 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 3, 2016 - 6:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
I was going through my digital files of film scores, and I wondered how easy or difficult it would be for me to compile a list of my 100 favorite film scores. It would be fairly easy for me to name, say, my 10 favorite film composers, but with individual scores, it would require more thought.
For fun, I decided to try this, and wondered if the entire top 100 would be composed by a handful of my favorite composers.
I started by creating an A and B list, the latter for scores that I had to hesitate when choosing a category.
Here is what I found interesting: Aside from one of my favorite composers, who at first was over-represented in the A list, most of my favorites were not over-represented. One had many titles on the B list, but I had a hard time figuring out which I really loved enough to place on the A list.
Lots of composers who I consider "good" or not my favorites nevertheless made the list, sometimes with more than one title.
There was much more variety, both in style and number of composers, than I may have expected.
I wonder if some of my favorite composers routinely deliver solid work, but don't always rise to heights that distinguish their great scores from the good ones. I also wondered if over-familiarity got in the way, or if some titles cancelled each other out because of similar approaches or devices.
Anyway, this was an interesting exercise for me in thinking about what I consider great scores vs. great composers.
I am curious how this sort of thing would play out for some of you, especially those of you with large collections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting topic!
For example, John Debney probably wouldn't make it on my list of top 50 favorite composers, but his fantastic modern swashbuckling score Cutthroat Island would probably make it on my list of top 25 favorite scores!
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 4, 2016 - 10:29 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
...
Anyway, this was an interesting exercise for me in thinking about what I consider great scores vs. great composers.
I am curious how this sort of thing would play out for some of you, especially those of you with large collections.
As someone with 1,000+ scores I couldn't contemplate going through them all trying to decide which ones reside in my top 100 ... and, anyway, a score I love one day may not be so essential to me next week ...
... except: surely a Favourite composer is such because his/her scores are your favourites ... for whatever reason.
I've spent nigh on 45 years building my collection and often asked myself what makes a score (or any other piece of music) a favourite and the simple answer, for me, is that it is music I want to hear again ... and again. Not necessarily every day / week / year but I'd like to hear it again before I can't hear it ever again ... 
And one composer has held the position of being my favourite simply because I want to hear his music again and again.
So my take on this is to start with the premise that his output is my favourite (scores) ... and a quick scan of my listing shows 82 titles (excluding where there is just one theme) - and I would gladly add at least another one score if it were ever made available - leaving 18 places to fill.
I would then go through my next favourite composer's works and so on picking titles until that arbitrary figure of 100 was reached ... and only then give consideration to other works by other composers and justify, to myself, why I should displace one of the 100 already selected.
Now you might argue that the second, and maybe third, composer will fill those 18 places but there is no second composer to whom I am so dedicated.
Hence, highly over-represented and, I readily acknowledge, not representative of my listening tastes in general. But how can I exclude works which form part of my life-long listening pleasure? Only if the criteria were changed.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 5, 2016 - 1:48 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
How can Mr. Y be one of your favourite composers if he is not signifcantly more represented in your list of 100 favourite scores?
Perhaps because you and I have different criteria in what we seek in music.
In my top 100 film score list, there is a great diversity of styles, composers, eras, and genres. Lots of composers are represented by a single score.
The fact that a favorite composer may consistently deliver the goods does not mean that each and every one of his scores ranks as an all-time favorite.
I imagine you meant to write ... single genre. rather than ... single score.
And, yes, of course: one would not expect each and every work of a single composer to be in the top 100 favourites - but see below.
I'm sure our disagreement is down to semantics. But I can't follow your argument since by definition a listener's favourite composer must be someone whose works that listener prefers (i.e. finds more favourable) than all others' works.
Yes, we may have five, or ten, favourite composers but they are only so because we like the works of those five, or ten, more than the works of the thousands of others (or at least, of those works we've heard ).
My dictionary defines favourite as a person or thing regarded with favour or preference
I fully accept that not every work by your favourite composer X will be top of your list of favourite scores but I do believe, by definition, that composer X must be more represented than any other composer.
In my case, composer B fits that bill to such an extent that I would struggle to remove more than a handful of his works, notwithstanding my love for other composers' works.
Battle of words is over ... sorry to de-rail your fair, legitimate posting/question.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 5, 2016 - 10:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
I imagine you meant to write ... single genre. rather than ... single score.
I meant that the top 100 list I created contains lots of scores by composers who show up only once in that list.
Ah, sorry ... yes: I misunderstood what you had stated.
I'm sure our disagreement is down to semantics. But I can't follow your argument since by definition a listener's favourite composer must be someone whose works that listener prefers (i.e. finds more favourable) than all others' works.
I don't think it's semantics. As I said, a favorite composer may consistently produce work that I like, but are not necessarily my very favorites. On the other hand, a composer that I do not consider a favorite may have composed a few absolutely standout scores among others that do nothing for me.
But this is where I have a problem your statement.
If we were looking at our favourite, say, five ... maybe ten ... scores then I fully accept that our favourite composer may feature only once ... or not at all.
But as the number of scores for selection increases then I find it difficult to accept that the favourite composer does not appear any more times than all other composers. Not impossible, I know, but surely unlikely that the scores which you like so much as to make said composer your favourite don't feature in your top 100.
And if, say, two scores by composer X do feature, with 98 other single entries, then composer X is represented twice as much as anyone else ... hence over-represented in comparison with all others.
Turning to your words ... a favorite composer may consistently produce work that I like, but are not necessarily my very favorites ... what makes that composer a favourite if his/her works are not in your top 100? Why are those composers whose works do feature in your top 100 not favourites? Okay, if there are a multitude of names with, as you suggest, a single entry but this suggests that you have 40 - 80 composers for whom you have one or two scores in your 100, all preferred to those of your preferred/favourite composer (whose works languish below your top 100) ... I simply find that difficult to accept.
But since that is your statement - your view - I accept what you say.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fear we are in for another Thor list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
