Interviews
“Evil Genius” and “Freelancer” Composer James Hannigan is Determined to Score [Part 2]
“If the games industry really does want to adopt a film-style model for music, why is it generally so unwilling to pay to do it properly?”
GameZone Online continues its chat with game composer James Hannigan.
You said you were taking time off to write on the subject of game composition – what venue and/or medium are you using to make your voice heard?
James Hannigan: I'm writing a series of articles about these things, and possibly a book. Not sure if there is much interest, but I think the whole area warrants some analysis. There are very good academics doing this as well, probably thinking far more deeply than I am about it all, but I feel more needs to happen in an industrial context in order to be taken seriously in commercial terms - and not be seen as something taking place in a vacuum.
I'm interested in the idea of theatre as a model for games. Not only for music, but in general, because it gives some insight which I feel film alone can't give us. For instance, performers adopting a role onstage are aware of their immersion within the role they are playing – but also partly audience to themselves... They know it is all make believe, somewhere in the back of their minds. Music added to the experience for them is halfway between ‘source’ music (occupying the make-believe world) and complementary music (as heard in a film soundtrack), or so it seems to me.
In a film, characters occupy a completely 'sealed' filmic reality, the film’s diegesis. They necessarily are unaware of the audience. In the theatre, you often have a pit orchestra – which the performers themselves can also hear. In terms of the filmic model, that’s a little bit like being a character in a film and hearing your own theme music as you play! Music written for that purpose surely can’t function in the way film music does? But, curiously, it would work for someone watching someone else play the game, because then they’d be in the role of audience.
Maybe the problem is in deciding how much players are to be ‘present’ in the game world; how immersed they are or need to be. A flight simulator is obviously very different in terms of its reality to, say, the reality of Metal Gear Solid 2.
It’s as if we can’t decide, as an industry, if we want to seal players in the game world or not. Sometimes we seek to fill out game worlds, make them boundless and persistent, etc. in order to make them more ‘real’, but at other times we are trying to create an emotional landscape selected for an unfolding story, much like the finite nature of a stage or film set.
After all, games happen on a small screen and what you see is framed by that. It's hardly the 'holo-deck'. Choosing one way or another (sim or film) may be OK in itself, if kept consistent, but it’s easy to lose site of your intentions throughout the whole game. Everything, including music, has to be working together as part of the design goal – but, often, things are working against each other, with a different set of intentions. Sealing people in the game world I feel rules out much music of the filmic variety. But games presenting a ‘stage set’ and offering role-play (sort of donning the costume of a pre-existing character for a couple of hours) along the lines of Final Fantasy or MGS2, appear to benefit greatly from music. I really think theatre, and not film, allows you to understand what we are doing in games and therefore enables us to make more intellectually sound decisions in terms of how music gets used. For the time being, anyway.
In film, the roles of audience and participant (being a character) are totally separated by the silver screen. So, how can games ever function totally as films do? We may want that to happen, but that doesn’t mean we can do it forever and get away with it. Sadly, theatre is too un-cool and unmarketable to be seen as something worth thinking about in games. It goes to show that the industry can often think only about what is marketable and not always what is intellectually sound or innovative. More ‘artists’ are needed to straighten this out, I believe.
But I must say I really like games that borrow from films when they do it properly and center on the player’s experience in some clever way. I don’t want to come over as anti-film at all. Companies like EA, who make a lot of film tie-ins, are doing the industry a favor in terms of bringing games to a new audience, I feel, so it’s easy to see their side of the argument as well. I think at some point games like those and ‘hardcore’ gaming values will meet in the middle, as we collectively work through our conflicts and misunderstandings.
But, overall, what I'm saying is: let's make music say things appropriate for players as participants in onscreen events, and not treat them as observers. It's not filmic games that are a problem per se, but the treatment of them as if the player is 'watching' them. MGS2 manages to do things very well, I feel. The music does indeed resemble action film music, but the information it conveys in-game is actually useful in terms of playing, and tells you things you need to know in order to understand what is going on. So you're unlikely to switch it off. Film scholars often talk about ‘good’ film music as being music telling you more than the film itself is able to. Perhaps good games music does the same thing, but the information itself is of a different variety.
Freelancer is one of many titles James worked on in 2003.
Who would you consider to be a great film composer?
