 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bond6007
(Member)
|
Haha! This about sums it up. I don't post here very often, so clearly I've missed the many arguments about this particular topic.
At any rate, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Also, since this is such a big issue for some, it further validates Filmtracks approach of giving multiple review scores - oftentimes, one for the score in the film, one for the score on the album, and then one overall score. Sure, James hasn't seen many of these films, but he could certainly do this type of approach for a score like Titanic (if he's interested, of course).
And uh... you have seen Titanic, haven't you James? 
At any rate, we'll just have to wait and see what type of approach he comes up with. I will maintain hope that Titanic and Willow will get ratings bumps in the near future. 
Not to speak for James, but I think the purpose of his reviews is primarily to let people know whether or not he recommends purchasing a soundtrack album for listening pleasure. Whether or not the score works in context isn't really relevant to that. He has on occasion noted scores that worked perfectly in their films but nevertheless don't stand up well on their own.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. Context DOES matter. This is programmatic music, just like music for ballet, music for a play, or any other, which means you have to know what you're listening to. Yes, you can judge music by ignoring its function, but I will maintain that this is the wrong way to do things. When you listen to a song with words, do you ignore the lyrics? No? Well, that is the subject matter. Programmatic music has subject matter too, and it cannot be ignored.
Perhaps he thought a score like Willow or Titanic dragged on too long. And now, many years later, he has learned more about the music. Perhaps he has become more familiar with the film(s), or just become more educated on the subject matter, and what the music represents, what the music is supposed to be doing, and does do, very well. And now, lo and behold, his enjoyment of the album increases. And so with this new understanding, the ratings score would increase, as it should.
Now I went back and revisited those reviews, and probably the biggest thing he is complaining about is what he perceives as plagiarism. Although I disagree with many of the points he made there too, that opens up a whole new can of worms that we won't bother getting into. 
I also observed that he didn't exactly enjoy Titanic as a film. As a result, I get the sense that his criticisms of the film may have colored his review of the music. Just a hypothesis though, and I'll let James chime in here, as I don't want to unfairly judge. Many years have gone by, and I'm sure he can look at his older work just as critical as we can. Hence, as he eloquently stated, the re-reviewing in the first place.
Of course, in the end, I will let James clarify the exact intent of his reviews himself. I took a look at his "About" page, but I didn't see anything that explained his reviewing process. I'll look forward to hearing more in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 1:04 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bond6007
(Member)
|
When you listen to a song with words, do you ignore the lyrics? No?
A lot of the time, yes. I've always been more interested in the vocal sonorities of singing than what they're actually singing about.
In either case, the context you speak of is the soundtrack album. It's no longer the film once it's out on CD. Hence it can be enjoyed and evaluated as its own thing.
But you and I come from opposite ways into soundtrack listening. For me, it was an extension of listening to other musical genres (prog rock, electronic music etc.), while for you the film clearly matters in the way you listen to them. This is a fundamental difference, but both are equally valid. It is -- however -- almost impossible to argue pro and con one or the other. Believe me, I've tried about a million times over the years. Better to accept this strange duality in soundtrack listening.
Point taken about the lyrics. But I guess I didn't finish my analogy. Just as lyrics are the subject matter of a song, the events of the film are the subject matter of film music. Thus, the programmatic elements of the score, and how they are represented in the music, are like the unspoken "lyrics" of film music. These "unspoken lyrics" are present whether it is playing in the film or not. So I disagree that the context is solely on the soundtrack album. You can ignore the programmatic elements of the score, just like you can ignore the lyrics of a song, but in either case, it's impossible to judge the music fairly because you don't really understand what you're listening to. I can't imagine reviewing a song and assigning it a grade after I completely disregarded all the lyrics.
At any rate, good point about the duality of soundtrack listening. It makes sense coming from people of different backgrounds. I come from a classical background and I have a master's degree in music. I've never really listened to rock, electronic, etc. You have made the transition from popular music to film music. It only makes sense that we listen to things very differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 1:17 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
So I disagree that the context is solely on the soundtrack album. You can ignore the programmatic elements of the score, just like you can ignore the lyrics of a song, but in either case, it's impossible to judge the music fairly because you don't really understand what you're listening to.
Vice versa, I think it's rather unfair to judge a soundtrack album based on how the music works in the film, since the film is no longer present. Of course, the music was created in a film -- for specific scenes -- and its "specificity" remains within the tracks themselves. But the important thing is to give the tracks a new structure that make sense on their own. To honour its new audio-only medium, just as you have to make changes and omissions when adapting a book to film. This can be achieved any number of ways, for example by ordering the tracks in a new sequence that adds proper ebb and flow, maybe a sonata form. Its own narrative, in a way. This is an artform, not just a random cobbling-together of favourite tracks.
