Morricone - The Thing

[RobS]

I've had the luck of being put in connection with Giovanni Morricone, since about an year, to work on proofreading his father's scores and sometimes putting together little suites for live performances. The job is still going on as these are hundreds, some of them I had never heard of... so I discover a side of EM that is more modern compositionally, closer to contemporary classical sometimes. The soundtrack of Carpenter's "The Thing" was a nice discovery for me. So I'll be posting some links these days, but not now as my sweet wife is reminding me we have to go out. Enough time though to brag about my recent job opportunities...

[Markus K]

This must be unbelievable interesting. Since I read the fabulous book Ennio Morricone which is basically a long very deep interview, I understood how deeply involved EM was in 20th century new music and it was basically his roots as a composer. Not something you might expect if you only know his most popular scores.
It is mindboggling to listen through a playlist at Apple Music called "50 years of Ennio Morricone". So many different genres and styles always with taste and his distinct originality. Solopiano pieces, concertos, choir, tonal, atonal, jazzy, modal, improvised. I mean who else has done something like that? He is one of the few great master composers not only as filmcomposer IMO.
Congratulations Rob that you have the opportunity to work on his legacy

[Lawrence]

Fantastic gig Rob, congrats!

Btw, didn’t John Carpenter write a fair amount of his own scores?

[Jaap]

Wow, I can't even comprehend how great it must be to dive into his works. Congratulations Rob.

I always found that he is the master of absorbing the evolution of music of the late 19th and 20th century with him and then take bits and pieces and mold them into scores that work for the movies and audience.

[Piet De Ridder]

The 15 disc-set Morricone - The Complete Edition (*) gives a pretty good idea of the unique width and depth of Morricone’s genius. It goes from vulgar kitch — and I use that description in the most positive and even deeply admiring sense — through bizarre electro-acoustic sonic experiments, lightweight pop ditties, lush symphonic romanticism, neo-baroque (undoubtedly as strong, if not stronger, a musical muscle in Morricone’s body of work as any 20th century musical conquest), adventurous avant-garde, … to the wonderful lyricism that Morricone is best known for. Quite amazing.

(*) With genius of a morriconean size, no edition, no matter how large, can ever claim to be complete of course, but apart from that, the title of this collection is as well-chosen as it could be.

So yes, most amazing. But not surprising, I find. I always felt that embracing musical banalities, clichés and vulgar kitch, within an otherwise often sophisticated and richly varied musical universe, is a sign of supreme greatness. Nino Rota does that too. As did Stravinsky. And Zappa. (The two greatest examples, as far as I’m concerned.) And Ellington. And Mingus. All of these people used clichés, banalities and trivialties as totally valid bricks, among far more complex material, to build their musical edifices with. And, importantly, they don’t do it ironically, the way smaller musical minds would do it, but they adopt, absorp and work with such material with genuine interest, love and care.

The reason I say that it is, in my opinion, a sign of supreme greatness, is because I really do believe that it takes an exceptional musical mind to recognize the power and beauty of banality and cliché, use them well, and be able to weave them into one's musical language sincerely, confidently and convincingly.
Lesser composers can’t go there because, when they do, they get invariably stuck in the quicksand of sentimentality, or they deliver forced and dishonest pastiche, or bland, facile and formulaic eager-to-please-ness.

__

[RobS]

This must be unbelievable interesting. Since I read the fabulous book Ennio Morricone which is basically a long very deep interview, I understood how deeply involved EM was in 20th century new music and it was basically his roots as a composer. Not something you might expect if you only know his most popular scores.
It is mindboggling to listen through a playlist at Apple Music called "50 years of Ennio Morricone". So many different genres and styles always with taste and his distinct originality. Solopiano pieces, concertos, choir, tonal, atonal, jazzy, modal, improvised. I mean who else has done something like that? He is one of the few great master composers not only as filmcomposer IMO.
Congratulations Rob that you have the opportunity to work on his legacy

Thank you Markus, yes that was an unexpected event, just when I was seeing my work diminish… never lose faith

[RobS]

Fantastic gig Rob, congrats!

Btw, didn’t John Carpenter write a fair amount of his own scores?

Thank you Larry, didn’t know that Carpenter was a composer also

[RobS]

Wow, I can't even comprehend how great it must be to dive into his works. Congratulations Rob.

I always found that he is the master of absorbing the evolution of music of the late 19th and 20th century with him and then take bits and pieces and mold them into scores that work for the movies and audience.

Thanks Jaap, a very interesting and deep experience for me, to the point that I have now kind of absorbed his musical style. I could probably do convincing impressions of his work

[RobS]

The 15 disc-set Morricone - The Complete Edition (*) gives a pretty good idea of the unique width and depth of Morricone’s genius. It goes from vulgar kitch — and I use that description in the most positive and even deeply admiring sense — through bizarre electro-acoustic sonic experiments, lightweight pop ditties, lush symphonic romanticism, neo-baroque (undoubtedly as strong, if not stronger, a musical muscle in Morricone’s body of work as any 20th century musical conquest), adventurous avant-garde, … to the wonderful lyricism that Morricone is best known for. Quite amazing.

(*) With genius of a morriconean size, no edition, no matter how large, can ever claim to be complete of course, but apart from that, the title of this collection is as well-chosen as it could be.

So yes, most amazing. But not surprising, I find. I always felt that embracing musical banalities, clichés and vulgar kitch, within an otherwise often sophisticated and richly varied musical universe, is a sign of supreme greatness. Nino Rota does that too. As did Stravinsky. And Zappa. (The two greatest examples, as far as I’m concerned.) And Ellington. And Mingus. All of these people used clichés, banalities and trivialties as totally valid bricks, among far more complex material, to build their musical edifices with. And, importantly, they don’t do it ironically, the way smaller musical minds would do it, but they adopt, absorp and work with such material with genuine interest, love and care.

The reason I say that it is, in my opinion, a sign of supreme greatness, is because I really do believe that it takes an exceptional musical mind to recognize the power and beauty of banality and cliché, use them well, and be able to weave them into one's musical language sincerely, confidently and convincingly.
Lesser composers can’t go there because, when they do, they get invariably stuck in the quicksand of sentimentality, or they deliver forced and dishonest pastiche, or bland, facile and formulaic eager-to-please-ness.

__

An analysis I wholeheartedly agree with Piet… even his choice of absurd instruments sometimes, now to me reveals an original taste, and an independent line of thought.

[Markus K]

Another thing that sets EM apart imo from a lot of other first class film composers especially the Hollywood ones is that he never cut corners in utilizing the romantic classical history and copying the many 19th and beginning 20th century master scores which kind of was a goto for 20th century orchestral scoring. He always stays original.