Notes in the Dark

Yeah, I know I’m supposed to be reviewing CDs but I just wanted to take this opportunity to kvetch a bit about scoring assignments — or rather, how scoring assignments are perceived by the fan community at large. Today we’ve got some wonderful news that David Shire’s score for Zodiac is coming out on Varese. (I just ordered Intrada’s The Hindenburg for old time’s sake, btw.) Over at FSM some are wondering why Howard “I Just Scored One of the Most Massively Successful Moneymaking Film Trilogies of All Time” Shore is not collaborating with David Fincher on this film. I honestly do not know the reason, but why do so few people speculate on one obvious factor in assignments… the money factor? Is it not a logical question to at least ask?
Everyone talks about “A-listers” but no one ever seems to speak openly about the fact that films actually have budgets and that that sometimes factors in to why this or that composer is, or isn’t used. For instance, in the ongoing Harry Potter saga where John Williams has now been replaced by two different composers of “lower standing,” I’ve been surprised that no one has noted that Williams is probably, uh, pretty expensive. I honestly don’t know how much that was a factor in him not doing the next Potter film, but the idea that any film producer would automatically hire Williams for a production if he were available, seems naive.

A long time ago I talked about the concept of the Golden Ghetto: a phenomenon where talented composers become in demand enough to command A-list commissions (and, if you read this previous post on the budget for The Village, those commissions can be lucrative indeed), but paradoxically, the only budgets that can afford the A-listers are ones for films that appeal to the least common denominator (derivative blockbusters and the like). The composer gets more money to hire a big orchestra, which would seem to promise more opportunity for quality and creativity, but may run into enough creative edicts from above and time constraints that cancels out the luxuries that such a budget affords.

Just saying: It isn’t always about schedule conflicts.

Wow, sometimes it seems all I do is post obituaries.  Another talented composer, Shirley Walker, has passed on suddenly.  Before Debbie Wiseman came along, Walker was virtually the only female composer who got any attention from the 99%-male film score crowd, probably because she scored the kinds of movies and TV shows they thought were important.  She never did get a very big shake in Hollywood, unfortunately, which was very unfair.

Mikael Carlsson has passed along confirmation from the studio that Nick Hooper will indeed be scoring the next Harry Potter.

Pardon my snark, but the dismissive attitude that people had about news of this assignment (which should not have come as a shock) really bugged the crap out of me. "Oh, the studio will never agree…" "I'm sure his score will be thrown out…" Is it so hard for people to understand that maybe, just maybe, someone doesn't want to work with John Williams when they have their own composer? And that (gasp!) the studio might agree? What is the world coming to when we'll be forced to listen to and discuss more than the same five composers???

Sorry - I love it when the little guy gets a chance and it confounds the know-it-alls.

There's a debate going on at FSM today about the use of pencil vs. keyboard in film composing and if it's killing film composers' voices, etc.

In a previous post, I complained about Chandos’ film music series adopting goofy “theme” cover art in an attempt to dazzle soundtrack collectors. Okay, so I was wrong. When it’s the sort of cover I like, it’s a good idea. Seriously, all you have to do is show me a film music CD with a Spitfire on the cover, and a little drop of drool starts to form at the corner of my mouth.

The Chicago Tribune has a nice big article today about how iTunes is in some ways a shot in the arm for the soundtrack business (depends on how you look at it, I suppose).