Goldsmith Defenders!

Compiled by Lukas Kendall

This the tip of the iceberg of letters we got responding to Rafi Youngerwood's quite innocent letter asking what the big deal is about Jerry Goldsmith's music. More of them next week!

From: "Brian McVickar" <Brian.McVickar@alltel.com>

Well, I'm positive Mr. Jeff Bond would have a logical, insightful response to the reader perplexed by interest in Mr. Goldsmith's music, but I'll try to offer up my opinion also to see if I can have it make sense.

First, I'm glad the reader is at least open to contrasting views, because it is a completely subjective argument. Second, I am wondering how many Goldsmith scores he has actually heard. I now have over 80 of his scores in my collection, more than any other composer of which I am a fan (Williams, Goldenthal, Barry), and I play his music and hum his themes and motifs more than anyone else's. It may just be that I dig his sound and approach, his textures and intricacies, and that this particular reader does not favor the mostly progressive tendencies of Goldsmith's music. Some listeners might find parts of "Coma", "Poltergeist", and "Star Trek-The Motion Picture" because they will be driven by texture in the instrumentation as opposed to repeating eight-bar melodies endlessly. This is due in part to his unwavering loyalty to serve the film's needs, not the concert hall's. I don't think it matters to him if he's composing the next three-minute hit tune to play at a concert. However, one thing I've always enjoyed about Goldsmith is that even during these low-key moments in his scores, he always retains his focus and invention. It may be subtle, it may be based on just three notes and it's ensuing permutations, but it gives these sections a resonance that other composers can't match because they 're just throwing sound together without a direction. Goldsmith always has direction in his cues.

Now, in the letter writer's defense, I wasn't always such a Goldsmith nut. There was a time when his music confounded and frustrated me because it was unpredictable or dissonant. I began to learn how clever his music can be and how brilliant it often is, especially in its ability to utilize one theme or motif throughout the score. There were many surprises awaiting me in his music for "Logan's Run". I think it is a great conceptual score and I love how the first time we hear the love theme ('On The Circuit'), it is performed in the coldest, most astringent manner possible, telling us how emotionally barren the inhabitants of the story are at this point. It blossoms into a rapturous melody only after the lovers escape the confines of the city. However, what follows them from the start of the film is a rising yet stilted three-note motif symbolizing the city, its shallow inhabitants, and the manner in which they are not allowed to live a full, complete life, just as this motif never reaches a satisfying cadence. This is just one example of the amazing intellect contained in Goldsmith's scores.

As far as great, hummable melodies, has the disappointed reader heard any of the following: MASADA, THE BLUE MAX, QB VII (the love theme is one of my very favorites), THE FINAL CONFLICT, HOUR OF THE GUN, ISLANDS IN THE STREAM, and THE EDGE.

And finally, Goldsmith's action music is some of the most engaging and focused of any film composer, and you can drop the needle in the middle of any of these cues and you're guaranteed a strong focus and rhythmic invention. TOTAL RECALL, PLANET OF THE APES, BLUE MAX, POLTERGEIST, SUPERGIRL, THE EDGE, AIR FORCE ONE, and DAMIEN: OMEN II contain powerhouse tracks of blistering energy that will blow down doors two towns over.

So, that's all from me, hope it successfully explained at least part of why many of us are Goldsmith fans.

From: "Christopher Moore" <brainchild_cam@hotmail.com>

As you eloquently soften the blow of your comments on Goldsmith, please allow me to do the same: please do not think this is about to be an attack; on the contrary, it is what you've asked for. A simple rebuttle to convince of why Goldsmith is so well liked from one persons point of view. Let me also say that I cannot speak for all the Goldsmith fans out there- I can only speak for myself, obviously, and therefore, my comments will follow as such.

Jerry Goldsmith has captured my imagination with his music since I was five years of age. This was because the main title music for Star Trek: The Motion Picture was such a pronounced, adrenalizing sound of adventure to me- and being such a young age buying that kind of music brought me into a world I have since enjoyed thoroughly. If you have listened to the score, you can see why it has so much to offer the ear. The recent expanded version has evidence to back this statement from. The outward note motif in the main title is extremely memorable as if it were a fanfare for the military or a king. Compare it to the main titles for Captain Blood or the Parade of the Charioteers from Ben Hur, and you've got a tough decision as to which is more memorable, but more importantly, you have a comparison where Goldsmith's main title holds up (in my humble opinion) extremely well. Now, try to compare this same music to Williams, and you'll get two schools of thought: One pro-Williams, die-hard, nothing-else-comes-close (how dare you kind of thing), and the other is one who looks at all composers and reviews for themselves how the music speaks to them- as you have, judging from your comments.

First of, I'm of the opinion congruent with the latter school of thought. My opinion is that it is understood that Williams is good, you have plenty of example there. But GOldsmith has had a longer and more distinguished a career spanning some 40 or more years I would guess - more likely more than that, and includes some very memorable movies like Patton, Planet of The Apes, The Sand Pebbles, Star Treks 1, 5, First Contact, and Insurrection, The Secret of Nimh, Total Recall...the list goes on.

