 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thor, when you say "lesser voices," do you mean lesser in authority, or do you mean lesser in intellect or aesthetic taste?
Kinda both. Obviously in the sense of authority, but in this case also in the sense of taste.
I know you're on a mission to discredit the score, as most other naysayers, but I'm afraid it doesn't have any impact on me, regardless of what the non-Donner crew had to say. It slips off like water on a goose, or however the saying goes. For me, it's a shining beacon of brillant artistic vision shining through, despite the protests from crew and audiences.
The more opposition I encounter in regards to the score, the more I love it.
Well, at least you acknowledged you're defensive about the score, which explains a few of your statements and reactions. Some of which are illogical by definition, such as "the more opposition I encounter in regards to the score, the more I love it." Hardly an intellectually defensible position if you are trying to make an argument for artistic merit. In fact, it reveals a kind of contrarian dogmatism instead.
Which would be fine if you didn't mix it in with condescending digs at those you consider "lesser" than you in their artistic taste. It's one thing to like something that others do not, it's another to suggest that those that disagree with you are not quite on your intellectual or aesthetic plane. A total refusal to be swayed by evidence or counter-argument reflects dogmatism rather than intellectual rigor and honesty.
Personally I don't care if you love the score or not. Why not just say you love it and leave it at that? I'm certainly not on a mission to "discredit" the score. People are free to like what they like. The only thing I'm pushing back against is your dismissiveness of any counter-argument, and what seems like a condescending attitude toward those that don't agree with you.
But your willingness to acknowledge defensiveness is actually quite welcome. It makes you seem, I don't know, more human, less dogmatic. I can identify. There are things I like that I'll defend to the death, even though I realize it's really just nostalgia or simple personal preference lurking underneath my rabid defense.
There's a very well documented phenomenon called the "Reminiscence Bump": people tend to remember incidents of their lives from ages 10 to 30 much more than they do from the other periods and years of their lives. It's also highly correlated with the music and movies we take in from that period of time getting tied to our sense of identity. It's interesting that you can almost always nail down exactly when someone "came of age" just by those films and pieces of music that people hold great attachment to, and why after a certain point people reliably say "they just don't make xxxxx like that anymore." Taken to its extreme, it becomes "music and movies today are terrible." When someone says that, it's almost invariable that the music and movies they will hold up as the best are those they took in between the ages of 10 and 30.
We're all guilty of it from time to time, me included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 22, 2023 - 3:09 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Well, at least you acknowledged you're defensive about the score, which explains a few of your statements and reactions. Some of which are illogical by definition, such as "the more opposition I encounter in regards to the score, the more I love it." Hardly an intellectually defensible position if you are trying to make an argument for artistic merit. In fact, it reveals a kind of contrarian dogmatism instead.
It just reflects that I'm a devoted fan of the score -- both in the film and on album -- and will defend it until the day I die. Passionately. It's one of the best scores of all time, in my top 30-40 list.
Which would be fine if you didn't mix it in with condescending digs at those you consider "lesser" than you in their artistic taste. It's one thing to like something that others do not, it's another to suggest that those that disagree with you are not quite on your intellectual or aesthetic plane. A total refusal to be swayed by evidence or counter-argument reflects dogmatism rather than intellectual rigor and honesty.
Not really. Just a support of Richard Donner in the face of his naysayers.
Personally I don't care if you love the score or not. Why not just say you love it and leave it at that? I'm certainly not on a mission to "discredit" the score.
Well, you fooled me after 3-4 posts about the behind-the-scenes shananigans about people displeased with the score. That kind of stamina deserves a 'discredit' stamp, as far as I'm concerned.
There's a very well documented phenomenon called the "Reminiscence Bump": people tend to remember incidents of their lives from ages 10 to 30 much more than they do from the other periods and years of their lives.
I'm well aware of the nostalgia factor. That doesn't apply to me me in this particular case. As the first post attests to, I saw the film two decades after it premiered. It stood up. The severe criticism it received was largely misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just reflects that I'm a devoted fan of the score -- both in the film and on album -- and will defend it until the day I die. Passionately. It's one of the best scores of all time, in my top 30-40 list.
Why can't you just say "I think it's one of the best" rather than "it is" one of the best?
Not really. Just a support of Richard Donner in the face of his naysayers.
Literally calling others who disagree with Donner "lesser" individuals is not a judgement call of their taste?
Hey, Donner is one of my favorite directors, and I actually quite like Ladyhawke.
Well, you fooled me after 3-4 posts about the behind-the-scenes shananigans about people displeased with the score. That kind of stamina deserves a 'discredit' stamp, as far as I'm concerned.
Two posts - one with an overview, and another where I pulled some quotes since I had the time to do so. I thought others here might find it interesting. First post was hearsay (someone could legitimately accuse me of paraphrasing simply to support my view) and the second post offered the actual quotes so people could judge for themselves. Part of the reason was to show Solium he was not crazy in his remembrance of what was in the book. So it wasn't directed at you, see? There are others out there who are curious about these things.
