Jump to content

Prometheus Records & Tadlow to start new series of recording Goldsmith Scores


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Chuckster312 posted these in the Last Score Listened To thread.

I don't mean to say that an original recording cannot be the best recording. But I don't think the contrary is untrue either. These are symphonic music works, that envolve the tinniest details in orch

Leigh Philips who did the Tadlow re-recordings of The Salamander, posted this pic in his tweeter account: https://twitter.com/PhantasmaMusica/status/357250725505544192/photo/1 Wonder what score they a

I know many of you are glad, but honestly I can't enjoy a re-recording at all, ever.

Even if it is top notch, with stellar sound, I always prefer the original.

It's like eg. seeing Star Wars with another cast..

No not really.

It's more like the Star Wars cast being dubbed by some voice actors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really understood that kind of mentality, Filmmusic, no offense

you mean the preference of the original over the re-recording?

Yeah, I don't know.. I think the re-recording takes something off, of the original "magic".

So, you mean actually that you prefer eg. to see Jaws with a re-recorded score with a today's orchestra than the original one?

@chuckster

yes, that's more like it.. ;)

I had a talk with someone in a Greek forum just yesterday, and he said that he prefers the Greek dub in Disney animation films.

And I said to him the same thing. That I always prefer the original thing, even if the other is better (well, it never happens anyway :biglaugh: )

I feel the same way with re-recordings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to say that an original recording cannot be the best recording. But I don't think the contrary is untrue either. These are symphonic music works, that envolve the tinniest details in orchestration and interpretation. Any new recording can bring something new to the table, and are, thefore, most welcome, for they can often times offer new often better interpretations of the music. And in case of older scores, you get better sound to boot.

Being the original recording does not assure anything at all, quality wise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know all this, that's why i said "even if it is top notch, with stellar sound".

eg. about Conan the barbarian:

Yes, it had excellent quality, you could hear more details, but still it didn't feel right to me..

but would you mind replying to the hypothetical question I put you? I'm just curious.. Nothing more. ;)

If someone said that they'll gonna re-record the Jaws score (with great quality, all details being evident etc.), and from now on you will be able to watch the film with this new score, you would prefer it over the old one?

@Bloodboal

Yes. ;)

and not only this. I'm talking about the quality of the interpretation of the music. Not the quality of sound.

Surely the original recording of the music (possibly with the composer himself), would be closer to the composer's vision with its tempo, piano/forte etc. etc. (even if the old means of recording didn't allow for a fully detailed sound), than a random orchestra of today which gets the sheet music and records the music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from. Film music, unlike concert works, is married to a film and that's why people are really strongly attached to original versions.

But... to be quite honest, it treat re-recordings as that, just another interpretation of music, much like another performance of any given symphony. I find a great joy in hearing different players, conductors putting their marks. That's why I love the Jaws re-recording. It doesn't have the rawness of the original, but, as a pure music, flows really well for me. It's acoustics actually help to sell the idea that it is indeed a concert performance of that work. If that even makes sense... ;)

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites
but would you mind replying to the hypothetical question I put you? I'm just curious.. Nothing more. ;)

If someone said that they'll gonna re-record the Jaws score (with great quality, all details being evident etc.), and from now on you will be able to watch the film with this new score, you would prefer it over the old one?

Well, that's a pretty big IF.

Here's another one: what if we would be damned to hear only one single recording of Stravinsky's Sacre du Printemps and hence be deprived of many other magnificent (and maybe better) interpretations of such masterpiece?

Film music has the particular singularity of being tied (and sometimes condemned) to the one single performance recorded for the film itself. But in the end it's still music and it could be take out as "pure" music, I think it's always great to have different interpretations and performances.

Music is an alive thing. Here's what John Morgan and William Stromberg said when I asked them something along those lines a few years ago:

Q: Film music is very different to classical music in this aspect. A lot of listeners want to have a very faithful reconstruction/restoration of the original recording and performance. Is there room anyway for some kind of personal interpretation from your part, so to speak? Or is this something that doesn't pertain to this kind of recordings?

