 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No plans to see the film (until I can see it for free, just to see how bad it is this time), but liking the score as is usual with these films. Favorite tracks so far: Sacrifice, Merlin's Staff, Purity of Heart, Seglass Ni Tonday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering two of the best cues on the album are the first and third ones, I'm not sure where your opinion on this score is coming from at all.
Exactly, the highlights don't draw me in why sit through 2 hours of music? I went through some other favorites recommended by my friend yesterday and same problem. No development at all, nothing interesting to say.
But you can't make a sentence without listening the entire thing.
Ok, two tracks and done, is the worst score or a bad score.
As for the score, I like it, not the best thing ever or one of the best scores of this year, but FAR better than the fourth one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can judge a lot from three tracks. A competent score will introduce a lot of material in the first few tracks or at minimum one interesting theme. You can also tell pretty quickly whether or not the score features strong orchestration. Listen to a John Williams or James Horner main title track. In 3-5 minutes you hear a lot of ideas. That suggests that listening further is worth your time. The same could be said for listening to an end titles or suite at the end of a score. Most soundtracks have the most rousing music in the finale so I jump to the last 2-3 tracks to give it a second chance.
I listened MANY main titles, but don't judge the entire score by six or five minutes (or depends length of the track)
For example, The Mummy, I love the score by Goldsmith, but the first track isn't enough for gave a opinion of the entire score, beacause there is a plenty of good stuff in the other tracks. More recently, the Brian Tyler's Mummy, the end titles are awesome, but the rest of the score is pretty good, i can't say the score is awesome for 10 minutes of music or for example, I HATE the Earth Stood Still by Bates, but two tracks of the score are good, the rest is awful.
For that, the idea of judge a score for 2 or 3 tracks dosen't make any sense, only when you listen the entire thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No but it tells you if listening to the full thing is worth it. You either hear intelligent music worth digging into deeper or music with no development. This is one with no development. With a Horner score, the main title usually tells you it is worth it to listen to the rest of it.
War of the Worlds has no themes and the score is very good.
The idea of listen two tracks and decide listening or not the full thing dosen't gave any capacity for judge the entire score, as you said: a friend tell you the score has no development, not you listening the entire thing.
My friend, I listened the entire score and can gave a opinion, not for two tracks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