I'm well aware of the nostalgia factor. That doesn't apply to me me in this particular case. As the first post attests to, I saw the film two decades after it premiered. It stood up. The severe criticism it received was largely misinformed.
So those who disagree with you don't just disagree with you, they're mis-informed. Seriously, you don't think that's condescending and judgemental?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 22, 2023 - 3:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Why can't you just say "I think it's one of the best" rather than "it is" one of the best?
Because it's one and the same. "I think it's one of the best" is the same as "It is". We're all talking subjective evaluations here. When I say "It is", it OBVIOUSLY means my own personal evalution.
Literally calling others who disagree with Donner "lesser" individuals is not a judgement call of their taste?
Lesser individuals? Where did that come from? My point was the the naysayers didn't have the vision that Donner had. They had limitations in their artistic vision, aka "lesser voices", they weren't lesser INDIVIDUALS.
Two posts - one with an overview, and another where I pulled some quotes since I had the time to do so. I thought others here might find it interesting. First post was hearsay (someone could legitimately accuse me of paraphrasing simply to support my view) and the second post offered the actual quotes so people could judge for themselves. Part of the reason was to show Solium he was not crazy in his remembrance of what was in the book. So it wasn't directed at you, see? There are others out there who are curious about these things.
That's fine, but you no doubt had a point to get across, since you clearly dislike the score. It wasn't just a detached objective observation.
So those who disagree with you don't just disagree with you, they're mis-informed. Seriously, you don't think that's condescending and judgemental?
No. Most of the criticism I read is misinformed. They think the whole score is pop beats. Fact is, it's only about 20%. And in those 20%, it works (and it's in those 20% the disagreement occurs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate you clarifying the last statement. I agree, it's only the 20% of pop material most people object to.
But boy, you're getting pedantic with the "individuals" distinction. Here's what you wrote:
"They had limitations in their artistic vision, aka "lesser voices."
That reads to the world like an objective (and very condescending) statement, which is why your supposedly OBVIOUS subjective statements don't always seem all that subjective (it's not like I'm the first person who's pointed this out). That's why I asked you to clarify your original statement, because it sure seemed like you were saying that those that disagree with you were "lesser" in some way or another. I tried to be charitable and thought, well maybe he just means lesser in terms of authority.
I like you, Thor, and enjoy most of your posts. Sometimes I just think you fall into the "self-styled aesthete" category and come across as looking down at those who disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just reflects that I'm a devoted fan of the score -- both in the film and on album -- and will defend it until the day I die. Passionately. It's one of the best scores of all time, in my top 30-40 list.
Good for you then. 
I don't think I have ever "unliked" a film score, because I always remember why I liked something in the first place. It has happened that I came to enjoy scores and composers I originally did not, but never the other way around. I never stopped liking a film score or composer I previously liked. Never happened. So I fully believe you will always love Ladyhawke.
When discussing music, regardless of film music or not, and in fact this goes for most other art as well, it usually is never about convincing someone to not like something. I mean, there is nothing to be "gained".
Music is there to be enjoyed, so when somebody enjoys something, when the music "clicks", when that person is capable of explaining what and why he or she enjoys the music, I think that's usually worth more than the comments of the detractors. I think it's easier to dislike something than to like something; certainly there is more music that I do not like or am at least indifferent to than there is music that I like. But it's more enjoyable to focus on the latter.
If person A likes a film score and person B does not, what would be gained by B convincing A? Then neither one would like the film score. No winner there.
On the other hand, if A convinces B to actually like the film score as well, both A and B now like the film score. So that's win-win. I think the latter situation is generally preferable to the former.
So I tend to pay more attention to those who enjoy and defend something, rather than those who dislike or loath something. Of course, I know you can't (and shouldn't want) to "talk" people into liking music. At best, one can give reasons for or shed light on something that might make another one "hear" a piece of music anew.
If I don't like LADYHAWKE (and I remember I really did not like the movie because of the music... years ago), I am perfectly willing to say that the fault is mine. I would prefer liking it over disliking it. Which is why I'm willing to give the music and the movie another shot. Doesn't mean it will work, I may still dislike it, but I did the start by reading the liner notes from the album. :-)
(Still have not actually listened to the album though.)
That said, it can of course be baffling how and why some people like and enjoy something. And it can be called into question. And in case of LADYHAWKE, must be called into question. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 23, 2023 - 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I like you, Thor, and enjoy most of your posts. Sometimes I just think you fall into the "self-styled aesthete" category and come across as looking down at those who disagree with you.
