Nabeel Ansari

it's called fucking culinary art

To me, this entire post is a prime example of not seeing a forest for its very densely packed acres of trees. Assembling different pieces of art isn't what makes a movie good. What makes a movie good is how extremely coincident (they all serve the same purpose and convey the same ideas) and collaboratively harmonious those pieces are. As I said earlier, if you take a good story, and slap it into a good gameplay system, you will not always get a good total game out of it. In fact, if that's actually what you did, it might be a pretty bad game.

What definition of game do you use that requires the player to win or lose? I've never heard of a requirement like that. A basic requirement of a game is a goal and rules. Beside that, you haven't actually addressed why "winning or losing" something means it's not art. In fact, most popular art/story has winners and losers (heroes and villains), and 1-dimensional ones at that. More complex thematic stuff have losers in the form of the portion of the audience who doesn't agree with its message, or the portion that is misrepresented or otherwise oppressed by it. If the argument here is that "no one loses" if something is truly art, that's incredibly naive. You're kind of cherry picking when you apply this reductionist attitude towards games but nothing else. You're also assuming that game balance is objective or linear (1-dimensional spectrum, can only get worse or better). I can assure you that with many years of playing eSport games, this couldn't be further from the truth. Game balance is an incredibly complex system, and through tipping in various stat dimensions you can create many different dominant styles of gameplay (as evidenced by the fact that League of Legends creates entirely new game modes just by messing with the numbers and seeing what happens). That's incredibly creative, and has nothing to do with determinism (except of course when you find something you like and seek to refine it, but the same is said for music production, which has a degree of determinism given assumptions of modern culture).

I do mean game theory, it does play a part when talking about balance, fairness, etc. mechanical things. It could be misappropriation I guess, I should clarify then that by game "design" i mean "mechanical" design, not aesthetic.

I think the point is to me that without these game mechanics present, the game is narratively weaker. Every storytelling medium has its own methods of execution, it's own things that make it what it is. We see weak examples of people using mediums improperly when we see things like weak adaptations (book turned movie, manga turned anime, movie turned game, TV turned game, etc.). I think what makes video games a storytelling medium of its own is these how these mechanical things strengthen what the narrative is. I'm saying a good narrative can't exist in a game without the game mechanics being designed to project its core ideas or thoughts onto the player through game design. Here's an opposite side example: Assassin's Creed. Assassin's Creed, going along the values I'm describing, is narratively pretty weaksauce. Not because of poor character work, or predictable plot elements, or anything; Assassin's Creed's narrative weakness comes way earlier than any of that. It comes when you are told you are playing a stealthy, discreet servant of the greater justice and yet the game allows and even rewards open combat and killing hundreds and hundreds of random guards while you run around cities. It breaks immersion. I can't take the narrative seriously if I see the character (that I am controlling) is clearly not who the game says it is. This is an example of narrative <-> mechanical disconnect, and to me, dismantles the idea that simply inserting a good story into a game with fun arcade-y gameplay makes the game's story (and the game itself) good, because it's a game where you fight things, make choices, feel consequences, etc. (A side note, I think Ezio's story is pretty good at parts, namely the exploratory mystery ones where he's trying to find the meaning of life by religiously looking to Altair and making you hunt down relics and experience his memories. That was pretty gold.) Mechanics serve the narrative in games, and make their execution stronger (and to me, valid at all). Much like in film, where camera work and prop design serves the narrative (if you don't know what the hell I'm babbling about, watch this). Or in books, where clever language and description serve the narrative. Without them, the narrative execution in the game would be ultimately weaker, an instance of the game simply telling you what the story is rather than it showing you through... how games do. And how games do, different from other medius, is doing this through player agency, choices, consequences, rewards, risks, and such. I think that's a unique aspect of storytelling that no other medium has been able to tap into (because no other medium is interactive). Yes, I also do think that these means games have to tell very different kinds of stories in order to be "proper" by these values I propose. I don't think you can simply write any old good story and put it into the game. It can't tell the same kinds of stories movies can. To me, that's why Dark Souls' story is so good. It is a completely non-traditional method of telling a story that simply wouldn't make a lick of coherent sense in any other medium, and yet in the game it works perfectly, because you fight things, because it empowers you as the agent, because you face gameplay consequences for your actions. To use Anor Londo again, it doesn't just go dark, and "man that sucks" in the narrative; it kills your main bonfire, and forces you to fight the bonfire keeper because she believed the Goddess was real. The game simply treats her as an enemy with a lifebar. A mechanical expression in order to convey what's going on in the story. And you feel kinda gross when you kill her (if that's what you're role playing), because it was your fault this happened, and it was your choice to go on and kill her (a bonfire keeper, one of the most altruistic people in the Dark Souls world). It gives you a real tangible reason to feel bad about what happened. Dark Souls makes the story about you, much like Journey makes the story about you, much like Shadow of the Colossus makes the story about you. I don't think a game story can be called good if it doesn't make the story about you. If it tries to tell the story of a regular character like in a movie, it just doesn't have the same magic to me (that's why I have never been impressed with anything that happens in Final Fantasy for example). Because player agency seems like a huge untapped realm in making your audience the character of the story. Finally to respond to your last question, I defer to something someone already said in this thread. You need to look at these things holistically, just like we look at any other art holistically. Yes, if Journey's world wasn't compelling, the mechanic wouldn't have been compelling. But I turn this around; if the mechanic wasn't compelling, the world wouldn't have been either. They work together. What you're saying seems like splitting hairs. As an aside, to me it's not about validation, it's about constructive analysis. Like I said, can toss the word "art" aside if you want, my points are more about how games can do, how they can do better, and how they have done worse, regardless of if you attach some word to it. I have these reactions to games, I see people around me having them too. I'm compelled to think there is "more to it" because it is having an observable effect.

