HAPPY BIRTHDAY JERRY!!

General Discussions » HAPPY BIRTHDAY JERRY!! (Posts 31 to 47 of 47)

- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeFeb 10th 2009
Thor wrote
Well, he DID have his regular collaborators, albeit on a smaller, less influential level (Schaffner, Dante etc.). However, I don't think there's a qualitative judgement to be found in who he worked or didn't work with. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. And Goldsmith managed to put his mark in film history with a select few classics and being part of the experimentation that took place in film music during the 60's, in particular. He has a completely original musical voice, but in the end, the majority of his output is very "craftsman-like". That may sound like a putdown, but it really isn't. He was the excellent craftsman who knew every single nook and cranny of classical narrative Hollywood storytelling. And the few times that the film allowed room for something MORE than that; when it strived for something ARTISTICALLY higher, well then he delivered that too (PLANET, ALIEN, OMEN, PATTON, arguably STAR TREK). But he was never the infallible auteur who saved film music.

I know what you mean and agree to a large extent, but then I thought about it and wondered which film composers you wouldn't say were "craftsmanlike". Williams is of course the ultimate "craftsman", since all of his most famous scores literally just follow the action of the film and never strive to delve beneath it. Is there another Hollywood composer who's done anything quite like Patton - surely the ultimate example of a score which goes way beyond any kind of traditional narrative. (As always, it's hard to know whether to credit the composer or the director for this, but that's a separate debate.)

That depends on how the critic expresses himself. I would welcome criticism of any my own favourites with open arms, as long as it was said rationally, to-the-point and with a constructive debate in mind (and acknowledging the subjectivity of the evaluation in the first place).

Indeed. But few people are brought up to be open in that way, which is one of the inherent problems of the internet. People tend to take things so personally.

But I think there's a pretty simple explanation for why so many forums are dominated by Goldsmith fans. He was the best.

Says you. Personally, I've never really understood the desire to look upon film music as a sporting event.

Whose desire is that?
http://www.movie-wave.net | http://facebook.com/moviewave
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeFeb 10th 2009 edited
I know what you mean and agree to a large extent, but then I thought about it and wondered which film composers you wouldn't say were "craftsmanlike". Williams is of course the ultimate "craftsman", since all of his most famous scores literally just follow the action of the film and never strive to delve beneath it.

Well, that's your opinion, which I do not share. Williams has this knack for setpieces, also MUSICAL setpieces, that flow more like concert pieces. Almost floating IN and OUT of the narrative, not always slaving to it. I've always liked scores that are almost inherently classical music and that can sustain - with only some slight alterations - the soundtrack transition.

I'm not saying that Goldsmith doesn't have these setpieces too once in a while. But his whole approach to the medium doesn't work that way. He rarely composed music that popped up and said "hello, here I am!", but rather was one of the most organic film composers you could think of. Which is fine in and of itself.

But hey, the LAST thing I want to have right now is another endless Williams vs. Goldsmith debate, so let's just try to forget the white-bearded one for now, and focus on the white-haired/pony-tailed one instead.

Is there another Hollywood composer who's done anything quite like Patton - surely the ultimate example of a score which goes way beyond any kind of traditional narrative.

I agree. As I said, that's one of the classics in his canon.

Whose desire is that?

Probably an unconscious one for most film score fans. Insert Top 10 list here.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeFeb 10th 2009
Southall wrote

Thor wrote
but was fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you see it) to compose the music for many films and franchises that became CULT PHENOMENA.

I think that's totally false. For me, the most impressive think about Goldsmith is that he achieved what he did WITHOUT the benefit of having met a Spielberg or Leone, or having a Bond-type franchise.

So did Steiner, Rozsa, Newman and Bernstein, to name just a few luminaries.
Don't get me wrong: I think Goldsmith is great, and I love a lot of his work. But no more (or less) than that of other greats.

I personally was more devastated by Poledouris,as he was still so young (relatively speaking) when that !*#&$^% disease took him, with so much great potential still there.
With Goldsmith, I praise his magnificent run and enjoy and honour what was.
With Poledouris, it's the above PLUS a lament on what might have been.