WS: Music is a living art and open for many different interpretations. You can hear so many different elements from performance to performance. That’s what makes it so interesting. I hear something new everytime I perform a piece of music for film or concert. When we are doing our new recordings I try to maintain the composers original intent, although I may play the piece faster or slower. Most people don’t seem to mind if a cue is performed too fast, but they seem to hate it when it is too slow. I try to keep the tempi up to the film’s and make sure that the energy is every bit as intense as the original.

JM: The actual recording done for the film and heard in the film is the only legitimate and proper performance for that particular film. Whether it is badly played, or badly recorded makes no difference. It belongs to the film as much as the actors, photography, etc. As an example was when they tried to rerecord [Walt Disney's] Fantasia [score] in digital sound for a re-release some years back. Irwin Kostal had all the original music and timing sheets, but trying to imitate every nuance and "hit" rendered the music forced and not natural. Of course, this is an unusual case, as [conductor Leopold] Stokowski performed the music first, with all the rubatos and idiosyncrasies and the Disney people animated to that, but it just didn't feel like it belonged to that film.

Film Music can have two criteria. Since its function is primarily to enhance a film, the most important aspect is how does the music work within the framework of the film. In this function it becomes part of FILM art. Much film music that is considered a great film score may not be great music in the sense of standing alone as music. It can be repetitive, meandering, formless and sometimes even played badly on purpose for a dramatic effect, but nevertheless a great FILM score WITH the film. Now, when we rerecord a score for an album, our primary concern is not at all how the music works with the film, but how does it work AWAY from the film--as music. Of course Bill Stromberg and I are flattered when we get comments from film buffs who say we captured the sound and feel of the original performance, but I get an even bigger thrill when I read a review from someone who hasn't seen the film, but finds the music compelling and interesting and fun on its own.

When Bill conducts this music, he certainly has studied both the film and its music. He understands the music's meaning as drama, but he also understands that this is a performance of a musical work and his feeling for the music. I have heard many performances (on acetates) from most the Golden Age greats and often a great musical performance of a cue must be eliminated and a lesser one substituted because the initial great performance just didn't hit all the filmic marks, so to speak. Herrmann disliked his film performances as he did all film composer's performances because he was aware of the conductor "hitting" cues and varying tempos to make that hit. It distracted from the music. I feel much the same way, but I certainly don't say rerecordings are automatically better...they're not. In fact, in Herrmann's rerecordings, I feel he was much too leisurely with the music in more cases than not, but I do think any GOOD music certainly can stand up to different interpretations. Complex orchestrated music can never display all its details in one reading or performance.

http://www.colonnesonore.net/contenuti-speciali/interviste/607-interview-with-john-w-morgan-william-stromberg-a-anna-bonn.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome news. if they could do Lionheart and Rambo III... those are two Goldsmith scores that I'd love to hear in a good recording.

I don't mean to say that an original recording cannot be the best recording. But I don't think the contrary is untrue either. These are symphonic music works, that envolve the tinniest details in orchestration and interpretation. Any new recording can bring something new to the table, and are, thefore, most welcome, for they can often times offer new often better interpretations of the music. And in case of older scores, you get better sound to boot.

Being the original recording does not assure anything at all, quality wise

Absolutely agreed.

When Intrada released the original score to Capricorn One, I was surprised how little the score did for me. Now that the album recording has been re-released, I've rediscovered the score. Another case where the re-recording beats the original soundtrack is The Fury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Maurizio

Ok, yes, I understand all you're saying.

But I just expressed my opinion. That I prefer the one over the other.

I didn't say that the rerecording is bad, or there shouldn't be any rerecordings..

By the way, I forgot to mention that if the composer himself does a re-recording, I can accept it better than some other random re-recording..

Almost all of classical music that exists now is re-recordings. (we don't have the original recording of Mozart etc.)

But if this existed (in an audible quality, right?), i would prefer to hear that one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they will not stop recording scores? Great!

In my opinion, the only scores need re-record are those the original complete master lost, or suffer from horrible sound quality.

So a complete re-record of Capricorn One would be great. QB VII as well. But looks like most of the Goldsmith stuff are released, in complete and good sound quality. New recording of these scores are unnecessary.

