 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 21, 2016 - 4:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bobbengan
(Member)
|
At his best, his music was amazing. I consider his ANGONY AND THE ECSTASY prologue music perhaps his creative high mark as a "composer" composer. Its evocation of a dawning creative epiphany is utterly palpable. It's worthy of Respighi, to which I feel it gives a spiritual nod, and deserves to be added to the great pantheon of symphonic program music in my opinion.
I also love STAR TREK TMP, THE EDGE, CAPRICORN ONE, THE OMEN, THE SWARM and others, and love certain cues from more scores of his (how about that fan-freaking-tastic end title from LEVIATHAN!?!?) but while I acknowledge the creativity he brought to scoring in the 70's, I don't think he was a "genius" per se. His themes, while occasionally great, don't touch John Scott or John Williams' or Delerue's capabilities in this regard, and his actual handling of the orchestra itself hadn't nearly the finesse of Scott's work - Who, like Hermann, is a master orchestrator, does not differentiate orchestration from composition and never relied on an orchestrator to flesh anything out. As soon as authorship over every note comes into question... How can we claim genius?
With this said, what for me what REALLY hinders my enjoyment of a lot of his music are those damn synthesizers. My god, he knew how to slathers those ugly sounds all over an orchestra like splashing hot pink paint on a Caravaggio. Many of his 80's and 90's scores that employ them extensively are just utterly unlistenable for me. YES, I understand it was new and innovative at the time - But that doesn't make it "genius" in my book, especially if, decades later, it has aged very poorly. His action music could sometime sound very clunky to me as well (I'm looking at you, BOYS FROM BRAZIL and COMA, films where his action/suspense cues utterly ruin any chance of suspense in context).
What I really love and appreciate is the way people like Nic Raine et al have re-recorded extensive suites of his music sans synthesizers. Take the City of Prague Phil cover of his theme from THE RUSSIA HOUSE for example. Gorgeous, spellbinding, blossoming music I could listen to all day. Then I listened to the original score. All synths and saxophone. Puke! Vomit! I revisit these re-recorded "concertized" suites far more often, when available, than I do his original recordings.
I think most people on this board are of an age where they grew up in tandem with Goldsmith's unfolding career and give his music an extra credence because of this nostalgic attachment. Being a child of the 2000's I have no such attachment (though I did grow up on extensive amounts on his filmography, I should note) and take his music at face value for what it is: Sometime magnificent, sometime very good, sometime clunky or ineffectual, and sometime utterly miscalculated and unlistenable. That also goes for Williams, Rozsa, Scott, Horner, Delerue and all my other favorites, too. I say all of this and Goldsmith is still, mind you, in my top ten list.
No one's perfect, not even Jerald "Bloomin' Onion" Goldsmith. He was a highly talented composer. He was not however a "genius".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2016 - 5:37 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
lacoq
(Member)
|
At his best, his music was amazing. I consider his ANGONY AND THE ECSTASY prologue music perhaps his creative high mark as a "composer" composer. Its evocation of a dawning creative epiphany is utterly palpable. It's worthy of Respighi, to which I feel it gives a spiritual nod, and deserves to be added to the great pantheon of symphonic program music in my opinion.
I also love STAR TREK TMP, THE EDGE, CAPRICORN ONE, THE OMEN, THE SWARM and others, and love certain cues from more scores of his (how about that fan-freaking-tastic end title from LEVIATHAN!?!?) but while I acknowledge the creativity he brought to scoring in the 70's, I don't think he was a "genius" per se. His themes, while occasionally great, don't touch John Scott or John Williams' or Delerue's capabilities in this regard, and his actual handling of the orchestra itself hadn't nearly the finesse of Scott's work - Who, like Hermann, is a master orchestrator, does not differentiate orchestration from composition and never relied on an orchestrator to flesh anything out. As soon as authorship over every note comes into question... How can we claim genius?
With this said, what for me what REALLY hinders my enjoyment of a lot of his music are those damn synthesizers. My god, he knew how to slathers those ugly sounds all over an orchestra like splashing hot pink paint on a Caravaggio. Many of his 80's and 90's scores that employ them extensively are just utterly unlistenable for me. YES, I understand it was new and innovative at the time - But that doesn't make it "genius" in my book, especially if, decades later, it has aged very poorly. His action music could sometime sound very clunky to me as well (I'm looking at you, BOYS FROM BRAZIL and COMA, films where his action/suspense cues utterly ruin any chance of suspense in context).
What I really love and appreciate is the way people like Nic Raine et al have re-recorded extensive suites of his music sans synthesizers. Take the City of Prague Phil cover of his theme from THE RUSSIA HOUSE for example. Gorgeous, spellbinding, blossoming music I could listen to all day. Then I listened to the original score. All synths and saxophone. Puke! Vomit! I revisit these re-recorded "concertized" suites far more often, when available, than I do his original recordings.
