 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious as to why one is not allowed to change their opinion about a score, composer, or what-not. It seems like if one has a perspective change, they are derided endlessly for it.
I hated Stravinsky's music for years. Couldn't get into it and I questioned constantly why he was so well regarded. Then his music just "clicked" for me one day. I understood why made Le Sacre so brilliant. It took Michael Tilson Thomas' superb reading of the piece with the San Francisco Symphony to turn me onto it but once converted I began working through the composer's catalogue of music. I found Robert Craft's reading of the complete Firebird to be enchanting. Even the composer's later period works fascinated me with his economy of orchestral resources. Boulez's Symphony in 3 Movements and Solti's Symphony of Psalms also garnered more respect for Stravinsky.
Conversely, the music of Mahler, whom I'd idolized for much of the '90s began to wain. I found a lot of his work (save for his song cycles which still remain some of my favourite orchestral music) to be indulgent and schizoid in its emotional tone.
What's the point of this? Life is not static. It continues to evolve. If our species was one borne of innate contentment, we'd still be in caves eating raw fruit and veggies. There is something genetically programmed into us to never be merely happy with the status quo though paradoxically we are creatures of habit.
Do any of you have cases where you changed your opinion about a composer's output, or a score in particular?
As one last example- I hated Williams' Sleepers when I first listened to it. One of the few experiences to be sure mind you but I could not get into that theme which was built on 4ths. It sounded un-Williams. But I re-visited it over and over until it just gelled. And now, I count it as one of his strongest from the '90s because it was so different from a lot of his work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2013 - 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Michael24
(Member)
|
Why should it be troubling?
My tastes rarely change much. Maybe they've occasionally seen additions (I'm more accepting of dramatic films now, for example, than I generally was as a teenager), but for the most part they haven't changed all that drastically. I still enjoy a lot of the same type of movies, music, television, etc. that I did in my youth. I don't mind discovering new things, of course, but rarely have I stopped liking something I enjoyed in the past.
In terms of film scores specifically, I used to really enjoy Hans Zimmer's music, but nowadays I just don't care for how his particular style has changed. I still enjoy his older stuff, though. There have also been scores I've bought on a whim (during my brief "blind buy phase" years ago) that, while I enjoyed them initially, in the long run just didn't resonate with me enough to keep, so I got rid of them. But for the most part, I still like (and dislike) a lot of the same stuff when it comes to film scores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really? I've never seen that. Is somebody actually keeping track of what I say about scores to nail me if I change my mind?
It happened to David in either his Brian Tyler thread or in the NYSM score thread, I think. And it's happened elsewhere. I think it's less that people keep track of what others say and more that some are for some reason interested enough to search through old posts to find a previous opinion that somehow invalidates the new one in order to score argument points or something.
That's not the only instance sadly. I haven't seen that forum member post for a while so maybe he got banned. He was quite rude about it too. I would love it if someone said some of the things uttered on this forum to my face. But then again, I don't think anyone would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2013 - 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Zoragoth
(Member)
|
Conversely, the music of Mahler, whom I'd idolized for much of the '90s began to wain. I found a lot of his work (save for his song cycles which still remain some of my favourite orchestral music) to be indulgent and schizoid in its emotional tone.
What's the point of this? Life is not static. It continues to evolve. If our species was one borne of innate contentment, we'd still be in caves eating raw fruit and veggies. There is something genetically programmed into us to never be merely happy with the status quo though paradoxically we are creatures of habit.
Do any of you have cases where you changed your opinion about a composer's output, or a score in particular?
Interesting thread idea!
For my part, once I like and admire something, I don't tend to withdraw my enthusiasm. Mahler is a very good example, always loved the 1st Symphony but some of the other sprawling, seemingly chaotic symphonies took longer to appreciate. Now I listen to them regularly. I tend to reserve judgment on artists' work. As long as it has been acclaimed by others, has that historical track record, I just figure I have not yet met the work where it lives, so have not 'gotten' it yet.
Now, most modern film music, especially MV clone wall of sound stuff, that's another story! ;-) I doubt anyone's gonna be craving for reissues of that stuff decades from now. But then again, Golden Age music was widely ignored or viewed as disposable until Gerhardt did his Classic Scores series...
On a side note, As a long-time enthusiastic vegan, I must in all due respect direct my ire at your quip about eating fruits and veggies as being somehow backward and undeveloped! I do think it's telling that in sci-fi works like Star Trek, more advanced races like Vulcans are depicted as vegetarian (as well as pacifist). This has nothing to do with film music, of course, but in years to come, closer than we think, non-vegetarianism will be viewed as barbaric and cruel and wasteful as witch burning and religious persecution.
Your general point though, is spot on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious as to why one is not allowed to change their opinion about a score, composer, or what-not.
One would be ridiculed if one is not self-consistent at one particular moment (i.e. saying something to the effect of "I hate Tyler Bates for his simplicity but I LOVE Zimmer");
and one would be ridiculed if one's opinions changed for the worse (i.e. "I used to think John Williams is the best but now I think Zimmer is better");
but one is not prohibited from changing opinions for the better: who in their right mind would fault another for climbing UP the evolutionary ladder? Unless out of jealousy or stupidity, of course.
Further, I think it does not look good on your resume if you "change opinion" too quickly, even for the better. You don't want to be seen as easily swayed.
