 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 20, 2008 - 4:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I think it is far more than a difference in sound. It's a difference in knowing technically and dramatically how to score such stuff. Goldsmith, through decades of experience and great instinct, knew how to do it much better than Newman did here.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm not really concerned with better or worse in the first place, but more in APPROACH. As I pointed out earlier, Goldsmith's score was a BAD choice for the film, but "accidentally" made it a FUN romp that went overboard in all departments. Newman's was less patriotic, but more "functional". So that's another subtle difference between the two that moves beyond "sound". In both cases, though, did they approach it as an action film, with close-cut musical synchronization to editing and narrative - lots of percussion, brass outbursts, even mickey-mousing, brief outbursts of main themes or motifs.
I simply don't see how Newman's score can be considered wrong for the "tone" of the film or whatever when his approach wasn't very different from Goldsmith. The difference between the two scores are in other areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get Radek sounds like an intro to a 1970s telefilm. The hijacking sequence is Randy Newman doing a Max Steiner impression. Notes, notes, and more notes! And yeah, the mickey mousing doesn't help any.
I agree with the earlier posters; Newman scored each shot, while Goldsmith scored the entire sequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 20, 2008 - 6:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
John Mullin
(Member)
|
I actually think Randy's cues work better against the picture than Goldsmith's do, although I think Goldsmith's work better as take-away music.
I also think Randy wrote knowing that the music would be in there with a good deal of sound design and other noise, and it's hard to judge how it might work in a proper mix unless we could magically hear it that way. I think his version is a little more detailed and sophisticated, though, and I would have rather seen the picture with his music in it than Goldsmith's. In general terms, I see it as Jerry having scored the heroism, and Randy having scored the nightmare. Part of that, of course, does involve a lot of musical busyness that might be more at home in animation.
Nevertheless, I watched part of the film again on TNT not too long ago, and heroism is one thing the picture could have stood to pull back on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 21, 2008 - 11:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I actually think Randy's cues work better against the picture than Goldsmith's do, although I think Goldsmith's work better as take-away music.
I also think Randy wrote knowing that the music would be in there with a good deal of sound design and other noise, and it's hard to judge how it might work in a proper mix unless we could magically hear it that way. I think his version is a little more detailed and sophisticated, though, and I would have rather seen the picture with his music in it than Goldsmith's. In general terms, I see it as Jerry having scored the heroism, and Randy having scored the nightmare. Part of that, of course, does involve a lot of musical busyness that might be more at home in animation.
Nevertheless, I watched part of the film again on TNT not too long ago, and heroism is one thing the picture could have stood to pull back on.
Good points. I agree entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think for all the talk about Goldsmith's music being over-the-top, that Newman 'Motorcade' is clearly MORE over-the-top. It's like watching an animated film. Goldsmith's theme for the motorcade at least gave it something like a straightforward hymnal melody. Before I bought into the charade that this film took itself seriously, now - and the 'Airplane!' comparison is apt - I'm wondering when Leslie Nielsen will bound into the frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 22, 2008 - 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jeff M
(Member)
|
Firstly, thanks for doing these Mutant! The stuff on Timeline was a joy to see as well. As far as Newman's score, I'm really impressed... I remember being less excited about it just listening to Newman's music outside the film.
Here's my breakdown:
Newman's score strikes me as more of a classic style of film scoring. Color wise, it sounds like the things John Williams was doing in the 70's/80's with starwars and indiana jones, unabashedly, musically, classically "present," or, emulating things from the golden as people put it (which really was heavily "referencing" classical ideas, Stravinsky and so on.)
Goldsmith I would say, uses a much more modern approach... and by modern I mean a score that references Goldsmithian notions of heroism and drama, as opposed to Newman who is referencing A jangolistic, CLASSICAL, recognizable patriotic musical idea, both melodic and orchestral... something you might actually hear at a political rally, where as goldsmith's music is something you're only going to here in a movie, in a hyper hightened dramatic setting. (which by the way, is why we all* (almost all) love Goldsmith's score more)
As far as these clips show though, these two scores seem to be SPOTTED and TIMED almost IDENTICALLY.
Where are Bryan Tyler's score in Timeline deviated heavily in it's emphasis on where and how the drama was happening (to a much blander effect I felt) Newman's and Goldsmith's score's here are shockingly similar.
Just watch the motorcade and you'll see all the hit points, drama points, and tone shifts are pretty much the same... for those who accuse Newman of Mickey Mousing, Goldsmith is pretty much hitting the same changes and beat's that Newman's does, it's just the flavor (as people have mentioned) of Goldsmith's score, which injects so much damn dignity into everything... but that is where Goldsmith was really a master and pioneer of the artform.
I'm not surprised people say this film is serious, and that Newman didn't really fit the tone... but I have to say, I think the seriousness wasn't necessarily inherent to the film, though it certainly might be what everyone WANTED. I think Goldsmith created that tone, much as it might not have existed before. Some people take action movies seriously, I do, but by their nature, most people aren't going to give an action movie an ounce of serious thought.
So much of what Goldsmith did for films, he so often dismissed the films themselves as silly crap, and I would think how in the hell? But though Jerry might have SAID those things, he'd treat the music in the opposite way. So how much of that seriousness was Goldsmith vs what the film had to offer?
Most of the time I'd say it was Goldsmith doing least 90 percent of the work. Certainly, by example, in Star Wars, with Williams, the music is doing 100 % percent of the work on that emotional level. The film might have looked like silly crap when Goldsmith first watched it, but by the time he was through scoring it, you sure as hell believed in it.
On the other hand, I still feel like Newman's score makes the movie really fun... dare I use the word camp... I don't think the tone is wrong, it's just very different... but almost more classically cinematic, like something from the 50s. (the problem IS, of course, that air force one takes place in the 90s.)
Where as Goldsmith in this film is making you believe in the nobility of Harisson Ford every two seconds, Newman is really telling you about it, in a heightened musically language... and I kind of like it. He's putting the 50s into the 90s... and it's fun.
Apples and Oranges... but in the end, I'd go with Goldsmith... though the point is, this is really just a great example of how the tone of a movie ultimately gets COMPLETELY set by the music.
Goldsmith wasn't doing what was appropriate for this particular film, so much as he was doing what he always did best for films-that-run-the-risk-of-being-considered-stupid, he makes you BELIEVE they aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