I think most people on this board are of an age where they grew up in tandem with Goldsmith's unfolding career and give his music an extra credence because of this nostalgic attachment. Being a child of the 2000's I have no such attachment (though I did grow up on extensive amounts on his filmography, I should note) and take his music at face value for what it is: Sometime magnificent, sometime very good, sometime clunky or ineffectual, and sometime utterly miscalculated and unlistenable. That also goes for Williams, Rozsa, Scott, Horner, Delerue and all my other favorites, too. I say all of this and Goldsmith is still, mind you, in my top ten list.
No one's perfect, not even Jerald "Bloomin' Onion" Goldsmith. He was a highly talented composer. He was not however a "genius".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2016 - 5:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
lacoq
(Member)
|
At his best, his music was amazing. I consider his ANGONY AND THE ECSTASY prologue music perhaps his creative high mark as a "composer" composer. Its evocation of a dawning creative epiphany is utterly palpable. It's worthy of Respighi, to which I feel it gives a spiritual nod, and deserves to be added to the great pantheon of symphonic program music in my opinion.
I also love STAR TREK TMP, THE EDGE, CAPRICORN ONE, THE OMEN, THE SWARM and others, and love certain cues from more scores of his (how about that fan-freaking-tastic end title from LEVIATHAN!?!?) but while I acknowledge the creativity he brought to scoring in the 70's, I don't think he was a "genius" per se. His themes, while occasionally great, don't touch John Scott or John Williams' or Delerue's capabilities in this regard, and his actual handling of the orchestra itself hadn't nearly the finesse of Scott's work - Who, like Hermann, is a master orchestrator, does not differentiate orchestration from composition and never relied on an orchestrator to flesh anything out. As soon as authorship over every note comes into question... How can we claim genius?
With this said, what for me what REALLY hinders my enjoyment of a lot of his music are those damn synthesizers. My god, he knew how to slathers those ugly sounds all over an orchestra like splashing hot pink paint on a Caravaggio. Many of his 80's and 90's scores that employ them extensively are just utterly unlistenable for me. YES, I understand it was new and innovative at the time - But that doesn't make it "genius" in my book, especially if, decades later, it has aged very poorly. His action music could sometime sound very clunky to me as well (I'm looking at you, BOYS FROM BRAZIL and COMA, films where his action/suspense cues utterly ruin any chance of suspense in context).
What I really love and appreciate is the way people like Nic Raine et al have re-recorded extensive suites of his music sans synthesizers. Take the City of Prague Phil cover of his theme from THE RUSSIA HOUSE for example. Gorgeous, spellbinding, blossoming music I could listen to all day. Then I listened to the original score. All synths and saxophone. Puke! Vomit! I revisit these re-recorded "concertized" suites far more often, when available, than I do his original recordings.
I think most people on this board are of an age where they grew up in tandem with Goldsmith's unfolding career and give his music an extra credence because of this nostalgic attachment. Being a child of the 2000's I have no such attachment (though I did grow up on extensive amounts on his filmography, I should note) and take his music at face value for what it is: Sometime magnificent, sometime very good, sometime clunky or ineffectual, and sometime utterly miscalculated and unlistenable. That also goes for Williams, Rozsa, Scott, Horner, Delerue and all my other favorites, too. I say all of this and Goldsmith is still, mind you, in my top ten list.
No one's perfect, not even Jerald "Bloomin' Onion" Goldsmith. He was a highly talented composer. He was not however a "genius".
Regarding your statement about those who orchestrate every note of their scores.......My greatest respect goes to composers who don't need assistance - Herrmann, Richard Rodney Bennett, Morricone. But in truth I also have the greatest respect for Williams, Rozsa, North, Friedhofer, Legrand, Raksin, Waxman and Goldsmith. The truth is each and everyone of those just mentioned knew the orchestra inside and out. Unlike a lot of today's composers ( and there were some back in the day) who really are at a lost to flesh out a sketch or most likely just furnish a synth file "sketch" which an orchestrator then takes and does the magic. Stating who is and isn't a genius is an unending debate, but regarding Goldsmith, even if one doesn't believe he was a genius, there can be no doubt in my mind that some of his scores, espc. from 1960's and 70's are on the level of genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2016 - 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bobbengan
(Member)
|
Regarding your statement about those who orchestrate every note of their scores.......My greatest respect goes to composers who don't need assistance - Herrmann, Richard Rodney Bennett, Morricone. But in truth I also have the greatest respect for Williams, Rozsa, North, Friedhofer, Legrand, Raksin, Waxman and Goldsmith. The truth is each and everyone of those just mentioned knew the orchestra inside and out. Unlike a lot of today's composers ( and there were some back in the day) who really are at a lost to flesh out a sketch or most likely just furnish a synth file "sketch" which an orchestrator then takes and does the magic. Stating who is and isn't a genius is an unending debate, but regarding Goldsmith, even if one doesn't believe he was a genius, there can be no doubt in my mind that some of his scores, espc. from 1960's and 70's are on the level of genius.