So you decide what "better" is then? We should all follow your standards of what quality is and what steps one should take up the "evolutionary ladder" as you put it?
A great man once said this
"Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water"
I think it applies to the topic at hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversely, the music of Mahler, whom I'd idolized for much of the '90s began to wain. I found a lot of his work (save for his song cycles which still remain some of my favourite orchestral music) to be indulgent and schizoid in its emotional tone.
What's the point of this? Life is not static. It continues to evolve. If our species was one borne of innate contentment, we'd still be in caves eating raw fruit and veggies. There is something genetically programmed into us to never be merely happy with the status quo though paradoxically we are creatures of habit.
Do any of you have cases where you changed your opinion about a composer's output, or a score in particular?
Interesting thread idea!
For my part, once I like and admire something, I don't tend to withdraw my enthusiasm. Mahler is a very good example, always loved the 1st Symphony but some of the other sprawling, seemingly chaotic symphonies took longer to appreciate. Now I listen to them regularly. I tend to reserve judgment on artists' work. As long as it has been acclaimed by others, has that historical track record, I just figure I have not yet met the work where it lives, so have not 'gotten' it yet.
Now, most modern film music, especially MV clone wall of sound stuff, that's another story! ;-) I doubt anyone's gonna be craving for reissues of that stuff decades from now. But then again, Golden Age music was widely ignored or viewed as disposable until Gerhardt did his Classic Scores series...
On a side note, As a long-time enthusiastic vegan, I must in all due respect direct my ire at your quip about eating fruits and veggies as being somehow backward and undeveloped! I do think it's telling that in sci-fi works like Star Trek, more advanced races like Vulcans are depicted as vegetarian (as well as pacifist). This has nothing to do with film music, of course, but in years to come, closer than we think, non-vegetarianism will be viewed as barbaric and cruel and wasteful as witch burning and religious persecution.
Your general point though, is spot on.
Sorry didnt mean to offend. Please note I also included sitting in caves. The intent was to provide a portrait of a static being. I don't eat gluten products and red meat myself anymore for health reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2013 - 6:59 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
I must be very unprogressive, as my tastes don't tend to change. I still pretty much enthuse over the same music I did when I was 15. Rozsa is still my favourite filmmusic composer, Vaughan Williams still my favourite "classical" composer. There have been additions, of course, but these remain firm. And I still hate Stravinsky just as much as I ever did.  )
Actually this applies pretty much to all my tastes. I still think the movies and TV shows I liked as a 15-year-old are superior, and a few recent viewings have confirmed me in that. So I still consider Ben-Hur the best film ever made. I still think The Rifleman is the best written western of the 60s, It's a Man's World is the best written non-western, and, returning to more recent times, Hill Street Blues is still in a class of its own. Was I just prescient in predicting what I would like in 50 years, or do I need a radical overhaul of my tastes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must be very unprogressive, as my tastes don't tend to change. I still pretty much enthuse over the same music I did when I was 15. Rozsa is still my favourite filmmusic composer, Vaughan Williams still my favourite "classical" composer. There have been additions, of course, but these remain firm. And I still hate Stravinsky just as much as I ever did. )
Actually this applies pretty much to all my tastes. I still think the movies and TV shows I liked as a 15-year-old are superior, and a few recent viewings have confirmed me in that. So I still consider Ben-Hur the best film ever made. I still think The Rifleman is the best written western of the 60s, It's a Man's World is the best written non-western, and, returning to more recent times, Hill Street Blues is still in a class of its own. Was I just prescient in predicting what I would like in 50 years, or do I need a radical overhaul of my tastes?
I don't begrudge one for having a set of things he/she enjoys but dislike when those who do vacillate or change their minds seem to be condemned for such an egregious act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I generally always know what I like, my taste has evolved over time, as I am exposed to different composers and music.
I have never seen anything wrong with someone changing their mind on something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 28, 2013 - 9:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
I don't begrudge one for having a set of things he/she enjoys but dislike when those who do vacillate or change their minds seem to be condemned for such an egregious act.
It's interesting, isn't it, that we seem to have these loyalties in taste, and expect others to have them as well. If I were to write, say, that I used to like Rozsa but no longer do so, I think it would be fair enough for people to question that. If, however, they berated me for being fickle, that would be different, DEPENDING on how much time has passed between the first statement and the second. I think we're entitled to change our tastes over time. After all, as material beings we're in a constant state of flux, and often a change of circumstances, like getting married or becoming ill, can greatly affect our predispositions. But if our tastes seem to change from month to month, or even year to year, I think others are entitled to call us on it, insofar as we keep posting about it. It's ultimately our business, of course, but that kind of vacillation can be irritating, and even if we ourselves never liked Rozsa, we would want to know what occasioned such a "betrayal".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 29, 2013 - 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
facehugger
(Member)
|
So you decide what "better" is then? We should all follow your standards of what quality is and what steps one should take up the "evolutionary ladder" as you put it?
You seem to be a man of certain musical education.
I wonder if you dare tell your professor, that all the sophisticated musical techniques are useless, because, you know, in some people's "opinions", a monkey playing with a coconut shell can be legitimately considered "better“ music.
No my friend. "Opinions" do not provide the safe harbor for ignorance, or stupidity, or bias. Even though I don't get to decide (hell no single person does), but some things are inherently "better" than others, otherwise humans would be still living in caves and munching on bananas.
This is called evolution, not degeneration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