Anyway, this is Jerry's thread.
Thanks Jer.
Much, much appreciated. Here's to you!
'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeFeb 10th 2009 edited
Thor wrote

I know what you mean and agree to a large extent, but then I thought about it and wondered which film composers you wouldn't say were "craftsmanlike". Williams is of course the ultimate "craftsman", since all of his most famous scores literally just follow the action of the film and never strive to delve beneath it.

Well, that's your opinion, which I do not share. Williams has this knack for setpieces, also MUSICAL setpieces, that flow more like concert pieces. Almost floating IN and OUT of the narrative, not always slaving to it. I've always liked scores that are almost inherently classical music and that can sustain - with only some slight alterations - the soundtrack transition.

Ah, so do I! Which is the main reason I hold Goldsmith in such high regard.

An interesting point you make about Williams. I've always found him unique in that he seems to be able to slavishly adhere to the narrative at the same time as writing music which can stand alone quite beautifully on its own. Nobody else has ever been able to pull of something like "The Basket Game" or "The Asteroid Field" - as literal as film music could ever get (and of course completely surface-level, but that's of little concern to the album listener) - and that he did it with such beautifully-formed music is a bit of a miracle. (And he's done it so many times elsewhere!)

But like you said, this is the Goldsmith thread, so let's appreciate him for today. To be honest, I appreciate him most days!
http://www.movie-wave.net | http://facebook.com/moviewave
- CommentAuthormoonie
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Last nite on XM while they were playing Alien, Star Trek TMP, Outland, and Power I was thinking , only the Best could write music like this.

So again heres to you Mr Goldsmith Your work will live forever
Goldsmith Rules!!
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
On your discussion above, depends on who you want to rank him along. If that's all time's best FILM composers, then by all means you're absolutely correct and spot-on and i wholeheartedly agree with you.
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Christodoulides wrote
On your discussion above, depends on who you want to rank him along. If that's all time's best FILM composers, then by all means you're absolutely correct and spot-on and i wholeheartedly agree with you.

Definitely one of the best film composers, as you rightly point out. I think if you compared him to someone like Tchaikovsky, then it would of course be Mr. T who would be the far superior composer in technical terms/ability. But it takes a very special and specific skill to be a film composer, and Jerry had a touch of genius about him when it came to scoring films. Simply put, he KNEW how to score films.
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Steven wrote

Christodoulides wrote
On your discussion above, depends on who you want to rank him along. If that's all time's best FILM composers, then by all means you're absolutely correct and spot-on and i wholeheartedly agree with you.

Definitely one of the best film composers, as you rightly point out. I think if you compared him to someone like Tchaikovsky, then it would of course be Mr. T who would be the far superior composer in technical terms/ability. But it takes a very special and specific skill to be a film composer, and Jerry had a touch of genius about him when it came to scoring films. Simply put, he KNEW how to score films.

I couldn't agree more. And that's where i believe all the arguments of the previous 2 pages should stop and admit.
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Christodoulides wrote

Steven wrote

Christodoulides wrote
On your discussion above, depends on who you want to rank him along. If that's all time's best FILM composers, then by all means you're absolutely correct and spot-on and i wholeheartedly agree with you.

Definitely one of the best film composers, as you rightly point out. I think if you compared him to someone like Tchaikovsky, then it would of course be Mr. T who would be the far superior composer in technical terms/ability. But it takes a very special and specific skill to be a film composer, and Jerry had a touch of genius about him when it came to scoring films. Simply put, he KNEW how to score films.

I couldn't agree more. And that's where i believe all the arguments of the previous 2 pages should stop and admit.