Fair enough. Lord knows many, perhaps even most, of my personal favorites scores had orchestrators that worked on them. And of course at the end of the day, all that really matters is the quality of the music!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 21, 2016 - 11:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
DavidCorkum
(Member)
|
With this said, what for me what REALLY hinders my enjoyment of a lot of his music are those damn synthesizers. My god, he knew how to slathers those ugly sounds all over an orchestra like splashing hot pink paint on a Caravaggio. Many of his 80's and 90's scores that employ them extensively are just utterly unlistenable for me.
An old argument that boils down to one's personal taste. I think the principal downside of his reliance on synths has more to do with a certain sameness it brought his work, particularly into the 90's (another heavily argued topic), that lacked the innovation he brought to his more unusual acoustic work. But a few synth heavy score from the 80's, such as Gremlins, Innerspace, and Baby, are just bursting over with energy and invention, and create what all the great scores do - build their own little musical world. I'd call those scores pretty "genius".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Goldsmith appears more in music library than anyone else.
I think Jerry Goldsmith was the best composer overall in terms of his combined breadth and depth of skill.
I think Jerry Goldsmith was the composer who pushed more to stay creative.
I think Jerry Goldsmith was the most inventive composer except maybe Ennio Morricone.
So, who is my favourite composer?
That's right, John Barry!
Sorry, that was just a tease. The top four statements are true, though. Even though John Barry is my favourite composer, I think those things are true.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2021 - 12:43 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Broughtfan
(Member)
|
I would say he was an ultra-accomplished, exceptionally clever craftsman of the first rank (and sensitive musician), one who really understood drama and what's required to serve it. Genius in music I intend to reserve for the likes of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg/Berg/Webern (yes, all 3), Bartok, Britten, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Takemitsu, Boulez, Maxwell Davies, Steve Reich and Thomas Ades, the people, I feel, who really have helped to move music forward (not saying there aren't others).
Whatever Jerry was, I respect his ability tremendously, thankful for the musical treasures he left us with. His music certainly made a significant impact on many I know who went into film music (some today who are very successful in the field).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldsmith's output is so plentiful and varied I'm shocked to hear you don't emotionally connect to *any* of it.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2021 - 4:58 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
I'd say film music is basically musical caricature. Like a theater actor onstage who, compared to a film actor, needs to exaggerate and "project" the performance for the audience. That doesn't mean there's a lack of relative excellence – many might say the theater performance is the more "serious" form of acting compared to film or TV.
The opposite could be apparent, say, in the case of a caricature artist, compared to a fine art portrait artist. Most would say the fine artist is generally considered the more accomplished, but a case for the caricaturist being the "genius" can be made by observing the cleverness of how so few lines have rendered the portrait compared to the great labor of the fine art portrait.
What it boils down to is what is needed to communicate. Film music communicates as caricature in my opinion because it most often exaggerates the sentiments or actions it accompanies, from the rip-roaring to the funereal.
That is why I enjoy so much film music. It gets to the point quickly. It gets to the essence fast. It even seems to be composed quickly most of the time. I don't feel the need to hold it up as a form of "classical-level" music or claim it is groundbreaking in style. I accept it for what it is and I either like it or I don't, regardless of whether a composer is casually said to be a genius in a way similar to how we describe "genius" footballers kicking "brilliant" shots at goal and goalkeepers making "miraculous" saves. In those terms, I think Adventures of Don Juan is a "brilliant" score. I think Planet of the Apes is "genius" and Spartacus and Ben-Hur "miraculous".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say film music is basically musical caricature.
Interesting take.
I think SOME film music plays the role of caricature or “surface-level” repeat of what’s happening in a scene, and certainly some of the earlier decades of film music had a very melodramatic orchestral take on the drama, and nowadays most music is ambient atmospheric noise.
But I think a lot of film music is more conceptual and deeper than that. A lot of Herrmann, Goldsmith, Williams has very deep music and in certain cases LONG pieces of music that have a chance to breathe like a symphony. Davis’ music for The Matrix very much has that feeling of being conceptual and classical, partly because it’s tapping into polychord and avante-grade techniques.
But there ARE a lot of composers that have “filler” music.
I listened to Yavar’s “Goldsmith & Williams” podcast interview and it shed some light on why I’ve felt Goldsmith is not quite as good as Williams. Both are massively skilled, well educated and trained, and have great hits, but Williams’ dedication to the craft of music in general gave him more of a “genius” opportunity in pursuing a lot of solo work, classical efforts, conducting, collaborations.