I would suggest re-record of some others score:

King Kong 1933 (I remember Naxos is doing a re-record AGAIN, but no mow news on this one)

Godzilla 1954

Bond: Moonraker, Octopussy. (Since the master of Moonraker was lost)

Steiner: Complete Gone with the Wind, Casablanca (the Rhino Casablanca was a direct rip from the film stream and full of sfx, dialoge)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they also do The Blue Max. I've always wanted to hear the score in it's entirety.

This is awesome news. if they could do Lionheart and Rambo III... those are two Goldsmith scores that I'd love to hear in a good recording.

I don't hear anything wrong with the Lionheart recording, especially the Epic Symphonic Score. To me it's awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe in leaving things as they are. Re-recordings kind of go against that philosophy. It feels like replacing the ambitious ferocity of something with a more technically precise layer. It loses heart, and this can be in any type of art form. What if another painter made some touch-ups to the Mona Lisa? He studied Da Vinci's work extensively so he can accurately presume what he would have done differently, and then does it... Probably not a lot of people would support that.

But then there's something like Tomas Kalnoky's Keasbey Nights. With Catch 22, the album is poorly recorded, flat, at times out of synch in the performance. With Streetlight Manifesto, it's perfect. But then I go back and listen to some early demos of the songs with Catch 22 and despite the flubs and cassette tape hiss, it seems more real.

I don't know, it's an interesting topic of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually i like many re-record John Barry's score, i.e. Somewhere in Time, Out of Africa, The Last Valley, The Lion and Winter. And I will buy Raise of Titanic soon. These re-record present the complete score with exilent performance.

However, I can't accept the complete new re-record of Jaws.

So, it depands on the performance level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of Williams, he seems to look for little nuances that only himself knows when he's conducting a score. It seems very difficult to replicate

Like the ToD End Credits that have 2 re-recordings. For short round/Indy march interpolation passage, they just mix Short rounds theme and Indy march in a uniform bland way. Williams emphasized each theme in alternance as the passage is played

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a rerecording is the only way to get a complete musical performance of a written composition -- score, opera, symphony, rock album, whatever -- because the original is incomplete, of poor quality, missing, destroyed, what have you, then I will embrace it as being as good as it's going to get and say thank you and love it.

El Cid really comes to mind as one of my most-loved scores in my entire collection, regardless of its status as a rerecording. Conan the Barbarian is just as spectacular, and the recently-discovered original tapes will do nothing to diminish my love for the rerecording when I finally do buy Intrada's album. I do prefer their Destroyer over the original, and I doubt that Intrada's eventual release will change that unless the movie got the lesser recording. I bought Tadlow's Lawrence of Arabia to replace the Napster tracks in my collection, I got Exodus and Jason and the Argonauts because I didn't have them in the first place, and I got Taras Bulba because I enjoyed Kritzerland's single disc so much, I wanted more. I don't understand why I bought Rozsa's The Red House but haven't gotten his Private Life of Sherlock Holmes yet, but the Intrada is still in the shrink wrap. Hell, the original album of The Ten Commandments is a rerecording in and of itself, but that's because the film tracks have not been made available yet -- it's as good as we got.

But if we already do have a complete, good quality score, then I can be more selective with the rerecordings I acquire. I like Charles Gerhardt's arrangements and versions, so his Star Wars scores serve as interesting ways to contrast against Williams' "real" albums. I know of Joel McNeely's Jaws album, but I never went out and bought it. I never heard good things about the re-recorded Superman score that preceded Rhino's album, so I never got it.

Another way that rerecordings enter our lives is by the "compilation" album, where an artist plays assorted tracks from various movie scores and puts them on a single album. Ferrante and Teicher put out a few albums like this. I have at least two albums of soundtrack arrangements for flutes, either as solos or in flute ensembles. The three Ben Hur LPs included in FSM's box set offer fascinating music. And then of course there are the various concert performances by Williams, Goldsmith, Bernstein, Barry, etc. that were either recorded in the studio or on a live stage that offer their own unique listening experiences, but still qualify as "recordings."