Hmm, I don't think anyone did declare Goldsmith as the greatest composer who ever lived. I think you may have misinterpreted people's passion, D. Just because we love him, doesn't mean we don't have perspective.
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009 edited
Actually, no one denies that he knew how to score films. I just have a problem with using terms such as "genius" (which is an overused term in the first place) or that he was the "best" (again with making film music out to be a sporting event, despite the lack of compatible criteria). He was good, certainly one of the most accomplished and talented film composers we've ever had, especially in Hollywood, but it pretty much ends there.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Okay, fine. But if I can't say Goldsmith was 'one of the best' with a 'touch of genius' about him, then I flat-out refuse to say it about any other film composer. Because he was one of the best, and he did have a touch of genius about him. (But was a he genius? No. Not in the strictest sense. Was he the best? No. I agree it shouldn't be a sporting event too.)
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009 edited
Steven wrote
Okay, fine. But if I can't say Goldsmith was 'one of the best' with a 'touch of genius' about him, then I flat-out refuse to say it about any other film composer. Because he was one of the best, and he did have a touch of genius about him. (But was a he genius? No. Not in the strictest sense. Was he the best? No. I agree it shouldn't be a sporting event too.)

First of all, I wasn't really talking about you. I was more referring to the general hyperbole that occurs elsewhere (and sometimes also here). However, your slightly nuanced adjectives are much better than the factual extremes of 'genius' and 'best'.

Still, there is little value in a judgement that merely says "Goldsmith was one of the best". It's fine for gut response and reflecting the person's preferences, but as long as you don't elaborate on what you mean with "best", exactly, there's really very little of evaluative quality there.

Extreme hyperbole or "blind fan adoration" just irk me the wrong way and make me very uncomfortable (that goes for ALL composer worshipping, by the way -- including my own "hardcore" favourites). Like when people post "oh drool! another Goldsmith release!", "It's Goldsmith! It's a given purchase!", "Great! Another CD from GODsmith!" etc. Call me boring if you wish (or having lost my "passion" or whatever), but I am firm believer in the "nerds with perspective" ideology.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
Thor wrote

Still, there is little value in a judgement that merely says "Goldsmith was one of the best". It's fine for gut response and reflecting the person's preferences, but as long as you don't elaborate on what you mean with "best", exactly, there's really very little of evaluative quality there.

Not being too well versed in musical terminology and theory, I wouldn't really know how best to describe in specific terms why I think Goldsmith was one of the best. But having listened to a great many of his scores, and having heard many of them in their respective films, I know in my heart and in my mind that this guy was a great film composer. His diversity, his inventiveness, his uniqueness, the sense of cinema he had, the memorable themes, the way he constructed certain scores, it all adds up.

It is far from a gut response to call him one of the greats.
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009 edited
Steven wrote

Thor wrote

Still, there is little value in a judgement that merely says "Goldsmith was one of the best". It's fine for gut response and reflecting the person's preferences, but as long as you don't elaborate on what you mean with "best", exactly, there's really very little of evaluative quality there.

Not being too well versed in musical terminology and theory, I wouldn't really know how best to describe in specific terms why I think Goldsmith was one of the best. But having listened to a great many of his scores, and having heard many of them in their respective films, I know in my heart and in my mind that this guy was a great film composer. His diversity, his inventiveness, his uniqueness, the sense of cinema he had, the memorable themes, the way he constructed certain scores, it all adds up.

It is far from a gut response to call him one of the greats.

You see, now we're down to "one of the greats", which is a perfect response. I agree wholeheartedly and he has the Curriculum Vitae to show for it!

I think it's quite easy to pinpoint certain aspects of why he was a great film composer, though, and you don't have to be a musicologist to do so. As Noël Carroll once said, "debarred from the lingua franca of the musicologist, [the film analyst] decides to say nothing at all". Since we're dealing with film music, i.e. music in a representational medium, it's easy to point out how the music works or doesn't work in a scene. The distant "memory voices" as connoted by the distant trumpets in PATTON, the strange - but still familiar - music of PLANET OF THE APES, connoting a strange world that may not be so strange after all, once you see the ending, the totally organic ALIEN, wherein sound effects and music (and visuals) merge to underline the Freudian metaphors throughout. Etcetera.
I am extremely serious.
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeFeb 11th 2009
I definitely agree with your attitude towards naming composers "the greatest", that's for sure.
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeFeb 12th 2009
Thor wrote

Steven wrote
Okay, fine. But if I can't say Goldsmith was 'one of the best' with a 'touch of genius' about him, then I flat-out refuse to say it about any other film composer. Because he was one of the best, and he did have a touch of genius about him. (But was a he genius? No. Not in the strictest sense. Was he the best? No. I agree it shouldn't be a sporting event too.)

