[Fmpro] catagories/vocabulary

[bipcress@comcast.net]

"My theory is that there are so many textural composers out there that 
couldn't write a melody to save their lives, that they've created a low 
musical standard in which others must pull themselves down to, to sound 
contemporary."  -  Something tells me, Andrew, that with the above words of 
wisdom you have pointed me in the right direction as regards an effective 
analysis of just how/why film music went into the toilet starting in the 
80s. "Textural composers" - so those are the bastards I need to wish dead! I 
tend to think of them as the "droning, moaning, noisy, fragmented, aimlessly 
meandering and meaningless composers". - JohnB

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andrew feazelle" <andrew.feazelle at gte.net>
To: <fmpro at nxport.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 4:22 PM
Subject: [Fmpro] catagories/vocabulary


> My last go 'round, after turning in a few title alternatives, they said 
> they wanted something "stark".  In fact they wanted the whole score 
> "stark".  They also wanted an orchestral sound with piano (with strings 
> gently in the background).  Some cues they wanted "builds" (and though i'm 
> still not 100% clear on what a "stark" score is, i'm somewhat sure 
> creating builds using an orchestra contradicts it).  Eventully, i found 
> what they liked was small piano chords (3 or 4 voices at most, no motion, 
> or as little motion as possible), one or two melodic voices (such as a 
> clarinet and a flute), no orchestration for full string section (they only 
> liked when vln 1, 2 and viola were playing; some cues with cellos and 
> basses, no matter how dynamically light, were rejected).  Of course, there 
> were times where i went a bit farther than the above, similar to how an 
> enslaved animal will "test" and electric fence, with hope of escape in 
> mind.
>
> Also, my 1st set of two or three title alts. were rejected for being too 
> "perfect" sounding (i write well crafted melodic music influenced by 20th 
> century english pastoral composers).  They wanted something "rough" 
> sounding, but still "lyrical" and "pretty".  My theory is that there are 
> so many textural composers out there that couldn't write a melody to save 
> their lives, that they've created a low musical standard in which others 
> must pull themselves down to, to sound contemporary.
>
> So "stark", "rough", "lyrical", "pretty", "builds"................pretty 
> ambiguous (perhaps "lyrical" is not).  I propose an abbreviation of the 
> set: "strkrflyrptyblds".  Not to be confused with "strdrlyrptydrms", which 
> is of course string pad swells, as lyrical and pretty as you can get, with 
> storm drums.   That should clear things up.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That's all kind of obvious stuff but anyway how much is there some
> kind of standardized or commonly used vocabulary, including common
> abbreviations? I was thinking there must be a collection of these
> terms somewhere (well not in a book that I know), can you give me a
> hint?
>
> Thanks
>
> Uli
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine - 
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>
> Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes site  by Billy Hale 
> Music
>
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
>