Goldsmith didn’t really do that, he just kind of stuck to film scoring.
Though Williams also got consistently better assignments than Goldsmith.
In any event, I think both of them are masters whose writing transcends the job and does do more than “caricature” (but they did have some on-the-nose filler as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen's previous comment seems to be something similar; he thinks Goldsmith was the best yet his favourite composer is Barry, so there must be a connection with Barry's music that isn't there with Goldsmith.
I do have a connection with Goldsmith's music, albeit I learn more towards things like Papillon and Islands In The Stream than things like The Mummy and US Marshalls.
It's just that Barry (and Herrmann) really got under my skin during my formative years. They both had styles that really resonate with me.
I just came to the realisation some time ago that for all my love for Barry's and Herrmann's music, I couldn't argue they were better composers in terms of their combined depth and range.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 25, 2021 - 1:01 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ian642002
(Member)
|
I listened to Yavar’s “Goldsmith & Williams” podcast interview and it shed some light on why I’ve felt Goldsmith is not quite as good as Williams. Both are massively skilled, well educated and trained, and have great hits, but Williams’ dedication to the craft of music in general gave him more of a “genius” opportunity in pursuing a lot of solo work, classical efforts, conducting, collaborations.
Goldsmith didn’t really do that, he just kind of stuck to film scoring.
A fair point. Goldsmith also had a work ethic that perhaps negated the idea of quality control. As long as he was itching to score something, he'd write for almost anything that was put in front of him. Williams's more considered approach allowed for better projects, better directors and the rewards that came with it. It also brought him a luxury that Goldsmith refused himself and would grind him down towards the latter part of his career: the time to compose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goldsmith also had a work ethic that perhaps negated the idea of quality control. As long as he was itching to score something, he'd write for almost anything that was put in front of him.
Yeah this was interesting because I noticed that too about Goldsmith - although the interview makes it sound more like Williams was just given better assignments overall, thanks in part to collaborating with Irwin Allen and then striking it big with Jaws, CEOTTK and Star Wars.
One thing that I felt that the interview also confirmed was that Williams and Goldsmith honed their skills at making music rapidly partly because of their experience working in TV. This not only positioned them in a "sink-or-swim" environment where they had to compose quickly and well, but you also see it, especially with Williams, in his shorter cues. Williams is particularly good at super short cues like "Listening to Carson" from Home Alone or "The Closet" from ET, that span a brief period of time and start in one place but end in another. The ability to do that really speaks to their deep understanding of the orchestra and how to use it.
It's rare too because the type of TV that required that kind of scoring doesn't exist anymore and really only existed for a brief period during the 20th century.
What a great training ground for them both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been reluctant to chime in on this thread. However, as I've been going through a protracted Goldsmith listening binge, I find it somewhat timely. Goldsmith, for me, was one of the most innovative composers of his time, and beyond. It wasn't just the sounds or alternate techniques he employed, but the context in which he did so.
Why did he write tone rows for POTA? What was it about that story and setting that inspired him to compose one of the most unique scores ever in cinematic history? The techniques themselves weren't necessarily new (though the ram's horn and the Latin percussion that symbolized the apes' vocalizations were pretty unique for their time). Varése had probed sound mass 50 years earlier in works like Octandré, Ameriqués, and Arcana. Berg/Webern/Schoenberg all had a healthy catalog of music that spanned the various corners of serialism. And Stravinsky's work looked at complex rhythmic structures in a manner that is still riveting to this day. None of these elements on their own were the work of a "genius". That part rests on Goldsmith's interpretation of the subject matter, and how he culled each of these elements together to provide context and cohesion as to how the score impacted its cinematic counterpart. This is not merely the sign of a good craftsman, but someone who possessed a different perspective and application of the craft.
POTA is but one of many examples that we can look at and study. Goldsmith in his zenith often provided interesting music settings to the films he scored, regardless of their popularity. Capricorn One is a study in odd meters and polytonality (also, heavily influential on the early careers of Horner and Young). ST: TMP utilizes the Blaster Beam for V'Ger when so many other composers, just as musically capable, would have been content to score it for menacing brass or some other conventional orchestration technique.
Whether Goldsmith or any film composer can be classified as "genius" is endlessly debatable. Ask around in composer circles and you will find higher regard for Goldsmith than almost any other composer of his generation (Gabriel Yared and Wendy Carlos specifically mention him in interviews- Williams' name is absent- why is that you think?). Even in that video from Yavar, with the roundtable of esteemed musicians/engineers/historians, there is an acknowledgment that, while Williams was/is a consummate musician, Jerry was the more daring and innovative of the two.
Musicians and composers are in awe of Williams' prowess, don't get me wrong. But they also recognize the indelible contribution Goldsmith had on the art of film music and are suitably reverent to his brilliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
