 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the thing to bear in mind, both when writing and reading criticism in any format, is that the review should be a critique of the product itself, not a judgment of the people who made it. Most composers who don't get their work thrown out are indeed doing exactly what the directors and producers are asking them to do. That doesn't mean that we can't look at the finished result and say, "whoever's call this was, and whatever commercial pressure they were under, this is still really really bad."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly WAS Jay Alan Quantrill? Whatever became of him since the days of Elmer's FMC??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you know one reason I decided early on never to review new cd soundtracks
bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are we talking about reviewing a film score within the film or a film score as a product — like, for example a toaster reviewed by Consumer Reports — on CD or a download? There is a distinct difference. If you're a reviewer that reviews CDs, then there is no reason why the score in the film should factor into your review. It's almost completely irrelevant. Toy reviewers (and there are some!) mioght relate back to THE AVENGERS when breaking down the latest Tony Stark action figures, if only to discuss certain details, but the success or failure of that action figure is dependent on it's own qualities. That's because it's tie-in merchandise, like a soundtrack CD. Completely removed from the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the thing to bear in mind, both when writing and reading criticism in any format, is that the review should be a critique of the product itself, not a judgment of the people who made it. Most composers who don't get their work thrown out are indeed doing exactly what the directors and producers are asking them to do. That doesn't mean that we can't look at the finished result and say, "whoever's call this was, and whatever commercial pressure they were under, this is still really really bad."
And it shouldn't be an attack on the fans of a particular score either. I know there's at least one (unrepresentative) Goldsmith fan here who routinely insults the taste and intelligence of anyone who doesn't share his narrow definition of what a good score is.
When I read a comment making stupid inferences based on aesthetic differences I know I'm dealing with a bell-end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is very difficult to resist the urge to be an unrealistic film critic because afterall most of us are interested in finding film music that we like to listen to on its own, and thus is worth owning on CD, rather than studying how the music fits with the film itself. Indeed, it would be a shame if our favorite composers actually did write the type of music that we love to hear in the films only to have it rejected and replaced by something more to the producers liking. In these instances then we not only do not get to listen to a new score by our favorite composer but we get something that isn't as good as the score that would have satisfied the producers. If only there was an easier way to get the rejected scores released so we can judge for ourselves how we like it.
At the same time, when I am critical of a new score, I like to think of it as a way to let others who share similar high bars of quality that the score isn't really worth their time. Sure a lot of people could disagree with me but when I see a number of people I trust saying that a score is generic then it might save me the trouble of checking it out for myself. Over time, you start to recognize the posters who have similar tastes to your own so you can take the same posters' seal of approval as reason enough to buy it.
If you are "interested in finding film music that we like to listen to on its own," then why would you become a film music critic, unrealistic or otherwise? The purpose of film music criticism is to appreciate the art of music inspired by, crafted for and functioning as a part of a film. If you want to think of music written for film as a piece of music to be enjoyed outside of its context, fine, but then - if you must - criticize it as that, a listening experience. But then you seem to be concerned about "the trouble of checking it out for myself." Is this laziness? Are willing to base your life on other people's experience of a part of it? Sounds like a doubtful prospect at best. Enjoy the music, but don't critic it for something it never claimed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Enjoy the music, but don't critic it for something it never claimed to be."
Did you mean "critique"? Or criticize?
(Or would you care to change your name?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 13, 2015 - 2:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
If you are "interested in finding film music that we like to listen to on its own," then why would you become a film music critic, unrealistic or otherwise? The purpose of film music criticism is to appreciate the art of music inspired by, crafted for and functioning as a part of a film. If you want to think of music written for film as a piece of music to be enjoyed outside of its context, fine, but then - if you must - criticize it as that, a listening experience. But then you seem to be concerned about "the trouble of checking it out for myself." Is this laziness? Are willing to base your life on other people's experience of a part of it? Sounds like a doubtful prospect at best. Enjoy the music, but don't critic it for something it never claimed to be.
The moment a film's music is released on an album, it automatically asks to be judged like any other album. And I think that's fair (whether the composer has rearranged the music for listening or not -- obviously, he has a stronger position in my book if he has). But a film music critic should also be aware of the filmatic context, of course. For me, though, these are two different media; two different artistic expressions. So I try to separate clearly between them (NOW I'm talking about the FILM music, NOW I'm talking about the film MUSIC). That's just the name of the game of this weird artform of ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The moment a film's music is released on an album, it automatically asks to be judged like any other album.
That statement could not be farther from the truth. An album doesn't ask anything. Film music was composed directly and distinctly for the images it is accompanying, and should be judged only on that basis. An album, if there is one, is an afterthought, a by-product and has nothing to do with the music's purpose. Therefore it should not be critically assessed by its stand alone qualities. If it has those stand alone qualities subjectively speaking, that's great, and a purely descriptive review is always welcome, but it cannot and should not be compared to a film score composed for say a horror film that added an all important subtext to the film, aced what it was supposed to do, but doesn't sound like a coherent, pleasant, self-contained work. As far as original film music is concerned it is only part of a collaborative process. It may be to some the most important part, but it is still by design meant to be part of a whole, despite the fact that many of us enjoy listening to it on its own. To sum up my feelings: Positive feedback for its stand alone qualities GREAT! Negative comments FORGET ABOUT IT!
The only exception might be if the composer re-arranged the film music themselves with the intent on having it compared to other stand alone compositions as with say Vaughan Williams' 7th Symphony.
I wrote a little about this topic for my site here: http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2013/11/17/top-ten-motion-picture-music-treasures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't possibly disagree more. A soundtrack is its own thing, an adaptation of material created for a different medium -- really no different than from when you adapt a novel into a film. Of course, it would require some ACTUAL adaptation, and not just merely copy/pasting the material from one medium to the other (like C&C releases).
"I couldn't possibly disagree more."
I figured.
"A soundtrack is its own thing, an adaptation of material created for a different medium"
I could not AGREE more.
"...really no different than from when you adapt a novel into a film."
If I accept your analogy, would you blame the novel's writer if the film turned out badly? By your logic you would have to.
"Of course, it would require some ACTUAL adaptation, and not just merely copy/pasting the material from one medium to the other"
Many times the composer is not involved in the production of the album, CD etc. perhaps most times. So I would imagine then by this statement that if you didn't like the music on a soundtrack you would limit your criticism solely to those who produced it and *never* the composer. Is that right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
