He Did That For Us (2/1)

   Another stream of consciousness writing exercise that harps on a pet peeve of mine: What the hell else did you expect Phil Collins to do besides be good at his job? 

        “Phil Collins didn’t have to go that hard on the Tarzan soundtrack, but he did that for us.”

You’ve read this sentence a billion times. It makes the rounds on social media every few days, everyone agreeing that the Tarzan soundtrack had no business being that good. And I agree, it is a very good soundtrack. I just have one question:
What the hell is everyone talking about?
What do you mean “He didn’t have to go that hard”? Of course he did. He was a musician being paid to create the score for an animated Disney film. Was he just going to phone it in? What do you mean he didn’t have to go that hard.

It’s Phil Collins. We’re talking about Phil Collins. I just want to make sure we’re on the same page here on who we’re talking about. Phil Collins. This isn’t some kid plinking away at a piano in Tin Pan Alley, some young dreamer with something to prove. This is Phil Collins. Just confirming that we’re all aware we’re talking about Phil Collins here. From Genesis, that Phil Collins. The musician. Lily Collins’ dad

So I reiterate, what do you mean he didn’t have to go that hard. Of course he did. The man doesn’t have an off switch. What did you expect? Really what did you expect? Of course he’s going to go crazy on that score. It’s his only setting.

So maybe it’s not about how it’s Phil Collins, maybe it’s about the fact that he produced back to back bangers for a Disney film? That he defied expectations and wrote a good score for something as frivolous as an animated musical? Cool, let’s yank the thread on that sweater. I refer you to my previous question, second verse same as the first:

What the hell are you talking about?

Disney is not a scrappy underdog who took a big swing on this novel idea of an animated musical. Tarzan was not an experiment, animators watching press screenings like the Apollo 13 Mission Control. No this is the Mouse we’re talking about.

In 1991, the Mouse made history by creating the first animated film to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Beauty and the Beast was the third film of what came to be known as the Disney Renaissance. Of every previous animated musical of the era, each of them got Academy Award nominations for best score. The exception is Hercules which limped to the barn with only a paltry Oscar nom for Original Song. This is what Tarzan was following up. The norm for the prior decade was incredible scores made by exceptionally talented musicians.

So the precedent had been set. We all agree on where the benchmark was. These were not fine films with a memorable song or two spread between them. These were quite literally back-to-back genre definers. Two of those movies have adaptations running on Broadway as we speak. You could stop reading this, catch a matinee, and see that it is in fact very common for the musicians to go “that hard” on a Disney movie.

Now I’m not saying that the score for Tarzan is overrated or bad. I don’t think Phil Collins did anything less than what the job demanded. So why do I have to see every third comment on anything discussing Tarzan the same exact copy and pasted sentiment? Why do I know the sentence “Phil Collins didn't have to go hard on the Tarzan soundtrack but he did. He did that for all of us” better than I know the preamble to the Constitution? What do we want? What do we expect?

Did you expect Phil to break with a decade of precedent? A board room of sweating Disney execs sat him down and said “Hey Phil, we want a bad score for our upcoming animated film. We’re talkin’ a real stinker. So get to it, because we want this movie’s music to be really really bad” and Phil stood and said “No, I will make a good score instead!” and launched himself out the window, Disney execs wailing and gnashing their teeth at how he’d defy their orders.

He actually did have to go as hard as he did for the score for Tarzan. Because that’s his job. He’s a musician, he’s an artist. The films of this era don’t carry the same money-grubbing stink as many modern Disney ventures. This wasn’t a cheap cash-in that Phil decided to elevate with a magnanimous hand. This wasn’t him sticking it to the man and writing something better than it had any right to be.

There’s many ways that I’ve typed this sentence that make it sound like I have some sort of thesis. What do we ask of our artists? What do we expect of our art?

I don’t have a thesis. I’m just a guy that’s confused about what the hell else you expect from Phil Collins and the Disney Corporation. Phil Collins was a few years distant from Genesis at this point, trying to focus on his solo career. Disney couldn’t be making more money if they’d had Midas himself on their board of directors. So why, 25 years out, are we still scratching our heads and asking how it happened.

There was quite literally no other option. I don’t know how you can be surprised by the outcome. “This stick of dynamite didn’t have to generate a massive burst of heat and pressure, but it did!”

I dunno, am I going to be so bold as to say it does a disservice to the artists involved? That it says the hardworking animators on Tarzan were somehow beneath the talents of Mr. Collins? Is it insulting to Phil to imply that he’s such a hack he’d phone something in? Is it insulting to Alan Menken and Elton John to say that they didn’t go “so hard” on the animated films that preceded it?

I don’t think I’m going to be so bold, I’ve just yet to hear an explanation for this phenomena (if I can call it that, which as I barely edit this, I will and no one can stop me) that explains what exactly Phil Collins should have done.