Despite what many people like to idealize, you can't actually do everything with free crappy sounds. It sucks, but it's true. :/ No amount of manual labor short of writing your own DSP algorithms for physical modelling (at that point you should be making money as a VI developer) can get you to realistic, expressive instruments. Working with low quality sounds is all about hiding and avoiding writing passages that expose what's crappy about those low quality sounds, and that's not really actually a good way to learn how to write music. It's a defeatist method of creativity of "how do I sound as not bad as possible" when ideally it should be "how do I sound as good as possible". Let's say you have a trumpet with great sustains, but crappy staccatos. You end up not really writing staccatos in your music because it sounds bad, so it's closing doors for you. As rosy as it is to encourage others to make the best of low quality sounds, if you want real, you have to shell out. You can make low quality sounds sound good, but you can't make them sound real.

I hear almost no chromatic motion in that song. :/ I should point out that recognizing chromatic voices in your chords is not the same thing as figuring out what that chord progression is or how it functions. You can have chromatic voice leading and it can be completely incidental and innocuous (or it can define the emotion). It's not enough to say "I see chromatics in here, there's something fancy going on". All that you can tell from chromatic voices appearing is that something non-diatonic is happening, but as far as what, it can be a range of things, and is case by case. In the case of your first song, it is a change from F major quality to F minor quality. The second song doesn't have any such change. Even if you hear chromatics in there, it's not the same chord change and doesn't function the same way. At least, from what i heard, I listened to it like once. Provide timestamps and I can listen again.

Yeah, a film critic who doesn't design games is clearly right about making large universal statements about the nature of game design. Okay, so let me say this: even if you feel these concepts don't apply to "art", would you agree that some games create meaningful narrative experiences through the meticulous design of their mechanics? It doesn't have to make them art, but if you don't agree with this, I feel you're missing the ability to ascertain a difference between a game designed for entertainment value (positive emotions from winning, negative emotions from losing) and a game designed to manipulate how a player feels/thinks (frustration, empowerment, regret, gripping reality) and having the game's story have a 1-to-1 correlation with those mechanics. The latter is the true nature of game theory and you are saying that isn't art, right? Or do you not believe the latter is a real thing (i.e. game theory is a hoax) and the former is what every game is? Again, the appearance of enemies in Journey is purely a game mechanic thing. But when you play Journey, it is clear, at least to me, this creates an emotional reaction in the player (even if it's surprise). It's a game mechanic that changes how you understand the world around you. Your outlook on your journey (harhar) permanently changes the first time you take damage. Or did you not feel or think any of these things, and simply take it as a new game mechanic that changed how you mechanically went about it? And yes, well, that's arbitrary, but so is the entirety of art. The 12-tone system is arbitrary. In fact, the 12-tone system sacrifices harmony with natural vibration through very messy fractional exponents, so if anything it's the opposite of a "true" or "real" system. There's nothing special about it, it just caught on and that's music. The intentionality fallacy describes looking for meaning in intentional creation of something. Just because a person did or did not intentionally pump artistic meaning or something doesn't mean that it doesn't or does have any artistic meaning. Artistic meaning comes from people's interpretations of something. So saying it's arbitrary is self-evident; the thread is arbitrary, that's the point of the discussion, finding the differences in peoples' arbitrary points of view.

