Just out of curiosity, who is Alan (I am not always up to date about who is behind which Avatar)?
Sorry. Once in a blue moon, I'll append "- Alan" at the end of my posts, but I'm generally too lazy to do so.
Alan posts under the name of "Hlao-roo" ( I have to be honest, I am curious as to how that name came about).
The affectionate nickname of a Watership Down
character I regard fondly.
Hlao-roo was his original screen name. Then he switched to Alan, and recently went back to his original screen name. i.e. indysolo=Neil S. Bulk, TheGreatEye=Quint
Yeah, partly because it seemed trendy at the time to go with a plausible-sounding name (real or pseudonymous) for one's member name. I finally decided I was most comfortable with my original moniker.
That being said, there absolutely are ways of asking more probing (and potentially critical) questions without stabbing a composer in the heart. There's an art to a good interview, one that I make no claim of having perfected but at least am always improving in. Part of it comes in just discovering what the composer's personality is like, whether they have a sense of humor, and what your rapport with them is like. It's hard to predict these things, but almost every composer I've interviewed has been incredibly humble, jovial, candid, and even self-depracating. When that's the case it's hard to retain much in the way of criticism (let alone anger or condescension), but it also allows for some critical or challenging questions to be asked.
Best wishes on the interview, Tim. I can only imagine how tricky these things can be, but, at least on your end, I feel confident it'll go well.
Anyway, after reading this entire blog I'm not sure if I should even be interested in the outcome of the interview. The questions I would like to have answered will never be asked out of diplomacy (what I understand, who wants to jeopardize job and/or reputation), and I'm not really interested so much in the technical issues of this mediocre piece of music.
One thing that comes to mind when reading the posts here is that most people preferred not to ask any questions but to ridicule other people's, even though many of these were considered seriously (yes, I actually think most people actually asking something were aware that these ideas would have to be rephrased, but that that's the job of the interviewer). In summary, why did I even waste my time here.
To be fair, one can ask only so many "critical" questions before the subject begins to feel as though he is under siege. There's something to be said for holding politicians' feet to the fire, but FSM
is hardly Meet the Press
. This interview is neither the time nor place to vent one's disapproval of the composer's legitimate artistic choices or his general stylistic propensities. Tim has indicated that he will try to tease out as much as possible Hooper's reasoning behind his being so sparing with his predecessors' thematic material, but, in the end, we must accept that it's the composer's prerogative.
I am interested in why he thinks that a very restrained, quiet, and simple approach does do justice to the drama and fantasy of Harry Potter (which in my opinion, as apparently in those of Williams and Doyle, begs for boldness and color).
Somewhere in here there's a fair question to be asked. I think the best thing to do would be to use the composer's own words -- he has referred to his Harry Potter
writing as "simpler" to that of Williams -- and ask him to clarify what that means. Depending on his reply, one could perhaps ask if a more elaborate approach might not be more befitting of the complex fantasy universe of Harry Potter.