He won an academy award for The Omen- geuinely scary music- Carol Anne's theme from Poltergeist is still one of the most gentle Lullabies this side of Brahms, and if you want adult scares- just listen to Basic Instinct, close your eyes and think Lorena Bobbitt.

If that's a mental image too displeasing to you, then here's some more concrete arguments to find out more of how much Goldsmith's music is revered: A go to a message board at Moviemusic.com, perhaps you've heard of it? Lately, there have been rave reviews by many on that board concerning the The 13th Warrior. If you prefer to take their example in addition to my comments, that may assist your decision making process as to whether we're valid in our opinion.

When the Mummy was released to theatres, half of my enjoyment came from the fact that I was walking out of the theatre humming the music- wanting the soundtrack...and I've rarely done that- except with a few Goldsmith scores. And it was something I started doing with Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

To be completely honest, Goldsmith has been lost on me sometimes, too. The Haunting was my moste recent disappointment- but to be fair, it's not a terrible score. But then, Williams has had some bad ones, too- and so has Barry. My personal opinion is that Presumer Innocent is boring, and Mercury Rising is not that great a score. This only proves that sometimes- it just doesn't reach us, the consumers- the fans.

I hope I've given you reason enough reconsider what facts you've been given about Goldsmith. And please don't take my word for it alone, please read as many things about GOldsmith as you can, pro & con, most of which you'll see at Film Score Monthly.

I readily recognize that liking Goldsmith, or any film score for that matter, is completely dependant on what kind of tastes you have in music already. If you simply don't like the music, you don't, and no one can tell you otherwise, of course. But reserve judgment until you've heard all the facts.

From: "Dennis Logsdon" <logied@mediaone.net>

Here is my answer to the Youngerwood letter about Goldsmith. He does deserve the attention he gets and so do the others if not more. Where does Goldsmith belong in any conversation about film composers , not at the top but in the top and with the others. The only arguement comes with comparing so stop comparing. To me Goldsmith is the 1ST JOUNRNEYMAN tv and film composer that set the tone for those who would have that title beside their names in the new area of TV and film Entertainment in the last half of this century. He is prolific because that is what he does and the only thing he does. Why does that seem to be a problem for some people is what I don,t understand. Williams , Mancini and the like had other areas that their talents took them, for whatever reasons of talent, interest and the like, Goldsmith did not follow that path. Goldsmith is the product of Hollywood entertainment, he has worked for TV and Film and delivered to his bosses over many, many years what they hired him to do. I might question his art but I would not question his work, it has been outstanding for all who have hired him. He writes great, he seems to have a world wide following, he seems to have loyal and good people who support him. He conducts well, produces his music well. Supports other composers work (north) etc. By the way, I don,t know any film composers job it is to produce great or even good music over the whole length of an album, is that an intent when they are hired?

From: GGilRUTH@aol.com

After first reading this letter, I thought "this must be a joke".

But coming to think of it, many times friends of mine (who are not that much into film music, but they generally like the usual Williams and Barry themes) have asked me that very same question, what's the big deal about this Goldsmith guy?

First of all, throughout his career Goldsmith always had the bad luck to score films that are mostly forgettable. Even the great ones, such as Chinatown or LA Confidential, were not the kind of films that require big, Out-of-Africa style "themes".

I think Goldsmith's justified reputation for providing sophisticated, intelligent scores without calling attention to himself has made his music more of an acquired taste than Williams and Barry, whose scores always seem to be written with concert arrangements in mind. I first discovered Goldsmith through Star Trek The Motion Picture, one of the few films that really let his music shine, and one of his few instantly recognizable "themes".

Initially, I found his scores very complicated and hard to comprehend (read: hard to hum!), yet fascinating. The more scores I listened to the more I started to appreciate Goldsmith's artistry. While I like many of John Williams' scores (mostly the typical big ones), I do not hold Williams' ENTIRE OUTPUT in as high esteem as Goldsmith's.

I simply cannot think of any other composer whose output is of such consistently high quality as Goldsmith's. Within an 18 month period in 1978/79 Goldsmith wrote Capricorn One, Coma, The Swarm, The Boys from Brazil, Damien Omen II, Magic, The Great Train Robbery, Alien, and Star Trek The Motion Picture, - every one of them a unique, sopisticated masterpiece in its own right. Many of his fans (Goldsmith junkies) will buy anything that bears his name, even the most terrible bootleg and most unnecessarily expanded reissue, to discover more nuances of his genius.

As far as boring cues, I have listened to Star Trek, Poltergeist, and The Omen many, many times, and I cannot find a single moment of boredom in them (I do find a few in Dances With Wolves, although I really like this score). Most of us love Goldsmith not so much because of his great themes, but because of his incredible action music (he used to place the most exciting track at the end of side A in the good old LP days). If you find pieces such as "Raisuli Attacks", "The Enterprise", "The Bees Arrive", "Breakout" from Capricorn One or "The Gold Arrives" from The Great Train Robbery boring, I guess nothing can excite you.

