• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About publicist

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Berlin, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

12047 profile views
  1. Maybe i'm just more picky what 'new' in this context should constitute. If they want to make it more 'regular', yes, if they want a sound closer to JW's original intentions (operatic, classical influences ranging from romantic to mid 20th century modernist) cues like this wouldn't be high on the list. Following the model, updating it would work somewhat in Williams' AI mode (a bit more Reich, Adams or something like that in the mix).
  2. Where in SW has music like this ever played a role? If so, it was more leaned towards Rózsa/Korngold. Be that as it may:
  3. Following my theory above i guess he really was obsessed with his own oeuvre to the point where every new piece was a kind of career retrospective. The necessity to deal with outside influences in film music might have been a blessing in that regard.
  4. My half-assed theory is that he had personal demons that slowly took hold of him as he became a film music legend, a Faustian bargain if you like: - a strong desire to be a successful serious composer, a wish that remained forever elusive - the various and very obvious classical citations at the beginning of his career being a mixture of cynism towards Hollywood dumbass-ery and real joy of applying his idols' works in his film music - the realization that his film career was a double-edged sword: he became insanely rich and successful early on, but the outlet in film for his musical talents was limited and reigned in by dubious commercial considerations - later the embracing of all these compromises, probably happening in the early 90's and acceptance that even on respectable movies like 'Glory' he so craved musical sophistication didn't necessarily plays a huge role (a process completed at last after 'Titanic' made him immortal; i to this day think he was pressing on with a musical aesthetic he had serious misgivings about but later saw as an unavoidable necessity in the commercial Hollywood world he was cemented into) - the classical quotations then almost disappeared and made way for a much more overt habit of obsessive citing of his own vastly more limited traits, probably also out of a mixture of cynism (give them what they want) and a growing delusion about the actual musical qualities of his work (understandable, having to write this stuff in often insanely short periods of time and also being hired again and again for exactly that kind of sound) - finally, muted despair that even after having reached these highs to still get little respect and even worse, being subjected to a rapidly artist-unfriendly environment where the composer was more like a handyman, the 5th wheel on a soundtrack cluttered with sonic overkill Of course his infatuation with self-quotation started much earlier, but it was more playful and less rigid and probably wouldn't have made much of an impact on his later image if he for instance would have started scoring french art movies or Errol Morris-documentaries{insert own esoteric choice here} that probably would have challenged him much differently. When in the mid-2000's he opened up with the kind of interviews that betrayed a deeply hurt soul, it was too late to change gears completely and he was stuck with what he had. Which for many of us remains a gift that keeps on giving but i imagine that a composer of Horner's vast knowledge and love of the classical repertoire probably was much more annoyed at having to supply third-rate copies of current blockbuster music in parts of, say, 'Spider-Man'.
  5. In that case i'm thankful as i always found his concepts much more convincing than the actual execution. An educated guess: there will be a handful of themes making an appearance, the rest will be easily identifiable as by the composer who wrote 'John Carter' et al.
  6. It's purely an intellectual exercise (writing about it). As a listener, i feel that i often choose the newer pieces in lieu of the old ones (special favourites excepted) and i don't care much - Horner was right in that the public at large wouldn't give a shit about recurring ideas - but i see no point writing about it without mentioning the inherent limitations of such approach. We had many quarrels over the years here what constitutes highs and lows (y'know, Williams 'golden' period, Goldsmith bad 90's phase and so on) and it often didn't get anywhere because you can't really separate general trends in films, culture etc. from the composer persona. Horner in that respect is a more interesting subject because many of the musical choices he made were absolutely his own (not so much mandated by the production team, James Cameron excepted) and given the increasingly limited variations thereof, sometimes interrupted by very bold choices (think 'Four Feathers') make him imho one of the more enigmatic composers in recent Hollywood.
  7. But that's the nature of the beast. If not put into historical context we would still celebrate the brilliant idea of putting Carmina Burana behind epic battles or movie trailers. Again and again. Horner is arguably the most idiosyncratic steward of a legacy of borrowing, self-quotations and so on. It isn't just a lovable trait or, like in Goldsmith's case, an extended shrug towards the working conditions and lowered expectations of assignments he got. This will always be a point of reference for reflections of him (maybe even an interesting psychological portrait) and given the tendency to retreat to a very narrowly drawn palette of gentle americana built on the very same intervals, instrumental choices etc. it's a fair point that he wrote himself into a corner. As i said, nice to listen to, but knowing that Horner's abilities are of a far greater reach than., say, Rachel Portman's, it's a shame he didn't utilize his musical talents towards more varied style (especially of works where he actually had the leeway).
  8. I was just taking your argument further - if you were bothering to actually read what i wrote.
  9. But that was always a superficial argument because even these three composers are so vastly different that i always found it laughable to lump their approach together. I agree with Newman, David who said in an interview about Horner that it's a bit futile to rate a composer by his Hollywood scores because however you twist and turn it, the requirements of big studio productions are going to mute their musicality to a point where it becomes a left-handed compliment to pat, say, Horner on the back for staying true to himself or implying that there just isn't anything beyond noble horn calls and luxurious strings in divisi that the composer should possibly tackle.
  10. LOTR? That's easy, the aesthetic. Especially the boy soprano stuff, the massive mixed choirs, the special eye on seldom-used ethnic instruments (hardanger) - there isn't much beyond that would qualify as that distinctive. (E. T. probably like other Williams'ses of the period in its expansive operatic orchestral setting, but then composers back then were given much more leeway in doing it their own way, like Bruce Broughton or indeed, James Horner, David Shire and so on)
  11. Of course you do. 'Carelessly' being an obvious pointer. It's David Arnold conducting the non-'Collage' pieces, those are done by Jaime Martin.
  12. That's of course mere whitewashing: i count myself a fan but it's hard to argue that Horner should have roamed a bit more freely in musicland. The very Hollywoodized americana idiom he reworked so tirelessly are maybe not unworthy of his talents but surely limited him in an unbecoming way. The man wrote 'Willow', one of the most daring clashs of musical styles written in 8 weeks that fantasy films ever got, so seeing him reduced to homespun sentimentality like these pieces has to be considered a bit of a waste.