X-Envelope-to: CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CINEMA-L@AUVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:38:00 -0500
From:         FAC_JCLARK@JMUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Danny Elfman

Ellen,
I really don't know how to answer the question of describing Elfman's or
Williams' or anyone else's musical "style."  Despite tossing around the term,
or things loosely related (like "sensibility" or somesuch) myself.  And I'm
not sure how much this has to do with not understanding myself the formal
lingo and concepts of music, how much it has to do with what anyone *means*
by "style."  When people say Elfman is sort of doing too much of the same
thing lately, I assume they're identifying a recognizable style or "sound"
(favored term in pop music) or "signature."  I can agree to recognize that
"thing" too, but don't find a too much of a sameness in the vigorous romantic
sweep of his orchestral-style scores at least.  BATMAN is Wagnerian in inclina-
tion; DICK TRACY Gershwinian; something early like PEE-WEE is definitely Nino
Rota-ish. But these things can be both analogies and influences.  What I discern
   underneath is a certain "talent" or "way" of musically organizing his sound
materials: affinity for a certain kind of tune (oops! since this is movie music,
   make mine "theme" there...), of reworking themes and combining or subtracting
elements that support those themes, not to mention characteristic instrumental
textures (with a strong affinity for brass, which is apt for a man from a
large band that emphasizes it). But I'm afraid I'm just botching it here. Maybe
it's like Louis Armstrong said about trying to define jazz (sort of "if you
have to ask...").  In Elfman you tend to here a strong individual signature,
and if you don't like it, it isn't arresting and tonic, it's like an opinion-
ated person who becomes obnoxious.  (Hmm. I'm thinking of a personal irony that
might be running through at least some of your minds right now...!) I tend to
find it tonic, but what I most enjoy within that signature or sound is the
play of formal elements in the music, whether in his movie stuff or his band
stuff.  It has struck me forcibly that, in either case, you could completely
change the instrumentation--and for the songs, drop the singer or change him
or her or the words, too--and his stuff would still be immediately recognizable
after a few bars.  I can't say that about many musicians in pop-related music,
at least. The only other thing I could do to describe "style" is comparative-
impressionistic.  When I first heard BATMAN, it occurred that here was some-
thing lean, muscular and impetuously vigorous, whereas comparable Williams
scores seem more restrained, flabby, and miasmic (ie., having the tendency to
seem more recessive and indistinct in relation to the image, or slathered
over it).  I do like some of John Williams very much, but am not much fond of
his Indiana Jones-style (that word again!) stuff.

--Ellen, you really shouldn't ask such questions near the end of the day when
there's a chance I might respond after 6pm.  This is what you get... Jeff Clark
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l