Big Cues Small Cues

April 7, 2013 Alain Mayrand Composer Relations, Composition, Director's POV Leave a comment  

837127_question_markIn a film there are cues that are meant to carry more of the scene and others which are truly background cues, transitional in nature and potentially less interesting musically. This is something we all know, but recently I found another reason to be aware of this I had not previously considered. But first, let’s discuss a few obvious reasons this affects your process of composition.

Knowing which cues are prominent and which ones aren’t is important for understanding the musical (and dramatic) pacing of the film. The first rule of Art is Contrast after all, and you can’t go full throttle  all the time either. For proper storytelling with music you need  to build to the pay-off, you need the calm before he storm etc… I expect this is all pretty straight forward right?

This is useful to keep in mind when composing for a few reasons. First the most obvious ones:

  1. You build your themes based on the moments when they are at their most prominent in the film and then work backwards from there, de-constructing them for placement in other scenes, before or after the big statement(s).
  2. Writing the music for the big pay-off moments first, gives you a goal to shoot for musically. Having a goal to shoot for makes it  much easier to plan the pacing of musical materials, form, orchestration etc…

This is all good, but on a recent project I realized something else about this whole thing…

Directors can’t see into the future.

Directors can’t read minds.

So I might be writing some cue with the goal in mind of creating the calm ‘before the storm”, slowing building, pacing myself before the pay-off in the next cue or the cue after that.

And then I present this transitional cue to the director and for them it’s just boring. I explain that there will be a big moment and they say.

“Right. Well, I don’t really know where it’s going yet so let’s wait until you send that over then we’ll see.”

And this makes total sense because they can’t predict what you are going to write by seeing into the future or reading your mind.

Furthermore, first impressions being what they are, the director’s impression is that this music is boring. With some directors this is not a problem, they might be able to take that leap of imagination with you. But for the other 50% off directors (the more technically minded ones) you are better off not relying on their imagination.

The solution it seems to me is to wait a bit longer before you send off any music and combine multiple cues if needed in order present the whole sequence including the big moment / pay-off. This will allow the director to get a sense of the whole, including pacing and all that, and make a much stronger first impression for the music.

Or write the pay-off first and present that first, then work backwards to build to it. This will depend on the music and your work process for these cues though, but it has a lot of impact when you present your ideas. This has the benefit of being a less time-consuming approach that allows to quickly see how the director reacts to the important musical moment. Then you can work back from it with more confidence.

And now everyone wins.

-Alain


Action / Reaction – How to Hit Action in a Natural Way

July 9, 2012 Alain Mayrand Aesthetics, Case Studies, Composition, Music and Story, Scene Analysis, Scoring Process, Sound vs Score Leave a comment  

In visual arts, music and film, we relate most everything to our own own human experience. Things make sense to us when it relates to what we know, and that’s our own minds and bodies. This makes sense right?

So when scoring you should often ask yourself  ”how would the audience react?”

Because as much as film scoring can add layers of subtext to the storytelling, as much as film makers are fond of saying “I don’t want the score to tell the audience what to feel!”, the fact is that a score will frequently heighten what is already on screen.

That’s why great composers like Jerry Goldsmith would first view the film as an audience member, to see how they reacted emotionally first.

Following what is on screen well is not easy or simple, and it is not cheap, not if it is well done. And like all other arts, beauty is in the details.

So here’s a detail for us to look at: how to hit a certain jarring piece of action.

The scene is from “The Adventures of Tintin”: Sakharine draws his sword abruptly and points it at Tintin’s face. The context for the scene is this: a threatening exposition scene with no physical action.  (Always consider the context!)

So… how do you hit this particular action in the particular context?

  • Don’t hit it at all?
  • Do some Mickey mousing by having a small flourish that ends as the tip of the blade stops?
  • A small hit as the blades comes to a stop, no flourish?

How did John Williams approach this scoring detail? Here’s the clip.

The musical hit is as a reaction.

Consider this: If you get a blade drawn in front of your face at that speed, first you would have a reflex action and then a realization of the threat! This is what the music does here. Watch it again.

The music follows the natural way we react and, in this case, is not a “sound effect” as true Mickey Mousing would be, but rather follows the reaction the protagonist and the audience would have. The result is music that seems completely natural and organic to the picture.

Following the movement of the blade with the music (Mickey Mousing) would have had what effect on the scene? Would it have been a poorer or better choice and why? Leave your comments below!

Cheers,

Alain


Four-Part Stupidity

March 30, 2012 Alain Mayrand Composition 6 Comments

I read on an online forum that a composition “teacher” (if we can say that about this person…) told a pupil that four-part writing is useless and to forget all about it. It has nothing to do with composition.

All I have to say to this is… what stupidity! Four-part writing is the essence of composition.

Let’s say we use four-part writing exactly as-is, you know – Bach Chorale style. Just like that it is perfect for many, many film moods: inspirational, religioso, grandiose, heroic, epic, fanfares, westerns, battle music and the list goes on.

Four-part writing can instantly become two, three or five-part writing with zero extra effort. You have counter-melodies and accompaniment patterns possible while maintaining control over the total sonority.

You can use four part writing as-is for accompanying a melody (four-parts under a tune) or you can also break up your four-part writing to have arpeggiated patterns, waltz patterns, ostinato patterns and all kinds of accompaniments. All great composers have done exactly that! (I am still in shock that somebody calls themselves a composition teacher and doesn’t know this.)

But four-part writing is much more than that for me. At it’s core it is about the simultaneous control of both the vertical and horizontal planes. I know that this sounds very fancy, but I don’t even want to limit that concept by using the word “harmony”, because this brings to mind traditional chords. In my concert music I like to think in terms of sonority and not traditional harmony. In other words, I’ll use tritones, sevenths and fourths as freely as thirds and sixths, and I control these the same way as you would with that Bach chorale style. Four-part concepts are also an integral part of jazz harmony teachings! The chords are slightly different, concept is the same.

There was other craziness espoused by this “teacher” but I’ll stop there. My point is that four-part writing is important and used all the time by good composers. It’s much, much more than a Bach chorale! It’s not an option if you want to be a good composer.

Can you think of easy to spot examples of four-part writing in films? Here are some to get you started:

  • “Hymn for the Fallen” by John Williams
  • “Lando’s Palace” from Empire Strikes Back
  • “Asteroid Field” from Empire Strikes Back at about 2:19
  • “All Systems Go” James Horner Apollo 13
  • “Aases’ Death” by Grieg. (Not film music, but very cinematic.)