Were someone to say, you know, we have a complete Star Trek: The Motion Picture or Alien or Return of the Jedi or Jurassic Park, but I want to go ahead and rerecord it, I might ask why at first, but I wouldn't really snub my nose at it and dismiss it just because it doesn't have the original composer standing at the podium -- many "original soundtracks" don't even get that much (Alien, etc.). I'd consider giving it a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't hear anything wrong with the Lionheart recording, especially the Epic Symphonic Score. To me it's awesome.

It's alright, but it does sound like the orchestra is at the limits of its abilities. I've always had a feeling (without knowing any facts about the actual recording, mind you) that Goldsmith used the synth horns because the orchestra wasn't up to playing those parts for real.

It's doubtful that a re-rec would gives those parts to real horns though, or if in fact that would be a right thing to do, so this one probably doesn't count. Rambo III, on the other hand, really has serious performance issues.

I personally believe in leaving things as they are. Re-recordings kind of go against that philosophy. It feels like replacing the ambitious ferocity of something with a more technically precise layer. It loses heart, and this can be in any type of art form. What if another painter made some touch-ups to the Mona Lisa? He studied Da Vinci's work extensively so he can accurately presume what he would have done differently, and then does it... Probably not a lot of people would support that.

You're mixing things up. We're not talking about people rewriting the music written by Williams & Co, we're talking about new recordings of the same source material. You wouldn't say that once one photographer has captured a certain building from a certain perspective, nobody else should make a photo of that same building?

I didn't say that the rerecording is bad, or there shouldn't be any rerecordings..

By the way, I forgot to mention that if the composer himself does a re-recording, I can accept it better than some other random re-recording..

Almost all of classical music that exists now is re-recordings. (we don't have the original recording of Mozart etc.)

But if this existed (in an audible quality, right?), i would prefer to hear that one!

I can't help but strongly object, because this simply doesn't make any sense.

We don't have "the original recordings of Mozart", because there are no "original" recordings of Mozart. And not (only) because there was no recording equipment in his time. What would, for example, be the "original" performance of Don Giovanni? The 1787 Prague premiere? The 1788 Vienna premiere? If he had recorded the opera, should he have recorded the full 1787 Prague version and then only the modifications for the 1788 Vienna version?

In general, the writing of the music has no connection to the actual recording process. It's true that very often, solo parts are written specifically for certain performers. But even then, if the work is then performed in three concerts by the same cast, which would be the original recording? Only the recording of the first performance? Or only the studio recording made afterwards, if there is one? Or only the live recording released afterwards, which is probably an edit of the three life performances?

The concept of an "original recording" is something specific to "film music". Only here is the music written explicitly to be recorded exactly once, edited, put in the film, and (theoretically) never performed again. But why should this so significantly affect the writing process? It's still written as music - in the case of a serious composer like Williams, probably with the intent of having *musical* worth, perhaps even enough to be performed live in a concert.

Throughout the centuries, musical compositions have been performed many times. Sometimes conducted by the composers, sometimes by others. Sometimes the premiere was conducted by the composer, sometimes it wasn't, even if the composer may have conducted it later. Some composers can't conduct. Some can, but don't. Some do, but can't. Some can, but think others do it better, and thus prefer their performances of their own works. Some are good conductors but are unhappy with the "original" cast or performance. Some have never actually seen some of their own works performed. And ultimately, who is to say that a composer is the ideal interpreter of his own music? Some don't consider themselves to be, so even those who may think so may not necessarily be "right". And even those who have very strong ideas about how their works should be performed may yet be positively surprised by different interpretations.

This applies to film scores as well. Some people can conduct but prefer others to do it (e.g. Doyle). Some usually conduct their own scores, but let others handle it on some occasions - Lionel Newman on Goldsmith's Alien and Omen, for example. Yet Goldsmith later conducted suites from both works in his own concerts. And ultimately, many so-called "original soundtrack recordings" are actually not the original recordings from the film - especially up to the mid 70s. The Fury, Capricorn One, Damien: Omen II are examples of scores where the originally released soundtrack album, titled "original soundtrack", is actually a different recording - and, in my opinion, a better one in these three cases.