I'm sorry if that is your takeaway from this, John. Certainly no 'condescension' is intended on my end, even if I’m stubborn as hell. But when you stand (more or less) alone loving something, and everybody around you says that what you love is "shit", all kinds of defensive reactions come into play. It's a natural reaction, and you can presumably identify if it was something you loved.
To reiterate what I said, I think the LADYHAWKE score is visionary in many ways, and I love Donner for sticking to his guns (he was never an auteur, but he was a brilliant craftsman who knew what he wanted). As a direct consequence of that, people who disagreed with him -- like the people you mentioned -- didn't have that visionary quality. Hence "lesser voices". They might be brilliant artists in their own right, but in this particular case, I think they were way off in their criticism.
It's not my goal that everyone MUST like the LADYHAWKE score. Of course not. But critics should at the very least know what it is they're disparaging. They should at the very least glean what the purpose of the music is, what it is and how it works in the film. You'll need to know the score and the film before you pass judgement. So instead of saying it's a "pop score", they should recognize that the "pop elements" only make out about 20%, relegated to transportation scenes and tongue-in-cheek action scenes. The rest is pretty traditional -- a gorgeous, Golden Age-like love theme, some eerie dissonant, orchestral suspense parts, loads of period-specific medieval music. That's the meat of the score. Also, instead of saying that the pop beats don't "fit" the scenes, they should recognize that it actually does. Galloping horses accompanied by "galloping music" and all that. Sure, the production values might be dated, and it's very unsual music for a period/fantasy flick, but at least recognize THAT aspect of it. If you still don't like it, that's perfectly OK, but it least it comes from an informed place.
One of the greatest strenghts of the score, IMO, is that it combines conventional, typical genre music with these offbeat elements. A bit like James Horner's electronic score for IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE. Also completely achronological, but serving the chilly, medieval atmosphere of the film.
By the way, Nicolai, if you've had the time to relisten, what is your take on it now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, Nicolai, if you've had the time to relisten, what is your take on it now?
Haven't yet listened to it. But will add to this thread once I have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like you, Thor, and enjoy most of your posts. Sometimes I just think you fall into the "self-styled aesthete" category and come across as looking down at those who disagree with you.
I'm sorry if that is your takeaway from this, John. Certainly no 'condescension' is intended on my end, even if I’m stubborn as hell. But when you stand (more or less) alone loving something, and everybody around you says that what you love is "shit", all kinds of defensive reactions come into play. It's a natural reaction, and you can presumably identify if it was something you loved.
To reiterate what I said, I think the LADYHAWKE score is visionary in many ways, and I love Donner for sticking to his guns (he was never an auteur, but he was a brilliant craftsman who knew what he wanted). As a direct consequence of that, people who disagreed with him -- like the people you mentioned -- didn't have that visionary quality. Hence "lesser voices". They might be brilliant artists in their own right, but in this particular case, I think they were way off in their criticism.
It's not my goal that everyone MUST like the LADYHAWKE score. Of course not. But critics should at the very least know what it is they're disparaging. They should at the very least glean what the purpose of the music is, what it is and how it works in the film. You'll need to know the score and the film before you pass judgement. So instead of saying it's a "pop score", they should recognize that the "pop elements" only make out about 20%, relegated to transportation scenes and tongue-in-cheek action scenes. The rest is pretty traditional -- a gorgeous, Golden Age-like love theme, some eerie dissonant, orchestral suspense parts, loads of period-specific medieval music. That's the meat of the score. Also, instead of saying that the pop beats don't "fit" the scenes, they should recognize that it actually does. Galloping horses accompanied by "galloping music" and all that. Sure, the production values might be dated, and it's very unsual music for a period/fantasy flick, but at least recognize THAT aspect of it. If you still don't like it, that's perfectly OK, but it least it comes from an informed place.
One of the greatest strenghts of the score, IMO, is that it combines conventional, typical genre music with these offbeat elements. A bit like James Horner's electronic score for IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE. Also completely achronological, but serving the chilly, medieval atmosphere of the film.
By the way, Nicolai, if you've had the time to relisten, what is your take on it now?
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Thor. I can empathize.
Reading my own comments now I think I came across as a little judgmental myself, so apologize. I jumped into this thread to share my thoughts / experiences, not realizing you started it as a very personal defense of the score. I can see why it felt more like an attack in that context.
FWIW, I don't hate the score, overall I think it's fine. I, like others, find the pop elements distracting and detrimental to the movie - they just seem to come out of left field. If the whole thing had been pop perhaps it would have worked better, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listening to LADYHAWKE tonight, my first encounter with the music since way back when I saw the movie. So....
As it is on album, I actually enjoy it a lot. The "pop/rock" parts still don't exactly conjure up "medival fantasy", but they are well done and musically incorporated. A colorful and imaginative score with many moods, even lovely (wedding) source cues, Powell obviously knows his way around an orchestra. Glad I have this score now, because it sure works (as Thor might say) as a concept album. As an excellent one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