I understand where you're coming from, Angel, but I thought I made the distinction between game mechanics that are born out of a desire to make the game function and game mechanics that are intertwined with the game's narrative. I don't think you can separate these things so easily. Dark Souls isn't just a good game because it's hard. Dark Souls is a good game because of how its difficulty is related to its story, as well as how literally playing the game manipulates your feelings as a player (frustration, helplessness, etc.). Dark Souls is not a normal power fantasy, like every other action RPG. Dark Souls manipulates the feelings of power because of very high risk high reward gameplay. Not only that, but hard bosses earlier become normal mobs later on (for instance, the Capra Demon is a bitch early on... but later, you fight several of them at once). They're not with debuffed stats, you're just smarter, and mechanically more apt. It's strongly in line with the game's idea that you are growing stronger as you hack through the undead. And the narrative of the game manipulates that with the ending, where despite all of the power the game made you feel through its well-designed difficulty, you still are ultimately incapable of making a difference. Would you still assert these things are born out of entirely logical, objective systematic design? I think there's way more to it than that. I know previously you don't think the Dark Souls story is that good, but I'd like to have faith that you just need it explained in the right perspective. I'd say they aren't just logical, because the Anor Londo example I used seems to prove that game mechanics can serve more purposes than being mechanical fun. Again, I see these mechanics and designs as a dialogue between the developer and the player, much as regular people in everyday life see their hardships as a dialogue between themselves and a higher power. Also the fact that you reduce Dark Souls to such a simple game design makes me feel that even in the logical realm you haven't really done a lot of analysis of it. The game design, non-artistically, systematically, etc. is a lot more complex than you make it out to be. You need to have a more discerning eye.

Here's my own opinion: I personally feel like "art games" on their own are not actually assisting the bigger picture. They show that games can be art if done in very specific ways (that often ignore entertainment value or involved game design). Essentially these games have a central concept of simple interactivity and immersion in a world, like an experimental film you can walk around in. These are your Gone Homes, your Everybody's Gone to the Raptures. You're supposed to think, and feel, while you play, but mechanically considered, there isn't really anything to them (not a bad thing, I'm just telling how it is). These games are artistic. But they kind of leave everything else behind if we only look to them. I think looking at game design itself as the artform has more substance to it. I think games like Undertale, games like Dark Souls, are extremely powerful examples of video games as an artform. Because these games are not just about the intellectual experience, and they are also not intellectual experiences with arcade gameplay thrown in. These are games where the game mechanics and play directly correspond to the expression and emotion the developers want to give the player. Within the confines of game design, the standards of "challenge, exit points, rewards, risks" etc. So the art isn't simply about what it means to make interesting things that now you can walk around in, but what it means when the developer(s) have this dialogue with the player, to manipulate how he feels through gameplay (considering very concrete things like how a player dies, or how hard it is for him to have agency and choices, or how the difficulty is designed), and how that gameplay affects and is affected by the narrative or central concept of the game itself. Spoiler example, when you kill the illusory goddess in Anor Londo in Dark Souls, the entire area loses its sun and it becomes cast in permanent twilight, and your bonfire keeper turns against you. When you kill her, the bonfire is put out, not allowing you to teleport there, or rest there. Additionally, being killed in Anor Londo makes you spawn there (so you can die and lose everything and also have no safe place to fall back on), so basically the game fucks you ever. It's a permanent consequence that actually frustrates the player because it's an irreversible difficulty increase (a bit of an absurd, unprecedented one at this point in the game) for playing the game impulsively. It's not just a sad or "sucks" story, it makes you frustrated in real life because it's manipulating your ability to play the game. It also reduces the sense of elation and power you get after beating Ornstein and Smough. It changes how you feel about yourself, whether you're powerful or powerless. I think that's artistic, and that's the expression I personally look for when looking at games as art. Maybe that's too heavy-handed, though, because if you look at it that way, that kind of makes art games not really have anything to them, since their game designs are fairly minimal. You have walking, you have a goal. That's... really it? If we talk about how the experience and/or narrative should be expressed through game design, aren't they actually kind of saying you can't really do that when your most popular ones are in fact what people would call "walking simulators"? Tales of Tales basically outright said this in their manifesto. They wanted to stop making "games" and wanted to start making interactive experiences. I think the line there is appropriate, because I don't think it is appropriate to remove the word "game" from its grounding in game theory. For popular example, I think Journey fits as an art game, but is also genuinely a video game as art too. It's fun to play because the movement is satisfying and there's clear gameplay, even if it's simple. You fly (well, glide, slide) around, collect scarves and light symbols, clear the stages. But the collecting is actually meaningful, it's a show of your building up (literally in the Hero's Journey) which is then dismantled later when you find out that you can actually take damage and lose part of your scarf in the lower cave. It's not just narrative there, that's narrative expressed through gameplay. So in my eyes, Journey shows that games are art. It's a simple game, but it is good, and fun, and it's a particular artistic one to boot.

