How do you feel about Mel Brooks as a composer.... — Page 3

There is no excuse why someone in America can't learn to read music. It's laziness.

Or legitimate learning disorders? Or blindness?

Nooo, my bad, it's ALWAYS laziness. Sorry for the error! ^_^

---

Updated On: 7/1/07 at 07:07 PM

i met frank wildhorn during previews of Dracula, i was astonished at his "composing" non skill, also. After having read your comments, I totally AGREE. There is NO excuse...this guy Wildhorn explained that he taps out a melody on the keyboard, doesn't read music, has "people" that arrange and transpose for him (paid, of course). As a musician myself, I can not help but be totally unimpressed. However, on the other hand, some of the greatest musicians and composers on earth never had formal training...so, WTF?

"There is no excuse why someone in America can't learn to read music. It's laziness. "

I resent that. I tried for two years to learn to read music, and it never stuck. Also, I can't retain mathematics. Don't know why. History I'm really good at.

Point is, I can't read music, and I can still play the saxophone. So just because Mel doesn't know how to write music doesn't mean he can't create it.

Why shouldn't I talk about other cultures? Ever hear of Lion King? You're the one who made the broad statement about who is or isn't a "real" composer.

If you had just said that no one who can't read music could be a theater composer I would have just as strongly disagreed with you. Mel Brooks came up with some very catchy and succesful theater songs for his Producers score. Many trained music-reading "real" composers have written far worse scores than that. I might not think The Producers is the greatest theater score ever written, but I would never have the unmitigated audacity to say that the person who wrote it isn't a "real" composer.

I suppose hip-hop isn't real music, since by your standards few of the people who create it are "real composers".

You've managed to make one of the most ridiculous, ignorant statements I've ever read on this board.

---

Claude Michel-Schönberg can't read music.

---

This is a scary thread. I have a suspicion that most of you folks out there who are judging Brooks and others as "non-composers" and "lazy" etc. are not trained or even untrained musicians. Most musicians know that you don't need to be trained to either play an instrument proficiently or to "compose" extremely sophisticated music on said instrument. Being able to notate music is skill. Being able to create music is talent. If Irving Berlin, Lennon and McCartney and Jerry Herman aren't "composers" in your eyes then i suppose their legacies will just have to live with the disappointment. I prefer to promote their standing up to geniuses anyway.

Now, if Brooks just composes the tune and not the harmonies then I agree he's not as complete a songwriter as most. But heck folks - nobody ever recognized a catchy chord progression that was being whistled or hummed on the street. It's the melody that lingers on - so let's not denigrate Brooks or any other tunesmiths out there who might not have made it through Juilliard. Just remember a lot of arrangers and orchestrators would be out of work if they had.

I think Mel Brooks' ability to create melody is composition. So, it may make him a composer after all. I know for myself my ear is pretty good and I can usually playback what someone plays or shows me how to play but I did get training to read/write music.

---

i am so confused!!! Roninjoey - can you please explain to me then the distinction between "coming up with a catchy tune", "composing" and "turning it (said catchy tune) into music". you seem to believe that these are all different things - but you have not provided any details that would help us understand the distinction. You also seem to be contradicting yourself when you say plenty of people without any technical knowledge can make great music but then also say that Glenn Kelly had to take Brooks' melody and "turn it into music". huh?

And I'm just curious - are you a musician?

We're just drawing a distinction between composing and what makes a person a Composer, with a capital C. I could psychoanalyze you but it only makes me an amateur psychologist. I could draw a house with some crayons and give it to a real architect to turn it into a real layout for a house. Doesn't make me an architect even if I did draw a really delightful house. I could come up with a rudimentary plot for a book and have someone else write it. Do I need to continue? Just doing something doesn't qualify you. If Mel Brooks could actually compose, he wouldn't need other people to finish 90% of the job.

Perhaps Paul McCartney can't read music. I doubt this is true (perhaps he doesn't read it well but he probably knows how to read it), but say he can't. He can still play an instrument. He still understands how music works and functions. By technical I mean theory. You don't necessarily have to be able to write an essay on music theory to have achieved some innate understanding of the way music works. Paul McCartney can make fully realized music.

I wasn't there when the score of The Producers was written but it's clear to me that the ghost writers account for a lot of the aspects of the songs--the key changes, the chorus-verse placement, the layering of harmonies and voices, etc... these things are composing. What constitutes good music is a matter of taste and opinion. The actual process of composing is less subjective. Mel Brooks' role in the genesis of the music is probably relatively minor, considering the work that is done even by the orchestrator.

I just don't know why we want to pat rich guys who have enough money to get other people to do things and just put their name on it on the back. I suppose like PegasusRising said, what's important is that the score is appropriate to the show and we all know who the real composer behind these things are. I'm just saying, get it right who is actually the composer... and not just the dabbler. I know we live in the age of the amateur and all but there are limits!

And yes, I suppose I would consider myself a musician.

---

Bump.

---

"but if you gave him 10 hours to come up with a new song in previews I doubt he'd deliver."

I disagree. I mean, of course he would need someone to help him get it written down, but I don't see any reason why he coudn't do the above.

---

Updated On: 7/2/07 at 11:14 PM

Just because he wrote a mediocre musical doesn't give someone an excuse to praise him for being mediocre enough to do justice to a mediocre piece.

However, in one sense, you're right. He does what he does, and he does it well.

My problem is that what he does is not composition, its tune writing.

---

You people are unbelievable. While it is true that Mel does not do the arranging of his songs, his melodies are very clever and catchy. I would be willing to bet that those of you who are deriding him simply because he does not read music can't begin to approach his musical wit. If you read any book on music comp, you'll see that under the definitions of composing, what Mel does in coming up with melodies certainly qualifies as composition. Now, if one is skilled enough to write harmonies and what not to accompany a melody, kudos to him. Tune writing is a form of music composition. If you really want to get technical, harmonizing and structuring a piece is technically arranging. A piece of music can be harmonized in a million different ways, a melody, however, once written, is pretty much established and doesn't change unlike harmony. Melody is so unique that it certainly is art and a form of composition. Harmonization however, is a mental excercise. While arrangers can certainly be artistic, their work is more akin to that of a technician. It is a technical craft that requires incredible skill though.