|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 9, 2008 - 5:05 AM
|
|
|
By: |
calvin69
(Member)
|
Concerning this board, in the last weeks there was no single track of music on which there was so much positive talk than the CLOVERFIELD overture (which actually is more an epilogue...). It's definitely a fine piece of music. But if there has not been another track in the last six months of which there was as much talk, doesn't that bring up the conclusion that by common oppinion there simply WASN'T a track that was nearly as good ? What I mean is, isn't the enthusiasm over ROAR the perfect proof that today's film music is more or less of average quality (at best) ? And to be honest, ROAR isn't a once-in-a-lifetime masterpiece. It's an entertaining track that's immediately likable, but it's no Beethoven's 5th. However, having a great rhythm and some good themes seems to be enough to shine above all other current film music, and that really does not let other scores shine. In the 60ies tracks of a quality like ROAR were the average, but today a theme like that shakes the film music world. That's fine with me because ROAR is much better than today's scores, but for me it proves the lesser quality of most other film scores. If someone disagrees, just name single tracks of scores that have the quality and mass appeal that the CLOVERFIELD overture has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 9, 2008 - 5:14 AM
|
|
|
By: |
JSWalsh
(Member)
|
I think it's more about it being the only film music track in a prominent movie, and that single track by a rising composer was not previous available. Also, its availability has been a subject of discussion--will it be on itunes? Yes...no...maybe. If the track was available on disc the day the movie came out, I wonder how much actual discussion there'd be. Look through the posts about this track, and how many are about the availability issues, or the length of such, and how many about the actual music? On the other hand, yesterday I bought two CDs from movies that came out in 2008, bringing my total film music purchases of 2008 movies this year to, I think, 4...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monsieur Walsh has a point. People often post here because they feel a lack, not to relate the overflow of joy in what they already have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 10, 2008 - 11:07 AM
|
|
|
By: |
Jeff Bond
(Member)
|
Well what if Roar had been 12 minutes of meandering droning with a duduk solo like 60% of film music has been for the past decade? Seriously, I agree that it is not the greatest achievement in human history but why is it that there can be only two reactions to this music on this board: i.e, it's either the greatest piece of music ever written or it is of no worth whatsoever musically and that it and the film are just marketing gimmicks that worked. This is what I respond to in Giacchino's music: he enjoys the form and all its great traditions, particularly the traditions of the Sixties and Seventies, and he brings them into a modern light and has all the fun he can with them. His enthusiasm is infectious and he actually uses the orchestra. I'm listening to Lost Season 3 right now and it's a ball, and Speed Racer is a blast to listen to as well. I definitely agree that the overall trends in film music have made it far less interesting to me overall--listening to most albums is more of an academic exercise, seeing if it accomplishes "the job," then putting it down and forgetting about it. Giacchino's music is something I go back to. He's not the only guy I can say that about but I find it fairly consistent with him--and no, I do not think every note he writes is golden, but his batting average is good. So I don't understand the impetus to utterly dismiss him, but in the current environment I guess I do understand some of the exaggerated enthusiasm because not a lot of this stuff is that fun to listen to anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 10, 2008 - 3:22 PM
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
This is what I respond to in Giacchino's music: he enjoys the form and all its great traditions, particularly the traditions of the Sixties and Seventies, and he brings them into a modern light and has all the fun he can with them. His enthusiasm is infectious and he actually uses the orchestra. I'm listening to Lost Season 3 right now and it's a ball, and Speed Racer is a blast to listen to as well. I definitely agree that the overall trends in film music have made it far less interesting to me overall--listening to most albums is more of an academic exercise, seeing if it accomplishes "the job," then putting it down and forgetting about it. Giacchino's music is something I go back to. He's not the only guy I can say that about but I find it fairly consistent with him--and no, I do not think every note he writes is golden, but his batting average is good. So I don't understand the impetus to utterly dismiss him, but in the current environment I guess I do understand some of the exaggerated enthusiasm because not a lot of this stuff is that fun to listen to anymore... Well, I don't think Giacchino's skill as a composer or grasp of the orchestral idiom has ever been questioned. I think it's more of finding his own "voice" in there. But this was already covered in one of the previous ROAR threads (along with a gazillion others).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 11, 2008 - 7:59 AM
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Boy, I think this one is so simple (and maybe not an interesting observation). Giacchino and the people who made "Cloverfield" simply indulged in some old-fashioned showmanship! This piece only exists because some combination of them decided it would be a fun thing to do. Certainly, the movie didn't require it. It served no other function than to exist for its own sake. How could the people who come here for the love of film music not respond to something done (elaborately) for the same purpose? Yes, there's been a lot of talk about availability, more so than musical content. But I don't think that reveals a deep psychological motivation for the desire. Though we may fancy ourselves film music critics here, most of us (and this includes me) are not very articulate in describing a piece of music, especially one with no narrative connection or application to visuals to ease description. It's simply much easier (and I'm not saying this cynically) to ask "Hey, anybody know if this is available?" than "Hey, anybody love that part where the muted trumpets play the descending triplet figure?" I hardly think it's availability issues that made this more discussed than other pieces of music. I mean, "Cloverfield" vs. "John Adams"? Let's seeā¦ one piece was composed by a popular up-and-comer for a hit genre film. The other was composed by Rob Lane (who?) for a historical cable series that seemed like homework! (And by the way, I have not seen "Cloverfield" nor am I likely to, and I'm making my way through "John Adams," so please don't get all haughty with me!) Sometimes, the answers really are pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|