But as I said, we can discuss this 'till the cows come home, but it won't get us anywhere. The difference in the way we approach soundtrack albums is so fundamentally different than we can only accept that that's the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've managed to start an argument before I've even posted any new reviews! Hopefully when I do that (in a bit) the discussion can be more about Horner and his music...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 4:46 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bond6007
(Member)
|
Well, I've managed to start an argument before I've even posted any new reviews! Hopefully when I do that (in a bit) the discussion can be more about Horner and his music...
Ah, it was just a bunch of us blowing a lot of hot air... You're right, back to Horner and his music.
So, here's the first one: The Perfect Storm
http://www.movie-wave.net/the-perfect-storm/
Great review, this is one of my favorite Horner scores. Was this a brand new review, or an update? At any rate, I think you nailed it. This is Horner at his best, brilliant musical storytelling, long, superbly constructed cues with a seamless"flow," and some of his strongest thematic writing. Had to smile at "Danger Motif Index," you should trademark that. The ever-lovable danger motif is the only negative in a veritable "sea" of positives, although it is used effectively, as usual. Good descriptive writing in your review too, the "bubbling eddy" was a nice touch. Looking forward to the next review!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sense of entitlement coming from this guy is kind of nutty. Should he amend all the mixed or negative reviews just because Horner has passed and because you like them better? I think Avatar is a terrible score, and James think it's a five-star classic. I might ask him every three months to reconsider and lower his rating to two stars, but I'm just joking about every fifth time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 5:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bond6007
(Member)
|
The sense of entitlement coming from this guy is kind of nutty. Should he amend all the mixed or negative reviews just because Horner has passed and because you like them better? I think Avatar is a terrible score, and James think it's a five-star classic. I might ask him every three months to reconsider and lower his rating to two stars, but I'm just joking about every fifth time.
Nobody said anything about Horner's death in this entire thread, other than the original post. There was however an actual conversation that occurred in here about an unrelated topic, but it seems you missed it.
At any rate, there's no reason to bicker anymore. We'll wait for James' new reviews. But the reason for my original post was that Titanic, Willow, and Glory are seminal works in the history of film music, and it's even easier to see that now, nearly two decades later. I think we'll see this reflected in the updated reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 6:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
McD
(Member)
|
The sense of entitlement coming from this guy is kind of nutty. Should he amend all the mixed or negative reviews just because Horner has passed and because you like them better? I think Avatar is a terrible score, and James think it's a five-star classic. I might ask him every three months to reconsider and lower his rating to two stars, but I'm just joking about every fifth time.
The website in question is the work of just one guy, who appears to have written it over a couple of decades, probably half of his lifetime. And, in the few weeks since I discovered it, I've found a lot of comments about him revising old reviews / scores after many years. He's not afraid to do it. And it appears in light of Horner's passing, all he's doing is concentrating on Horner for a bit.
Given the quality of the website, as a resource for fans, and just in the general writing, I think it deserves a thread of its own. And is practically inviting comments from folk who think he should mark up (or down) his previous scores for work he has said he is revisiting. Which he might. Or he might go back to Titanic and declare it one star rubbish this time. It's all his opinion. But if he goes down that road, I'm sure he'll back up that opinion fully in the review.
I don't remotely see what the issue is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2015 - 6:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
McD
(Member)
|
Titanic (***) - REALLY!??! I thought this score was a joke
No, Bond6007, it's a fantastic score. Not only one of Horner's finest, but one of the finest ever, full stop. And it sold shitloads!
No idea why Mr Southall didn't give it five stars though.
Haha I assume you're joking here? Good point either way though, I changed the word "score" to "grade" in my original post. Obviously, I was talking about the *** grade being a joke, when it's clearly a ***** score. It's not my fault that the word "score" is such a versatile word!
Perhaps I should have relaxed my smilie ban for just one post!
The word 'score' does indeed have many meanings, even more than one in relation to this topic. In England, a 'score' means 20 British pounds, which just happens to be... the general price for a single CD from one of the speciality labels!
So it's a score for a score. Unless you order from Creature Features, in which case it's two score when you add the delivery charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James, you know that I love reading your reviews and Jon's reviews. People are not always going to agree with you. That's okay. Certainly others will fully agree with you. If YOU want to review or revise previous critiques, that's fine, and if you find in some cases that you want to stand by your first impressions and ratings, then please do. You can only please, "some of the people some of the time." What counts is that you believe in and support your assessments.
Thanks Joan. I can honestly say I am going to greatly enjoy revisiting this music and if a few people read my writing and it prompts any discussion here, all the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've managed to start an argument before I've even posted any new reviews! Hopefully when I do that (in a bit) the discussion can be more about Horner and his music...
Ah, it was just a bunch of us blowing a lot of hot air... You're right, back to Horner and his music.
So, here's the first one: The Perfect Storm
http://www.movie-wave.net/the-perfect-storm/
Great review, this is one of my favorite Horner scores. Was this a brand new review, or an update?
This one was all new. I had written one before (back in 2000 when it was released) but the benefit of 15 years of listening to it was certainly felt while writing the new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