JH: There are so many I love. The late Jerry Goldsmith, Miklos Rosza, Bernard Herrmann, and many others. I quite like the newer, emerging stars that use technology in interesting ways: Harry Gregson-Williams, John Powell, etc. You didn’t ask me about this, but it's interesting, because a lot of games music is meeting film music. In some way, each is becoming more 'hyper-real' and sound-based. But, ironically, a lot of games music is also sounding like older film music, and you can clearly say ‘that is music and that is sound’. At the same time, film soundtracks (and, of course, many games soundtracks) have become more homogenous, and it’s getting harder to work out where sound ends and music begins. I like it when that happens, but it can create conflicts between sound designers and composers as the line between these roles become blurred. Games are sometimes a little too democratic for their own good, when they perhaps need a stronger, more consistent vision of some kind, and that applies to music and sound as much as anything else. If you have a situation where nobody is talking to each other about the goal of the game in general, and sound is just an afterthought, things are not going to work out.
A lot of music in games is about novelty at the moment, and has been since the emergence of digital audio allowing ‘anything’ to be played back. Because we can now deliver large-scale orchestral music in games, the tendency is to do it, just as we would fill up a DVD or use up other resources because we can. It's interesting how, in film, a lot of composers are electing to go for an 'electronic', minimal sound or small ensemble of musicians - given the option to do anything they like. Unfortunately, this highlights the difference between games and films, artistically speaking, and I long for the time composers in games are given that kind of license. It won’t happen until composers are respected enough to be trusted with such decisions and people who basically don’t really know what they are talking about stop sticking their oars in all the time. I’m all for multi-disciplinary roles, but it would be nice to be able to choose what music you are going to write when you are hired as a composer!
I think John Williams was brilliant early on in his career and still is in many of his films. But he’s starting to copy his own sound. I know that if you have to copy someone, go for yourself, but still...
JH: The thing about John Williams is, he IS John Williams. So he can be himself. The world already has one.
But up until recently each of his films had their own unique sound. Now I hear pieces of Star Wars in Minority Report and Harry Potter.
JH: I suppose that could be seen as his voice or his signature, but I do know what you mean. But at least he doesn't set out to be like all the others. He may sound the same sometimes, but he's reworking himself at least! And I suppose the same is true of the other good film composers. There is often some familiarity about their works.
In games, it would be nice if composers could develop their own voices and become known as themselves. But I can't see it happening for a while, if ever. I know there are some, but there still seems to be a drive to be like 'so and so.’
Do you think games music will ever really stand apart?
I hope so. In my eyes it does.
JH: That's good to know.
There are some soundtracks in games that I love more than film soundtracks.
JH: Maybe I'm too pessimistic
Like you said, there's too much repetition going on. I understand your views and we appreciate your honesty.
JH: I suppose the reality is that games are big business, perhaps before really being fully formed. So there is tremendous pressure to create blockbusters too early.
The game industry doesn't have a George Lucas or James Cameron to carry it like film did. Those guys went off and did their own thing. Now Mel Gibson is doing that. No one in the game industry has that kind of power – or that kind of money.
JH: I agree.
James didn’t have to leave Earth to find inspiration for this game.
Only Bill Gates does, and he's all about business.
JH: The thing is the public doesn't have access to development technology. But they do have access to the movie camera. That's why film became so great, I think, because those outside the early establishment reinvented the industry and film was democratized.
For example, Orson Welles changed cinema precisely because he was from radio. He knew nothing about film, which is why he broke all the rules. The games industry is perhaps somewhat trapped by itself and its notions of what a game is. The outside world can't get a look in, because the industry controls the technology required to make games and the games media operates in a vacuum, where only those already interested read about games.
It's rather like cameramen being the only people able to make films. Are they the right ones? It's a matter of opinion, but a lot of people would say cameramen shouldn't be the only ones to make films.
Games are so tech-oriented. They are reported on only in the tech sections of the news, etc. When you have a situation like that, where technologists control content, I think things stand still. The real challenge might be to engage the rest of the world in the process But to do that, I think the industry needs to be more democratic. I think we still really need a strong independent sector, as exists in film.
I don't think the industry establishment or big publishers will change the scenario themselves, but may respond to a climate change outside the industry itself. Example: if the arts media, academics and world at large started talking about games and their possibilities, maybe the big publishers would be willing to cater to new markets instead of only focusing on the existing ones. They won't do it until it's proven to work, I believe. It's like Hollywood. Now and again, an innovative independent movie comes along; breaks the rules, and then everybody wants to copy that film. But you have to have the innovation in the first place.