Hey, so this has been on my mind a little while, I want people's opinions on it. Ahem. There's been this great big push in the last few years for video games to be recognized as an artform, a method of expression for the developers and a way for people to explore experiences and worlds to be emotionally affected instead of simply having entertainment value. I pose these inquiries: Are the emergence of "art games" (walking simulators, introspective/immersive experiences, experimental stories) what we actually mean and want when we say games are art? Are older, arcade-y games valueless by comparison? Or, should we be looking at game design itself as an art, complete with all of the facets (mechanics, reward, risk, choices, challenges, exit points, first order strategies, etc.)? Are "art games" valueless by comparison? Or, do both kinds have separate value? Or, games have to be both to have value? Or, neither? (Please leave. :P) Use examples from games you've played to support why you think that way.

I feel like Garpocalypse has been making it a point recently to be as absurd as possible these days That's why the comparison is dumb in the first place. Because Freedom Planet isn't a self-aware experiment in game storytelling. It's a throwback side-scroller. Saying it's "better than Undertale" is an obvious tip to people that Freedom Planet somehow does what Undertale does but even better. Which couldn't be further from the truth, because it's a polar opposite to Undertale in style and mechanics. You may as well start a thread saying artistic games are bad and simple arcade-y ones are superior. At least then you're standing on a baseline value system and not just assuming everyone knows what the hell you're talking about.

The MIDI Standard is just a set of protocols. A software standard is literally a bunch of people saying "these numbers mean these things, make sure your software follows that". Which means that, of course, there's lots of software that doesn't work with it. While DAW's present to you the CC's as "Pan", "Volume", etc. plug-in developers have no actual obligation and thus never get around to making the VST respond to those CC's. What you need to do is use the more common "MIDI Learn" system to make the plug-in automate a particular parameter according to the last CC that was changed. So if you have a hardware knob on your keyboard that changes the pan CC number, do MIDI learn on the "pan" inside of the VST and wiggle the knob, the VST should now link it, and now correctly respond to that CC number. Alternatively, you can try to look up if TX16Wx responds to DIFFERENT CC numbers for its volume and pan. Simply automate those instead. If the VST doesn't even have MIDI learn, I suggest moving on from it, if automating those parameters is important for your music. I personally have no patience for trying to force software to do what I want it to do. It's why I switched off of FL Studio, where this whole process in particular is about twice as complicated (the great piano roll isn't worth the huge time losses everywhere else, in mixing, arranging, automating, etc.). I am now in Studio One, where automating VST parameters is as simple as wiggling the VST's knob and then hitting a button for it to spawn the automation lane into the timeline. It should be very similar in Cubase, since S1 was designed by ex-Steinberg folks.