There are reasons why, for film music, the "original recording" is often hard to beat. Recordings cost time, money and resources. Time to invest yourself in the music, which the composer has already done while writing it, so he has clear ideas in his mind at the time of recording, regardless of whether he conducts it himself or lets someone else do it. Money is provided by the studios to hire first rate performers, and the resources are available because the studios have access to the world's best sight reading players. That all assumes that we're talking about well financed Hollywood scores, obviously - budgetary compromises can lead to entirely different outcomes.

By contrast, to do a re-recording, you have to find a conductor who knows the music well (or invests time to get to know it well), an orchestra to play it, and the money to pay for it all plus enough rehearsal time. That's the point where many re-recordings can't compete: It's mostly financial reasons, much less artistic ones. But if you get the right people, and have enough money to pay them for enough rehearsals, the result has just as much musical validity as the so-called "original recording" - perhaps even more, because the new recording can focus on the music written instead of having to compromise to fit the music to the (ever changing) cut of the film, and also because if there is *enough* money, the sessions for a re-recording can in theory take as long as you need them to, whereas for the original recording, the film as a whole has a strict deadline.

In short: There are business reasons why many re-recordings of film scores are likely to not be up to the film recording. But there are no compulsive reasons why the first recording must necessarily be better than any other, or even as good as any other, or more valid than any other, or definitive in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but here's the difference in a recording done 20 years later compared to Capricorn One and The Fury.

Those were recorded at the time of the film's release by the composer and they keep the tempos of the original tracks. They may flesh out some of the tracks but Williams and Goldsmith stick very close to the original films tracks.

I don't need someone to interpret Williams' works, I want the recording to match what I heard in the film, minus the editing done in post-production of course. And I feel the same way about all music, I don't want to hear anyone's version of music I like unless it sticks to what was originally written. I don't want to here another bands version of The Commodores' Brick House unless it's the same. I don't need deviation. I don't need 20 versions of Star Wars recorded by 20 different conductors doing at their own pace and interpretation.

That's what Tadlow is doing, sticking to the original intent. And Tribute music as well, they are sticking as close to the original as possible.

And I imagine their series will focus on scores where the original sessions are lost or less than stellar quality, that's what several people have said in the past about The Hour Of The Gun. The sessions were lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I feel the same way about all music, I don't want to hear anyone's version of music I like unless it sticks to what was originally written. I don't want to here another bands version of The Commodores' Brick House unless it's the same. I don't need deviation.

See I'm the complete opposite with this. I don't want to listen to a cover unless it does change the tempo and rhythm. What's the point of someone trying to emulate an original as closely as possible, when one can just listen to the original? It's unnecessary and almost always pales in comparison. Now take Bowie's "Let's Dance," for example. A pop radio hit, one that I really love. But then listen to M. Ward's cover, it's an utterly different experience. It's turned into a folk blues song. I would never have imagined that such a drastic change was possible. Now I have two versions of one song that I love and can be appropriated for different moods.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going further, most music wasn't "written as" the original performance. Tempo and dynamics marked in the score are of course subject to interpretation, and not only by the conductor but also by the players. Also, even non-composer conductors often repeatedly conduct and record the same works. As far as I remember, Karajan did 4 different Beethoven symphony cycles over the decades, partly because he wanted to use the newest technology, but certainly also because his own interpretation of these works had changed. And it extends beyond classical music. Even "bands", who usually write songs that are only performed by themselves, change the interpretations - there may be the early version performed in concerts before they can afford an album, followed by the version on their first self-financed EP, followed by the version on their first full album, followed by considerably different versions performed in concerts over the next few decades.

When it comes to film music, I generally like the option of having the original score available. But which recording is the best one varies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even "bands", who usually write songs that are only performed by themselves, change the interpretations - there may be the early version performed in concerts before they can afford an album, followed by the version on their first self-financed EP, followed by the version on their first full album, followed by considerably different versions performed in concerts over the next few decades.

