- This topic is empty.
- Posts
A very nice gathering of film composers (Shore, Rahman, Kaczmarek, Desplat AND our own Elfman):
Great interview!
Had the interview continued, Elfman’s next comment would have been: “So, have fun doing ‘Ed Wood,’ asshole!”
To which Shore would have replied: “Yes, how was ‘Mars Attacks!,’ douche!”
Nah, without hearing the tone of the dialogue, the text can be misleading. Anyway, I don’t understand Shore’s point. Here it is again:
Elfman: The best music is often done on the lower budgets. Look at the dozen best scores of the year. Very often — not always, but often — they are the little films that tend to come out at the end of the year where the music is allowed to shine.
Shore: I tend to disagree with that, I must say. I think the quality of recordings is being affected by the budgets. There are budgets that are required to achieve a certain quality in the studio. We shouldn’t be trying to do things with less and less money.
So the more money you put into the score, the better it is? How the heck does that effect the writing?
I don’t understand Shore’s logic, but I highly doubt he and Elfman were having it out with each other.
I’ve heard Elfman make that comment before, and he’s right: the cheaper the movie, the less sound effects there are, and the less the studio meddles with the score, since there isn’t as much money ridding on the score, whereas, if a movie with a huge budget like King Kong doesn’t sound enough like the temp, they might have to let the composer go, let’s call him Howard Shore, and then hire James Newton Howard.
Well, I can see where Shore’s coming from. Some directors like to keep the score budget way low, and sometimes won’t even hire an actual orchestra. Then, the entire score is sample-based, which is NEVER as good as the real thing. You also have to take into account the pressures from ignorant directors/producers that want nothing more than a temp track. That happens on ALL budgets. I think it mainly comes down to the filmmakers, ultimately. If the filmmakers are intent on having a quality, unique score, the budget will reflect that, independent or not.
Well, both men are speaking about total different things… Elfman is talking about the approach, and the way a score can shine when sound effects don’t ruin everything…
On the other hand, Shore is talking about the quality of the recordings…They’re not talking about the same thing… A score can be AMAZING, even if, sadly, the recording quality is poor. But money and a good recording will never change a crappy score into a wonderfull piece…!
I’d like to know precisely how many films Howard Shore has been hired to score only to find out that the entire music budget only allows for synths. I’ll bet it’s 0. The music budget, including composer’s fee, on a middle-priced feature is $600,000. I don’t think Shore has worked for that little in at least 10 years!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.