Finally, if you are looking for some more "hummable" Goldsmith, check out any of his Western scores. To paraphrase Jeff Bond, if there is a law in the West, it's that every Goldsmith Western rules, dude. Happy Listening.

From: skywise@altavista.net

In response to the "Rafi Youngerwood" letter, there is validity to his claim. Goldsmith's ability to write a great theme can be countered by a very lackluster score and through the 90's I have failed to be impressed with his body of work.

Though I disagree with his accusations of POLTERGEIST and STAR TREK:TMP I have to ask this question: Is your criteria that the score completely works on its own, or in context of the film?

From: "Geoff Hitchins" <dj_cockboy@hotmail.com>

Re: Rafi Youngerwood's letter about Goldsmith. Writing a good film score is not about writing hummable, or even memorable, music. It's about the marriage of music and film. I can hum "Titanic", but I can't hum "Poltergeist". And guess which one I think is the better score? If you don't like Goldsmith, or think his work is valid, that's cool. But scores aren't meant to be listenable. If they are, great, but remember that composers of film music are not writing music for an album release, they're writing it as part of the overall sound design of a film. That's the important thing. Howard Shore's score for "The Silence of the Lambs" was one of the best of it's year, and I listen to the album about once a year...because it's kind of monotonous. But that doesn't change my opinion of what a wonderful score it is.

From: kurkoskt@oit.edu

So Mr. Youngerwood doesn't see what the big deal is about Jerry Goldsmith. I've seen what the big deal is, but I've also been in Mr. Youngerwood's shoes.

When I first got into film scores half a dozen years ago, collecting albums from the movies I saw and liked the music, I didn't like Goldsmith very much. With Goldsmith's less than spectacular, although always orignal, output in the 90's, that's not surprising. In fact, I hated Air Force One. You heard me. I still don't like how it plays within the movie. Too much fanfare. Felt like his pen bled ink while he was orchestrating the brass section. Works better on the album. Anyway....

Later on, after buying a few CD's and exploring other film composers, I felt more open towards Goldsmith. That was about the time I started subscribing to FSM, which gives off the impression sometimes that Jerry Goldsmith is the next best thing to sliced bread (or John Barry, depends on who you ask). So I said what the hell, and bought Planet of the Apes, on sale at Intrada for 99 cents. My impression of Mr. Goldsmith did not improve. To someone who had been brought up with the melodies of Williams, Barry, Horner, and Silvestri, Apes sounded like a bunch of noise. Why would anyone consider that good?

But I gave him a second try. I knew he did Star Trek:TMP, which I liked the main theme to, and several television themes I liked (Man From U.N.C.L.E. comes to mind). At a used CD store with a try-before-you-buy policy, I gave Basic Instinct a listen. And I liked it. Later on, I received the Silver Age Classics CD of Patton as a gift, and it appealed to me, too.

With some hindsight into how I had been introduced to film scores, and what I had learned since I began collecting, I started paying more attention to Goldsmith. Both in current releases (recent Star Trek films, the Mummy) and older films on TV and video, Goldmith's musical choices became clearer to me. After spending some time listening to Planet of the Apes, it started making sense, even though I've never seen the movie.

I concur with Mr. Youngerwood's observation that Goldsmith can write tremendous themes. It is a skill that sets him apart from almost all other composers. I have to disagree, however, with Mr. Youngerwood's opinion that Goldsmith's abilities do not extend beyond the first and last tracks of a CD. Goldsmith's motives may not be obvious at times, and apart from the films his music may not be as listenable as his more melodious contemporaries, but there is a quality to it, even if it is hard to see. His music can be very complex at times. Often textural and atonal. His music serves the film it was written for, as every good film score should, and that doesn't necessarily guarantee a good album. Listening to Goldsmith on a stereo can take his music out of context and the qualities that make it work so well in the theatre can be grating or even annnoying to an unaccustomed ear. Only by studying this music and listening to it over and over can we understand the how and why of Goldsmith's choices and hopefully, eventually, we will come to appreciate what he does.

My advice to Mr. Youngerwood and any other fan of film scores that is having trouble understanding Jerry Goldsmith or any other composer is to keep listening. Listen to more works from that composer, from different films, from different styles. Listen to other composers you've never listened to before. The music of film can work on many different levels and eventually you might find one that appeals to you. And remember that sometimes composers, even good ones, produce crap they'd sooner forget about. Move on and discover more music. Great composers like Herrmann, Morricone, and Bernstein didn't become great by writing a single score. They became great by proving that they could write many great scores for many different types of films.

There's a lot of good music out there. Let's start listening.

Next week: More letters!

MailBag@filmscoremonthly.com