yes, I know about the E.T. theme and Dvorak's Dumky Trio. So, what? In his 15th Symphony, Shostakovich quotes both Rossini and Wagner.
Great composer. Blackhawk Down, Gladiator, and many others. He’s up there with Williams, Mancini and Morricone.
And even he was asked, by Sergio Leone, to write "Dimitri Tiomkin music" for A Fistful of Dollars.
I like Howard Shore as well - LOTR/Hobbit
“Qoutes”. Charming. I’ve never heard that. I believe your referring to what we called “phrased” when condensing to motif or phrase. Although no one would do it unless it was particularly witty or ironic. And you didn’t pull out a variation unless you had your game on.
Lifting a melody without credit is plagiarism and it makes you something I can’t type at FR.
And Shostakovich? Of course he did. Lol. I’d sooner sit through Bartok.
Which isn’t fair to Bartok, now that I think about it. I found his scores very structured. I just had to stop myself from hearing what I was seeing or I’d get annoyed.
Zimmer: “Everything’s tinged with irony and sarcasm and bitterness and darkness these days,” he said. But this Superman is something lighter, he said, “celebrating everything that was good and fine about America,” such as small towns “where people don’t lock their doors, neighbors get together, and families are families.”
I can’t wait!!!
“Lifting a melody without credit is plagiarism”
Mozart and Beethoven did this any number of times.
Mozart never wrote anything I found interesting and Beethoven was a dick - which pretty much covers the plagiarism in my mind.
But my god, that man could write in bursts. And the stuff he wrote that mattered was all him. How old are people in 5th grade? It must be almost 35 years since I first heard the tenor solo and I still haven’t found anything more demanding of my attention.
And actually, I forgot something. I don’t hold those guys to the same standard because you’re forgetting something: media.
I wrote a piece when I was 14 or so, and later on I started wondering if I had stolen it. If I’d heard it at a chamber music festival, or something. But then again, I thought it might be some something I wrote before I knew you could write down music....like 3rd or 4th grade. Because even now, I still remember a few of those.
But everything else I can keep straight....because I have recordings. It’s just that one damn piece that makes me crazy because I don’t know who wrote it: me or someone else.
Back then, they might hear a piece once and then go 20 years with their own junk in their head and suddenly have that melody come to mind disguised as their own creation. If they didn’t remember hearing that piece, they wouldn’t know the difference.
It would happen to me all the time if I’d lived back then.
Mozart knew perfectly well that he was using Clementi’s theme in the overture to The Magic Flute. Clementi knew it too. Beethoven used the opening of the Mozart 25th symphony in his first piano sonata. It’s obvious and was intentional. It was standard back then.Serious music isn’t about the material but what you do with it.
As for Mozart not writing anything to keep your interest...what music from the second half of the 18th century do you find interesting? Usually people who say that don’t like Gluck or Haydn either (they don’t like the period).
In case you’re wondering, I consider myself only a fan of classical and film music. In no way do I consider myself an expert, not even in my most drunken state.
I used the term “quotes” because it popped into my mind as being appropriate.
Also, I like some of the music of both Bartok and Shostakovich.
BTW, Borges knows what he’s talking about.
I’m sure you know more about that than I do. I just know what would happen with me. I first thought it with the 4th Movement of Beethovens 5th, the 1st of the 3rd Brandenburg and a piece by Vivaldi I can’t recall the name of....I think it’s somewhere in the Four Seasons. Anyway, It wasn’t worth lifting so I’ve always assumed it was the accident I described or coincidence. And then you see it everywhere.
Gluck...I don’t turn him off. Hayden though, is interesting. His writing’s fine but I find none of it compelling or exhilerating. Mostly he’s relaxing or, not there. I mean, it’s playing but I don’t hear it and I never fill in his blanks. And what’s really weird about Hayden is that I can’t remember any of his music. Literally nothing.
But then the next clown, Beethoven, I know all his symphonies....except for the movements where he was bored and getting it out of the way so he could get to what was interesting...to what he was seeing.
But serious music is........practice. Or showing off/one-upping....or trying to spark something. Or....just having no vision. Bartok’s a perfect example: terrific structure but you look at it and it’s gibberish. I always thought, “I hope this wasn’t what he was seeing.” But then again, maybe I just can’t understand what he saw. But that wouldn’t make sense because the structure’s there.
Anyway, once the vision starts, the serious stuff is over. The screwing around or dullness stops and gaps start opening. Like the Hallelujah chorus...it’s full of holes. Handel couldn’t get all of what he saw down on paper. So you can fill in parts he obviously missed...but of course, you’re only getting a better view. Only he got to see the whole thing.
The stuff that gets put on paper by composers - that’s widely compelling - is never what they saw. I feel bad for a lot of these guys because they missed out on recording equipment. On paper I never get close because it takes so long, and you lose it...or you end up with a variation of what you saw. But when you can improvise the piano part and then go back and do the flute and then the oboe and you know, drive down the staves, you get a lot closer. And it’s a blast. THEN, you get to hear it. Right now. And that’s.......I don’t know. There’s no describing that. It’s like trying to describe sex.
Huh. I’m just going off. Anyway. Whatever.
Mozart’s only problem was polyphony. He was barren in the middle. As opposed to Bach, who was so rich you can remove the melody and still have a coherent, fine piece of music.
“Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” is a great example. Remove the melody and slow it down, and it’s every bit as gorgeous as it is when performed normal in the cantata.
Well....according to the score, it is.
And Mozart’s jokes were....”Ya, I get it. I just wasn’t funny.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.