First of all, I wasn't really talking about you. I was more referring to the general hyperbole that occurs elsewhere (and sometimes also here). However, your slightly nuanced adjectives are much better than the factual extremes of 'genius' and 'best'.

Still, there is little value in a judgement that merely says "Goldsmith was one of the best". It's fine for gut response and reflecting the person's preferences, but as long as you don't elaborate on what you mean with "best", exactly, there's really very little of evaluative quality there.

Extreme hyperbole or "blind fan adoration" just irk me the wrong way and make me very uncomfortable (that goes for ALL composer worshipping, by the way -- including my own "hardcore" favourites). Like when people post "oh drool! another Goldsmith release!", "It's Goldsmith! It's a given purchase!", "Great! Another CD from GODsmith!" etc. Call me boring if you wish (or having lost my "passion" or whatever), but I am firm believer in the "nerds with perspective" ideology.

Yes, god forbid anyone should actually derive any pleasure from this. You need to remember that for most people, this ain't an academic excercise - there's a passion for the music, and that's why people listen to it. Of course someone can say that they think someone's "the best". If in your opinion nobody could possibly be "the best", then how could they qualify as being "one of the greatest"? If it's no sporting event, then that doesn't follow.

Most people on this forum will spend more time listening to Jerry Goldsmith than they will listening to any non-film composer, so I am uncomfortable with this notion that we shouldn't ever possibly consider him as being in the same league as any of them. If we didn't think he was, then we wouldn't listen to his music, would we?

I agree with the overuse of "genius" (and if there's any film composer to whom I would apply the term then it would be Morricone) but you shouldn't take everythiing that people say on messageboards so literally. People exaggerate because they think it will help them make their point more forcefully. It's pretty natural in most debates and of course even more rife on internet messageboards, where you're "talking" to a great many people at the same time, and hoping to "outdo" the people who don't hold the same views. Even though most people don't do it consciously, they still do it.
http://www.movie-wave.net | http://facebook.com/moviewave
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeFeb 12th 2009 edited
Yes, god forbid anyone should actually derive any pleasure from this. You need to remember that for most people, this ain't an academic excercise - there's a passion for the music, and that's why people listen to it.

For the record, 'passion' and 'academic exercise' need not be mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary. If you don't have a passion for something, it's difficult to muster up the energy and stamina to write extensively about it.

That said, this is neither about pleasure NOR academic exercise. There's a difference between pleasure and narrowminded fan behaviour. And just because you write something more elaborate than "Goldsmith rules!" doesn't mean it's automatically an academic exercise.

Of course someone can say that they think someone's "the best". If in your opinion nobody could possibly be "the best", then how could they qualify as being "one of the greatest"? If it's no sporting event, then that doesn't follow.

It's impossible to use the term "best" because you're dealing with an artform that has no set criteria by which to judge, no criteria that are applicable with one another. What is the "best" score of Steiner's KING KONG and Duhamel's PIERROT LE FOU? Impossible to pinpoint since you're operating with many different filmatic paradigms. So in order to profess something as "best", you need to define what 'best' means and in what context you're using it. That is, if you're going to have a fruitful debate (by the way, an even MORE fruitful debate would be if you disbanded with the 'best' term altogether and simply discussed the artwork on its own terms, within its own set paradigm). If it's just an immediate "gut reponse"; if it's just to let everyone know that a given composer is your FAVOURITE, it's OK, I guess (he's the "best" for YOU). But the confusion of 'favourite' and 'best' is really all-too-common.
I am extremely serious.

31 to 47 of 47

Categories

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JERRY!!