|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CD (digipack) - BackLot Music USA - October 12, 2018.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to both film and score!
|
|
|
|
|
It's great because we have no idea what this will sound like. C'mon, kid!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, god damn it.
|
|
|
|
|
I won't name any names, but I'm tired of composers that show promise with orchestral works or orchestra-samples works, who later on want to piss around in electronics creating synthscapes and other skippable material that only makes one or two people here on the board happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to the film.
|
|
|
|
|
If the electronics are good, fine. But when I hear a composer talk about electronics, I just think it's going to be yet another score that'll sound exactly like a second-rate Hans Zimmer bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, god damn it. How is an electronic score going to fit into a film about one of the most historic moments of the 20th century? Pity Horner isn't around, or Arnold etc asked, to give this film the right gravitas. The wording here is problematic, though I understand what you mean all the same. I thought for sure that, with Hurwitz's prior work and the time period in which the film is set, we'd be getting a straight-up orchestral score. Still want to hear it, but less optimistic after that quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still better story than Junkie XS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2018 - 10:07 AM
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
For some reason, the anachronism argument is only applies when moving backwards and never forward. This is a good point! And of course, there was no music in 100 BC that sounded anything like "Spartacus," and 80,000 years ago, Sarde's orchestral "Quest for Fire" is no more valid than Silvestri's synthesized "Clan of the Cave Bear" (both were tens of thousands of years in the future). Meanwhile, synthesizers were very much around in 1969, so that in itself is not an anachronism for "First Man." I'm assuming the synths used in this score will not be of that era, but why do we have to be so literal, anyway? They will surely be using the sorts of camera moves that only newer film technology allows. Is that also a no-no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|