uniqueness

Classy Chassis Car Show – Photo by Jay Lee (baldheretic)

Recently, I had a meeting with a composer friend who had recently set up a drum kit in his studio.  We wanted to make a casual night of experimenting with mic placement, to see what kind of sounds we could get with his set up.  For non-studio geeks this all sounds pretty academic and dry, so while I was explaining to another friend what I was up to that night, I realized I could use an analogy based on her interest in photography: “It’s like lighting a scene”, I said, “the drum kit is our subject, and we are experimenting with different mic positions, just as you would have different lighting setups in a photo shoot.”  It then struck me that you can actually draw pretty compelling analogies across the board between Film and Music.

Lighting = Microphones: moving microphones around changes the ’scene’ and how it’s perceived in a similar fashion to lighting in film.

Camera = Microphones + Mixing board/Recording device: the mic’s act as the lens of the camera, and the film stock/digital capture is like the recording device that captures the performance, be it analog tape or digital.

Set/Location = Studio/Reverb: the set is the environment which is captured, in which the performances live, and so it is with the recording studio.  Alternately, ’spaces’ can be created using reverbs after the performance is captured.

Actors = Musicians: Actors interpret the screenplay, musicians the musical score.  Actors use their bodies and voices to create the performance, musicians use their bodies and their instruments.  Similarly, Voice/Dialogue = Instruments/Music.

Script = Musical Score, and Screenwriter = Composer

Director = Composer/Conductor: the analog of the director’s job may get split on the scoring stage, where the conductor may not be the composer.  However, the conductor is working to realize the composer’s vision, and thus might be seen as an Assistant Director.

D.O.P. = Scoring Engineer: the D.O.P. controls how the scene will be captured and how it will look – the Scoring Engineer provides the same service using microphones, a mixing board, and recording medium.

CGI = Samples/Synthesis: both are simulations of reality, but are intended to elicit the same emotion from the audience as would an ‘organic’ source.

And here we come to an interesting point.

There is a problem with my last analog.

In order to understand this, we have to understand how a sample works.  Sampling is primarily used in the world of film/media scoring to re-produce the sounds of instruments which a production may not have the time or money to afford.  The most common are used in place of the symphonic orchestra, and lately to replace performances of rare/unusual or so-called ‘ethnic’ instruments – such as the Duduk, which has become very popular, but for which competent players are both hard to find and expensive to hire.  Instead, a sample library is created by a company, which hires a player and/or ensemble to be recorded playing individual notes through all dynamic ranges, with as many effects and nuances as possible.  These are then programmed for one or more commercially available ’samplers’ – devices (hardware or software) used to trigger these sounds using a keyboard or other MIDI device.  There are often layers to each note,  so if I load a brass section sample, and hit the key softly, it will trigger the sample of the section playing that note softely.  If I hit it harder, the corresponding louder, fuller, brassier sounding sample is triggered.  You can see the implications – with a professional rig and sample libraries I can create, for a much smaller cost, a score consisting of a full orchestra, 100 person choir, and a Taiko drum ensemble, which will sound very much like the real thing.  Almost.

So whazza problem?

Since we are looking at analogs, imagine this.  A filmmaker is creating a CGI set for her film, so she accesses her ’sample library’ of set pieces.  She looks at an apartment block, a rural scene (with an option ‘gently flowing river’ plug-in), and from a more exotic location package, the ‘Downtown Tokyo’ sample.  Drag and drop, bam – there’s her scene.   Then, it’s to the ‘Actors’ folder, where she finds ‘Hollywood Hunks’ and chooses number 6  of the set a 8.  This one is a brilliantly recorded sample of Brad Pitt, and has 168 facial expression layers and 97 ‘physical actions’, and a full range of syllables and consonants, allowing for the construction of any dialogue, in a range of emotional states (Brad-mad, Brad-sad, and Brad-glad).  She continues this way until she is ready to start ’sequencing’ her film, adding in her script with it’s dialogue and actions.

If every film was made this way, we would eventually be looking at the same ’samples’ of everything.  There would be no nuance, no dynamics, no edge, no life.  It would be a pre-packaged, slickly packaged and homogeneous mass – the same Pitt-sample with the same Tokyo-background sample saying it’s dialogue with the same pre-determined range of inflections.   Sure, many films use the standard stock footage of the New York fly-over to establish location, but we are talking about what amounts to an entire film made only of stock footage and stock acting.

No filmmaker I know of would accept this, and yet, more and more, music made of  ’samples’ is accepted as fulfilling its important role as an emotional alchemical substance in film and media.

The Challenge

There are, of course,  reasons why this situation exists, primarily having to do with time and money.  But is this good enough?  I think that we all need to begin to think more creatively about how we work, and what we produce.  We need to begin imagining situations where it is both financially and within the constraints of time, possible to make supporting musical products which fulfill and exceed their requirements, and which have a real, tangible, unique, and effective signature.  Everyone is copying everyone elses copy of something – we need to do better.  Not every film needs a gigantic orchestral score that it may not be able to afford – can the same emotional goals be achieved using a different method?  I strongly believe they can – and it will be to everyone’s advantage.  There are ways of working quickly and cost-effectively to deliver music which will add tremendous value to the production – a unique proposition to the filmmaker who receives a score that works, and sounds unlike any other.

