 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 17, 2016 - 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I wouldn't call him a genius, no (I reserve that description for some very few), but he was a master of his craft, no doubt. Especially in the 60s and 70s. Funnily, though, I enjoy his 90s soundtracks the most in terms of sheer listening pleasure -- a time when he nurtured more mainstream sounds and had lost some of his "edge".
Name your geniuses. I will try, patiently, to explain to you why they're not. (Half joking  )
In terms of film music?
Hmmm. Well, John Williams is one. Maybe Elliot Goldenthal. Vangelis. And although I'm not a hardcore fan, Bernard Herrmann. Not many else that I can think of right now.
(there are also those who tap into genius territory on occasion -- like Ennio Morricone, James Horner or Hans Zimmer -- but where I perhaps wouldn't apply the label to them as a whole).
For most of his career, Goldsmith was an excellent craftsman, first and foremost. But then he reached high ambitious and artistic levels on occasion (POTA, PATTON, ALIEN etc.). But a genius, he was not (IMO).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 17, 2016 - 12:42 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
While I'd agree on the Williams front (mostly just to keep Kev happy - ha!! lol) I would hardly describe Goldenthal and Vangelis as geniuses. I adore their musical styles - Goldenthal especially - but genius is a stretch when compared to the likes of Goldsmith, Williams, Morricone, Barry.
That's the beauty of opinions, isn't it? We all evaluate these things differently.
How many truly groundbreaking scores did Vangelis write? Two? (And one of those is debatable!).
I think pretty much all of Vangelis' film scores are genius. But in this case, I also count all the non-film work.
You could say the same about ANY composer, of course! Or any person! Einstein, I'm sure, had "ordinary" days! :-)
Sure, but to reach the level of genius even in a select few works is an extraordinary feat. Not very many composers do.
Like Onyabirri, I like to be very restrictive in applying that word to someone or something; it's so often watered out by over-use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I love about the FSM board is how you can post almost any opening statement and somehow it'll turn into disagreements!
To the OP, yes he was a genius, it's not news. His fans can get sycophantical too. That's not news either.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 17, 2016 - 1:01 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
I tend to side with Thor (and Onya) on this one, to a degree. There are dozens of Goldsmith scores (my personal favourite period is roughly '65 to '79) where I've been amazed at just how brilliantly his music "worked" (within the film, and often on album too). I do think he was brilliant at what he did, really brilliant, but being really brilliant at something doesn't mean that you're a genius. He was undoubtedly one of the very best craftsmen - or artist if you like -in his field, but looking at his career as a whole he seems to me to lack just that little extra... something... which makes real geniuses stand out. Something which makes you realise that there is an extraordinarily individual and unique intellect at work, someone whose vision seems almost extraterrestrial. I think that Goldsmith was just a shade to "conservative" for that, working fantastically well within his straitjacket but rarely breaking free from it.
But Jeez, having said that, he could be f'ckin' brilliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