This is what I love about music in general, how an artist can evolve his/her work over a period of time. The best example I can think of this is with Kalnoky's "Supernothing." From first band album, to second band EP, to second band first album, and ultimately final band rerecording. This song has changed immensely over it's 10 year life span.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euWjHK4svZ8

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe in leaving things as they are. Re-recordings kind of go against that philosophy. It feels like replacing the ambitious ferocity of something with a more technically precise layer. It loses heart, and this can be in any type of art form. What if another painter made some touch-ups to the Mona Lisa? He studied Da Vinci's work extensively so he can accurately presume what he would have done differently, and then does it... Probably not a lot of people would support that.

You're mixing things up. We're not talking about people rewriting the music written by Williams & Co, we're talking about new recordings of the same source material. You wouldn't say that once one photographer has captured a certain building from a certain perspective, nobody else should make a photo of that same building?

But they didn't create that source material. A photographer capturing a certain building from a certain perspective is also a shaky analogy like mine was, because that photographer did not design the building. Would a re-recording not be like me taking the blueprints to a preexisting house and building it with a different type of brick and mortar? What's the point if the base design is the same? If I made some slight tweaks and additions to the house, it would be a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, both analogies are shaky.

Still... I don't know enough about builders to tell how "complete" blueprints are, but I know that the printed score can be transformed into performed music in many different ways. And not always is the composer directly involved in the "original" performance (which should give slightly more validity to my extreme architect/photographer analogy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, sheet music is like a recipe.

If two people used the same recipe for a dish. The end result would still end up tasting different.

One person might add a little bit more salt, add a little less milk. The other might have it in the oven just a tad longer....

Personal preference and interpretation is always unavoidable, and often desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed this thread and I am all for people re-recording film music of Goldsmith and any other artists. Prometheus and Tadlow are to be thanked for providing either first time ever releases for some of these scores and for wonderful new interpretations on some of the well known classics as film music like any other music deserves to be played and interpreted more than once.

Plus Hour of the Gun is one of my favourite JG Westerns. :)

Perhaps some kind of miraculous rescue operation could be done for JWs Jane Eyre.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's impossible because not only are the recording session masters gone, but the original sheet music was lost in a fire as well. J Dub had to rewrite the sheets by ear to be able to perform suites in concert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's impossible because not only are the recording session masters gone, but the original sheet music was lost in a fire as well. J Dub had to rewrite the sheets by ear to be able to perform suites in concert.

I know, I know but they did a great job with Nino Rota's Romeo and Juliet and that too was missing most of the original sheet music. One can always dream. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe in leaving things as they are. Re-recordings kind of go against that philosophy. It feels like replacing the ambitious ferocity of something with a more technically precise layer. It loses heart, and this can be in any type of art form.

I get what you're saying. But if you watch an Errol Flynn film like The Adventures of Don Juan, like the music but frustrated with the quality on the original track... the re-recording is a revelation. If you've heard any of Tribute Film Classics re-recordings, they're technically precise and full with passion and vigor (the players really do put their all in it). You can tell Stromberg & Morgan love the scores and want to do justice to the original recordings. They may not recreate the exact sound for every score they re-record, but I think their contributions sound as good, if not a bit better, than the original recordings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Any comments on this release?

Karol

promehourofthegun.jpg

HOUR OF THE GUN - Jerry Goldsmith, Prometheus re- recording

One of several mid-60 westerns Goldsmith did when the genre slowly was dying away. It's a good version of the Wyatt-Earp-myth and Goldsmith responds with one of his maximum-focused character scores with just enough thematic gusto and outward action pieces that it doesn't lose itself in introspective character study. The original UA album was around 31 minutes in length (condensed from around 55 minutes of score) and sounded suspiciously good for the period so the question 'why re-record it?' looms rather large. Indeed the most important stuff was released so the main interest here is to listen to an ace-Goldsmith score from a period where he could do no wrong recorded with modern techniques and it sure is interesting how close it sounds to the original even with the added bass and the more spacious recording - the idiosyncratic orchestrations are not to be tamed.

The RED PONY suite is a fitting addition, so if you don't want to shell out the dough for both albums, this Prometheus album is a good starting point, even if the mouth-watering prospect of a modern-sounding 100 RIFLES (Goldsmith most ferocious western score) seems much more alluring than HOUR OF THE GUN, which is a great score but due to the nature of the film in a more subdued way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...