Firstly, can you rewrite the progression? The way you wrote it doesn't really indicate a chord progression. I thought you were writing slash chords "bass note/top chord" but then you wrote "Cm/Csus4" which doesn't make much sense. Do you mean by "/" you don't know which of those two it is? Beyond that, this chord progression isn't anything complicated.The only noteworthy thing that distinguishes it from regular plain old harmony is between the 2nd and 3rd chord which seem to be F major to F minor. It's common in fantasy/sci-fi type harmonies to use a major chord and then a minor chord right after. This change right here is probably what caught your ear; the rest of it is fairly simple. Here's a cool technique you can try: ("^7" means major 7th chord and "m7" means minor 7th chord) C^7 -> Cm7 -> B^7 -> Bm7 -> Bb^7 -> Bbm7 -> A^7 ->... and so on. Pretty neat trick to get a very long progression that continuously changes the tonality. It's basically the same chord change, but the 7th is also changing along with the 3rd. You'll notice it simply can be seen as "lower the 3rd and 7th, then lower the 1st and 5th, then lower the 3rd and 7th, then lower the 1st and 5th" etc. etc.). Or, instead of continuing it, Just throw one or two of them into a regular progression. It's a good way to "shift", and that shift is the same shift you hear between what you label " F/Fsus4" and "Ab/Fm".

Yeah, I'm not sure how you can follow a claim like "It's Better than Undertale" with "it's like Sonic and Sparkster at the same time" and not mention anything of its storytelling or atmosphere. Considering a large portion of Undertale's strength is its storytelling (and that through its game mechanics as well). I have to agree it is kind of clickbait.

tl;dr i explain why I think the phantom menace is bad just continue scrolling I think perhaps I hold a slightly different opinion. I thought The Phantom Menace was incredibly poor largely because it did not ever, at any point, ask the viewer to invest their emotions into anything that ever happened. We start with Trade Federation negotiations (for some politics we're asked to care about in the crawl), see the Jedi are pretty pro at running around using Force speed and using lightsabers to melt doors (meanwhile the commanders are completely incompetent at using basic security procedures to kill people when you have them running around in YOUR facility), fall down to Naboo after Obi Wan delivers probably the worst joke I've ever heard in a Star Wars movie (the negotations were short. yeah. great. Even Qui Gonn is like "wow, what the fuck man."), Naboo gets taken over (okay, seriously, I didn't even know Naboo got taken over until I got older and watched it again, that's how fast and gentle it was treated) by droids and the federation, Obi and Qui Gon go to Gungan's home, plead for transportation and then wittily win Jar Jar's life, return to Naboo, grab the queen, run a giant trade federation blockade, and land on tatooine. Let's take a break, we're very far into the movie. Who is the main character here? Is it Obi Wan? A likely candidate, but we've watched all of this happen without really understanding what Obi Wan's struggle is. Is he... trying to become a Jedi knight? Is this a test of his might, or courage, or pressure in the field? We've no clue. Is it Qui Gonn? He seems like he has all of his shit together. All of it. The Queen? No. Let's roll with Obi, since we knows he's important and related to the originals. Next we look for some ship parts, and... we find a child labor kid in a shop. Qui Gon takes an interest in him, he invites them for dinner and talks about pod racing. Then they find his midi controllers are absurd, and they want to take him from his mom to ask the council if they can maybe train him. So... maybe Anakin is the main character. His name is Skywalker. Never mind the fact that we're so far into this movie it's way past the point to be introducing central emotional conflicts, but since there weren't any before I guess better late than never. So we have to whole pod racing thing, and it's actually really good. Anakin wins, they take him from Tatooine. He's pretty sad to leave his mom, to leave his home planet to potentially join some cosmic religion he's only dreamed about before. Of course, that emotion is only addressed for like 5 seconds. Wait, so is Obi Wan just a side character now? Anakin entered the scene and suddenly Obi Wan's journey to become a Jedi knight is tossed out of the spotlight so we can focus on what happens to Anakin. What little investment you had in him is now worthless. When at Coruscant, we're bludgeoned to death with more politics, and the Council doesn't want Anakin to be a Jedi. Then a whole lot of emotionally nothing happens, and then they plan to take back Naboo using the Gungan's help. They start the invasion, Duel of the Fates happens while Anakin flies around in a Naboo fighter in autopilot managing to destroy an entire Trade Federation ship from the inside out. We never see any other characters get shot down; that scene where Luke realizes the severity of the situation he's in compared to flying with his friends back on Tatooine when Biggs gets killed in the Death Star run? Too much character work there. Strip it down. Have him spinning around with R2D2 complaining instead. Qui Gon dies in Duel of the Fates, we actually get a small twang of some feeling because our badass just died on screen while the character we sort of cared about in the beginning now suddenly has his central conflict back again (his ability to triumph as a measured Jedi Knight). He kills Maul out of anger, Trade Federation loses, there's a big parade. We get told about the rule of two for Sith. Movie over. It may seem like I glossed over important dialogue/scenes, but... there aren't really any. All of the dialogue in this movie purely serves to advance this need for a story conflict that ends up killing Qui Gon Jinn who is by the way the coolest Jedi Master ever, and needs way more screen time and his own story, making Obi Wan the only available (and inexperienced) person wanting to train him. This movie is designed and written purely as a mechanical means to make the originals have a filmed backstory. The Phantom Menace works as spectacle, for pod racing and the duel of the fates. It doesn't function as a story, though. No one learned anything. No one changed. A whole lot of political things happened, and the movie showing them didn't do much more for us than simply reading what happened on paper. We also have absolutely no inkling of what drives Anakin to become Darth Vader in the future, other than if you're really fastidious and conjecture that it's because he attaches to Padme (but like... he's way older when he turns, so that's extrapolating, A LOT). If Star Wars is so much about destiny and the will of The Force, and we're viewing this as a PREQUEL, a story that explains what happened BEFORE to contextualize the NOW, it should contain narrative traces of the central thematic idea that motivates the need for the story in the first place (which is the birth and death of Luke Skywalker's father and the rise of the Sith Lord Darth Vader). For example, the flashback scene in The Force Awakens gives us an inkling as to how Luke Skywalker's Jedi Order fell, as well as snippets of dialogue by various older characters. We know what's going to be explained later, we know kind of what happened. Because that's going to be the central theme of the movies, at least very heavily in the next one. I can go on about this, in more detail if requested. I just don't want to go that crazy on this thread. Feel free to continue the chat on PM.