My worry is that such a mechanism is being ironed out in games. In terms of music, I think that means composers are losing the chance to be themselves. It's unbelievable, but a lot of music in games is actually becoming interchangeable now. You could hear a lot of it in different games and not really find it strange.
I find it strange and somewhat appalling. I don't like it when I hear the same stuff over and over again.
JH: Maybe this phenomenon exists in films to an extent as well. But this is hardly making an art out of games. I think you would agree.
Entirely.
JH: There are some interesting things happening in games music, but I think it tends to be when composers are left to do what they feel is right and are not dictated to. It’s their job to come up with a sound or something to identify a game. How disheartening to be told that you must write like someone else, perhaps in a style ill-fitting the game as well, simply because of the whim of someone who has thought about the problem for five minutes. Film composers are paid big money because they actually think very hard, before writing a single note. Not just because they can write music, but because they come up with a sound and add to the character of a film. They have a direct affect over the way a film is received and are valued accordingly.
That's the art, I guess. It's not just a case of 'where can I shoe-horn this bit of John Williams-style music into my next game?' Perhaps it ought to be more a case of 'what does this game/film need?'
And another thing is: If the games industry really does want to adopt a film-style model for music, why is it generally so unwilling to pay to do it properly?
By that I mean pay composers reasonably well and allow them to develop their own style and identity, but also resource them and back them in what they want to do – because it’s going to help a lot. In the film industry, sound and music is considered to be a huge part of the experience of viewing a film. Estimated at being at least 'half' the experience of viewing a film, if such a thing can be quantified. It's often the most expensive and complicated aspect of a production. In other words, in film sound and music matter a lot. But, unfortunately, the audience can be less receptive to auditory detail and more receptive to visual detail, and perhaps believes film to be an almost entirely visual medium. In games, because so few people are studied in film, they make these assumptions about film as well – without really knowing how films tick. There is more to ‘knowing about film’ than simply ‘liking films’.
Try watching a film with the sound off and you'll see how important sound and music is in providing information. A lot of film can be experienced almost as 'radio', with no picture, and still be understood. So why hasn't this dawned on the games industry in general, which claims to understand and love film so much? What else can manipulate emotions as much as music and sound? I think audio should be absolutely central to game design, and not perceived as an afterthought, icing on the cake, or a layer over the 'already completed' game. I'd like to think sound and music are integral to a 'completed game.'
I think music says a lot more than it at first seems about the overall design of a game. It's hard not to start thinking about deeper issues with design when you are a composer in games because your role is primarily to create a feeling which leads you into wondering what that feeling ought to be, by knowing what the intent of the game is in general.
Example: what if you home in on the wrong feelings? It's like you are changing the game design. If, as a composer, you are able to do this without designers batting an eyelid – then my feeling is that these are bad designers, who care very little about how they wish to engage players on an emotional level. In a film context, can you imagine Steven Spielberg saying to John Williams, ‘Yeah, go ahead, John…do what you like and I’ll hear it at the end’. No way.. They would have to be on the same page for the film to be successful as a cohesive work of art.
Music forces players to focus on a feeling about a very specific aspect of the game, when perhaps you need to give them space to decide what to feel. A film-type game obviously tries to make people notice particular events. Sort of, 'Oh no, a monster just burst into the room!' But not every game works this way.
There are games where a lot is happening and you can pick any number of cues to motivate music. For instance, we had this problem with Sim Theme Park. In the end, the music signified how busy the park was – based on how many children were in it. So, as the park grew, the music built up in layers and became correspondingly busy. That may have been obvious, but the goal was to heighten the sense of the park being populated, even when you couldn’t see the whole of it. It's that kind of thing which interests me. So, in this sense, games composers have a lot on their shoulders – because they can actually determine the player's emotional response to games composers but I don't feel they are valued quite as they ought to be. But I would say that, as a composer.
They are to Hideo Kojima and maybe Shigeru Miyamoto – that's it. And to a degree, SquareEnix.
JH: Yes, and I suppose it's no accident they make great games.
About the other games you're working on – are they for 2004 or 2005?
JH: Nothing else coming out in 2004.
Are you working on Blue Vault?
JH: I'm formulating some ideas for that now, but I'm not allowed to talk about it. I’m hoping to discuss this with Elixir soon.
Thanks James for your in-depth comments. We wish you luck on your journey to turn game music into the art form it is destined to become.
For more information on James Hannigan, visit:
http://www.jameshannigan.co.uk/
“Evil Genius” and “Freelancer” Composer James Hannigan is Determined to Score [Part 1]
del.icio.us
Digg This
Glink It