douglasb
01-03-2007, 14:46
I don't know that much about Morricone's work but I'm struck by the level of his output compared to that of the slackers who play in bands and groups.
In 1968, Morricone scored the music for 26 different movies. I'm guessing the input for each might've been different but for arguments sake, let's guess he wrote 30 minutes worth per flick. That's 15 minutes worth of new material every week for a year.
Given that it's quite common for bands to take several years to write 10 songs, is it fair ot say that in terms of "talent" they're just chancers who more often that not simply happen over a decent tune. And, therefore, is there an argument for proper musical education and training? Would it lead to a greater quality of work over a longer period?
In 1968, Morricone scored the music for 26 different movies. I'm guessing the input for each might've been different but for arguments sake, let's guess he wrote 30 minutes worth per flick. That's 15 minutes worth of new material every week for a year.
Given that it's quite common for bands to take several years to write 10 songs, is it fair ot say that in terms of "talent" they're just chancers who more often that not simply happen over a decent tune. And, therefore, is there an argument for proper musical education and training? Would it lead to a greater quality of work over a longer period?