As we all know the stronger you are the more lightsaber twirls you can slip between your attacks.

Like this.

I'm not sure I miss everyone talking in awful accents.

But that's precisely why they're making non-Saga movies. It's also why there exists an expanded universe. Tangential thought, how brilliant would a Knights of the Old Republic movie be? Back when the Sith were quite an interesting bunch.

The prequels rely on his midi-chlorian count to convey his force sensitivity. While we probably don't like the scientific treatment of the force in the prequels, it is still true. There's nothing similar said for the others, though. Additionally, I'd not really call either Leia or Kylo Ren a strong force user. Leia has latent force potential, but it's never developed. Ren is clearly weaksauce, not because of his sensitivity, but because of his state of mind. If you notice, he's very oblivious in the movie; clouded by his anger when things don't go his way. It's why he bodies a Chewie blast, also apparently in the book he is actually feeling incredibly tormented (and distracted) after he kills Han. So I guess they both could be strong, and Ren probably will get stronger, sure. The Force is strong in the Skywalker family, but it's been shown that doesn't have to mean every member of the Skywalker family is a power fantasy. That being said, I do kind of agree that her being a Skywalker isn't the most exciting thing, but here's why. It's the first of our three movies, and it seems like they were making it out to be a big deal secret reveal later that she was going to be a Skywalker. But after thinking about it... it's kind of obvious now, right from the getgo. It's not doing a good job at keeping its secret, so... we all see it coming. I don't really care if she is Skywalker, I don't think it's detrimental to the narrative, I just think it's odd the movie seems like it's trying to hide it while also basically shoving it in your face.

Luke *is* the only Jedi left right now. So... while they're not the only force sensitives, they still are the most important people in the galaxy.

I did find it offensive. Praise without denigration is a thing. You can state your opinion in a way that doesn't amount to "well I arbitrarily think he's the best film composer ever so there's no merit to complaining that this film's music was subpar"

Actually I do because I work in virtual instruments for the film/tv/game scoring industry beside the point; saying subpar John Williams is better than "99% of other film composers' best work" is grossly uninformed and musically unintelligible. Yes, he's good at what he does. You can say that without degrading the immense amount of talent and creativity that floods the rest of the industry besides, a claim like that is completely based on personal preference... there's no universal axiom that says film music has to be catchy and melodic (and there are still plenty of melodic iconic scores not written by Williams), and just because you as a listener can't latch onto more subtle music doesn't mean it's artistically inferior or the composer is less skilled typically film music analysts value how the music serves the film and affects the audience more than they do evaluating if the songs are catchy or not... that's because the role of music in a film is to create a better film experience, not to drop your hot new mixtape to picture. Williams just happens to be able to do both, with confidence, and has for the last many decades.

I think people are talking way too much out of their ass about the world of film scoring.