Photo by Craig Elliott

Don’t be ashamed of your own ideas. Most musicians get applauded for sounding like someone else. People try something out that they think is exciting, and everyone looks a little unsure. Then they play an old James Brown riff and everyone’s saying: ‘Wow! That’s what we want!’ Most of the time musicians are being encouraged to sound recognizable. What I’m doing [as a producer] is encouraging them at the points when they’re not.
- Brian Eno

Who Are You?

An aspect of being an artist is the path to finding your voice. Your ‘voice’ is your signature, your ‘thing’, that which you get known for, something to which you become associated. Sometimes, even, it’s a schtick. If you think of any successful artist, someone who stood the test of time, you’ll note one particular trait – they had a unique voice. They did something no-one else did, or they did something far better than anyone else. This is something you want to cultivate, for a number of reasons.

Karma Chameleon

Composers working for media have a special challenge in this area. Generally, you are expected to be aware of, and be able to compose in, any style imaginable – NOW. I’ve scored an episodic show where I went from comic opera to Joe Pass jazz, then to purposely cheesy PSA music to porn, 50’s bubblegum pop, to copping Prokofiev ballet, then to afro-cuban, and even more. To have these styles in your arsenal, and to be able to say ‘yes’ when asked to genre-hop, is a necessary skill especially when you are getting established.

It’s your thing – do what you want to do

Being versed in many styles is great for your musicianship and breadth. However, this is not your ‘voice’. It’s unlikely you’ll get very far specializing in ALL styles – it’s a bit of a contradiction in terms! What you want is for people to think of you as the person who is the go-to for “X” , but also a capable and professional expert who is also able to adapt and stretch to meet any demand.

You need to differentiate yourself from all those people who are doing the stuff everyone else is doing!

Right now, there are thousands of emerging composers out there, who are trying to emulate the heroes du jour – John Williams, John Powell, Danny Elfman, and Hans Zimmer, to name a few. Some argue that if a producer or director want John Williams, they’ll call him. WELL… yes, and no. No, if they don’t have 1/2 a million in their budget for John’s fee. So yes, the guys who can do ‘that sound’ will get calls.

However, there are two problems with this scenario:

1. The only way to compete in this area is to be THE BEST at it.

2. This is a limiting way to build a career. You might become known as the person who can do Zimmer, and when that goes out of vogue, or worse, when someone wants something original, you could lose.

It’s a short term career move.

Don’t imitate it, don’t abandon it – FILTER IT

This will happen naturally anyways – but try to cultivate your sound when you work. Create a mental environment condusive to this – this means that you have to stop judging your work when it really starts to SOUND LIKE YOU, and instead, recognize it as a good thing and push forward in those crazy directions! You have to develop an awareness of what you do that makes you unique. It doesn’t have to be the most insane thing ever, either – it can be simple. My thing is the guitar – I want to create scores using the guitar in unusual ways. Even if no guitar sounds appear in the final recording, I will use the guitar to compose – and THAT will end up helping to give the score it’s signature – because it’ll be different had I done it another way. I ‘own’ the guitar as a tool, it is part of me and my process.

Do Something Different

Be a little more daring. Try something you think might not work. Pick up a new instrument. I’m getting into instruments from around the world – the Bansuri is my current favorite. This year I plan to learn how to play violin, and eventually I’m going to get a Guzheng. Getting into a different way of playing can really open some doors to different ways of working, new ideas, and a unique path. Study a different style of music, study different composers. Open up – and filter what you learn. Don’t get too bogged down in details – it’s not an academic excercise. Even if you can’t play well, you will come up with some ideas that are unlike what you’d normally develop. Learn fast and take what you learn and make it your own. Each instrument seems to naturally lend itself to doing different things, which is why sometimes you can break out of a rut by composing on an instrument different than what you usually use.

The Devil is in the Sampler

One of the weird things about being a composer these days is watching a film or TV show, and hearing a sample you recognize. I KNOW that one “Thunder Ensemble” hit with the singing bowl ringing overtone from StormDrum2. I even know what velocity level it was triggered at. It’s a damn good sample, too. That’s a little disconcerting when I’m using it for another project – makes it feel a little… cheap. Like cheating. Now, I’m not against samplers, libraries, sounds, and effects, etc. But it’s worthwhile to invest some time into how you can differentiate, even in this area. How your sound, is… well, your SOUND – like a guitar player has their particular sound. Stevie Ray Vaughn, Jimie Hendrix, Al Di Meola – these guys play different and they also SOUND different – it’s the TONE. Experiment with your samples. Tweak them. Use them “incorrectly” – play instruments out of their compass or pitch range. Use effects.

A Balancing Act

The one caveat in all of this, of course, is that it is important to stay current. Like the ability to compose in any style, you will be asked to sound en vogue. But it is possible to balance this with a striving to be unique, different… memorable. One of a kind. A Go-To.

All things under the Sun

This kind of thinking naturally extends to your whole music business, aka your BRAND. How you present yourself – visually, personally, the myth or legend, or story you create about yourself. This all gives a context to the music and how it is perceived, and can add to your value as a composer. It’s how well you can sell yourself and your ideas, the kind of music you produce. If you build yourself to be a special kind of composer, then people will see you that way and will look to you to deliver your specialty. I will be looking at the idea of ‘myth building’ in a later blog.

Speakeasy

How do you differentiate? Do you have some great examples of artists making it work for them? (one of my favorites is Carter Burwell). How do you strike a balance between doing it all V.S. doing one thing?