 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty silly to complain about Rosenman's rehashing tendencies and then say Horner would have been better, given how fundamental Horner's own rehashings (of his own music and other composers) were to his work.
Rosenman wrote two terrific character pieces for this film that did not simply rob from Classical composers, and wrote a very fine fugue that is truly distinctive in his career. He was a real composer, and while it's fine to say one doesn't care for his work, it's absurd to suggest the music isn't exceptionally well made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VOYAGE HOME was much a departure from the dramatic and tragic bounded story line of II & III. The objective of the new film to be uplifting and soaring and the choice of a new composer with all new approach was just the right way to do it....On the other hand, I do like the score but not that as much as the Goldsmith and Horner's oeuvre.
Very well explained, Amer.
I do want to acknowledge that I understand why some folks here wish Horner would have continued, and there is no question he would have written a score that I would have enjoyed. But Amer has nailed why Rosenman's score works so well for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that Nimoy wanted to hire Rosenman for III we shouldn't be saying it's sad that we didn't get Horner for IV but rather that it's lucky that we got him for III!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I truly don't mean this to be snarky. While Horner was known for borrowing from himself and others, Rosenman literally copy's and paste's the same music into every film he's been assigned to "score".
My take is that Horner does something very similar from time to time, and that most of his scores include significant repetition of earlier ideas, even if much of it is new.
I don't think for Rosenman it's copying and pasting so much as "this is what I have to write." Having listened carefully to a lot of his music for many years, it's simply unfair to say he is merely copying - he does keep re-using gestures, harmonies, rhythmic patterns, and his pyramid chords. But in each score there is variety and inventiveness.
I think this is also generally true of Horner (or John Barry, or Herrmann, or Rozsa, etc.). Some compositional voices are more varied, some more consistent or with signature sounds, but I think it comes from the need to write the music that way far more than any kind of laziness.
The real question is whether you like to listen to what a composer does. If you do, you tend to be more forgiving of repetition (and this is true of all kinds of music).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've listened to probably more Rosenman than most board members here and I can confidently say Rosenman didn't borrow parts of scores as much as Horner. He did however, borrow ideas and used them quite a lot (but not every single score), such as: tone pyramids, Dum Dum DumDum's (if you know what I mean; usually following a tone pyramid), and woodwind ideas.
Horner, however, frequently lifted sections of a score and just had them in others. Want to hear some "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in "Rascals and Robbers"? You can.
Want to hear part of "Searching for Bobby Fisher" in "A Beautiful Mind"? You can.
Want to hear part of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" in "Gorky Park"? You can.
Want to hear part of "Battle Beyond the Stars" in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan"? You can.
And then there was his total rips from classical, mostly older works, works. What made this frustrating was not only the lack of credit for what I lifted from, but that he had the audacity to say he didn't do it on purpose, yet many of the lifts not only share identical orchestrations, identical tempos, and notes, it's like he had sheet music in front of him to copy and paste from. and it happened far too frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....Rosenman pretty much just scribbled a different title on his old manuscripts.
Just so it's clear: NO, he did not. Easy to say, easy to prove - and it just ain't so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 20, 2017 - 1:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Are we meant to think of II, III, and IV as a trilogy? The relationship of II and III is obvious but I always considered IV a stand-alone story, almost something you would have seen as a (really good) TV episode. Yes, Nimoy returned as director but I’m not seeing a trilogy here. With that said, I would have enjoyed hearing Horner continue with the franchise. Rosenman has his place in the firmament, though I am no huge fan, but Horner did some of his better work for Star Trek.
It's most certainly part of a trilogy. Four opens up right where they left off on Vulcan and references the third film. The crew are going back to Earth to face court martial. Yes, their side tracked and go back in time to deal with a new threat, but return to face judgement. They also directly resolve the issue regarding the lose of the Enterprise from the previous film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Mike, the important thing is you're still listening to Rosenman! Even if it never changes your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 20, 2017 - 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Zooba
(Member)
|
Slightly off my own topic, is it a rule that all Klingons born on Q'onoS (Kronos) the Klingon home planet have a name that starts with the letter K? "Chang" always seemed out of place to me when knowing the Klingons from the past named Kor, Koloth, Kang, Kruge, Kahless, Kurn, K'mpec, K'ehleyr, Korrd, Klaa and perhaps the other Klingons with non K names like Gowron, Worf and Chang were not born on Kronos and may be from a Klingon/Other World coupling. Chang seems to be oriental by sound.
Or perhaps "Chang" was wanted by Christopher Plummer, who insisted that "his" Klingon looked different than all others who came before.
And I can't for the life of me explain that Klingon named Larry from that very special episode of VOYAGER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 20, 2017 - 3:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nerfTractor
(Member)
|
Are we meant to think of II, III, and IV as a trilogy? The relationship of II and III is obvious but I always considered IV a stand-alone story, almost something you would have seen as a (really good) TV episode. Yes, Nimoy returned as director but I’m not seeing a trilogy here. With that said, I would have enjoyed hearing Horner continue with the franchise. Rosenman has his place in the firmament, though I am no huge fan, but Horner did some of his better work for Star Trek.
It's most certainly part of a trilogy. Four opens up right where they left off on Vulcan and references the third film. The crew are going back to Earth to face court martial. Yes, their side tracked and go back in time to deal with a new threat, but return to face judgement. They also directly resolve the issue regarding the lose of the Enterprise from the previous film.
Wow, I had forgotten all that, it's been a while. Good to know!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
