Does Thor have a point?

[BloodBoal 7,538]

In FOTR, the 70-minute program "forced" Shore to re-think which highlights he wanted to include -- to create a musical narrative with flow, but with fewer parts that drags out between the highlights. For the record, I actually think FOTR is one of the few releases in a (more or less) C&C format that works reasonably well. Comparing that with the HOBBIT release -- with endless suspense and action drones inbetween the setpieces, a confused/schizophrenic musical story and lack of proper design -- it becomes something very, very different indeed.

I find it interesting that you used the word "forced"...

[Wojo 2,453]

I find it interesting that you used the word "forced"...

Why, because you're on a Darth Vader picture kick?

The studio told Shore, "you have one CD to use for your first OST, because we have no idea how the general public is going to take to this music. We don't want to take the risk on publishing a second disc to drive up the cost of the album and watch sales stagnate, so we'll give one CD for starters. If they like it, they'll buy more music later."

"Forced" is simply a different connotation for the single-disc "restriction" that Shore faced with his OST. The rest, as they say, is history.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Oh, no, although that could have been a good joke.

It's just the fact that Thor keeps saying that A&A albums are a way to (and I quote!) "re-conceptualize the music in an artistic sense". I don't understand how there is an "artistic sense" if the composer is "forced" to do that.

[Thor 7,503]

Oh, no, although that could have been a good joke.

It's just the fact that Thor keeps saying that A&A albums are a way to (and I quote!) "re-conceptualize the music in an artistic sense". I don't understand how there is an "artistic sense" if the composer is "forced" to do that.

Same as if a poor painter only had, say, three colours at his disposal or other lack of means. The painting would reflect that, but wouldn't necessarily be a lesser artwork because of it. Sometimes even the greatest artwork can stem from the strongest 'external' limitations. The LP age was a brilliant example of how composers and artistic record producers would use the running time limitations to their benefit.

[Jay 37,356]

In FOTR, the 70-minute program "forced" Shore to re-think which highlights he wanted to include -- to create a musical narrative with flow, but with fewer parts that drags out between the highlights. For the record, I actually think FOTR is one of the few releases in a (more or less) C&C format that works reasonably well. Comparing that with the HOBBIT release -- with endless suspense and action drones inbetween the setpieces, a confused/schizophrenic musical story and lack of proper design -- it becomes something very, very different indeed.

I find it interesting that you used the word "forced"...

ding ding ding!

It's just the fact that Thor keeps saying that A&A albums are a way to (and I quote!) "re-conceptualize the music in an artistic sense". I don't understand how there is an "artistic sense" if the composer is "forced" to do that.

ding ding ding again!

You have it exactly figured out why Thor's arguments make no logical sense.

[Jay 37,356]

In the case of ALL FOUR LOTR/Hobbit OSTs, Shore presented the exact program he wanted to present. The first 3 times, he was told it must be under 80 minutes, the 4th time around he was not. That's the only difference!

[Richard Penna 3,687]

I find it more interesting that Thor thinks The Hobbit has a 'lack of design'.

What's 'proper design' then and how exactly do you know Shore didn't employ it here?

I agree that the LotR OSTs made excellent listening experiences. They also left a fuck-load of amazing music off which had Shore been given two discs, he may well have included.

We don't know any of this, but your opinion suggest that the composer must cut parts of their work out, no matter how long or coherent it may be.

Maybe Thor hasn't warmed to The Hobbit (just like I took a few listens) yet is blaming it on the presentation.

[Brónach 1,302]

Not to mention many instances of the OST music are deleted and substituted by rerecordings of LOTR cues.

Let's take this specific score.

Thor, some of these choices, in the OST as well as in the film, aren't up to the composurelyer. For example, a cue might not exist yet when the OST is being assembled. This means that if the assembled the OST afterwards the OST would be different. Another example is if the composer is not allowed to surpass a certain length. Surely a CD of a certain length, a technological limitation, shouldn't dictate the length of a score.

What I was implying, is that the reason why you might feel disconnected to this particular score is that of length. That's the main difference between this and the OSTs for The Lord of the Rings. There, a technological limitation and economical, commercial choices were limitating the options of the composer (or, in fact, whoever had assembled it) as to how to present their work. Here, Shore (or the anonymous assembler) is having freedom to overcome that and show us a score of a particular length. What's more, this presentation is giving us the opportunity to listen to music that'd never know about if what we were listening to was a shorter album.

Now, maybe you feel it's too long. That might be due to an insatisfactory quality in the music (see publicist's opinion on the matter, for an example of this view.) Let's imagine the music is awesome, an ideal score as if this was a physics theory problem. (I know some think this score is, I'm not implying it necesarily isn't). Would it still be too long? Yes! you'd say. If I understand correctly, because you must listen to scores from start to finish. However, that doesn't have to be like that. First, it might be that your own personal concentration falters at attempting to do so with a long score (this happens to me). But this shouldn't dictate how something else is presented to you! Secondly, because you might not have the time for it (an external cause, not applicable. I don't always have the time to se a four hour film, either.) Let's take the first case. If you didn't get bored, the score wouldn't be too long, but as things are, it is. In this case, a personal limitation common to all humanity is reducing your enjoyment of the score. Thus it is possible that a change in listening habits, would allow you to appreciate music in a way you didn't before, which would be refreshing and positive. The reason for this is that a score isn't a rock album containing afew connected or unconnected songs. Like yourself have admited, a score something else quite different. And that is why one can't listen to everything, to a great variety of music, expecting the same. It negates the inherent qualities of that other music and makes it more like what it isn't.

I feel that essentially length is the issue at hand, given that, even with the same circunstances surrounding an OST, you still feel a difference with a shorter OST. The "lack of design" in The Hobbit might actually be its length.

Imagine Shore had took the complete scores for the trilogy, and had assembled not one, but a string of several shorter albums, containing all the music in logical narrative order. The music needs to go to the next album just like a film in a saga needs to go to the next, but the music wouldn't be too long ("underdesigned") to enjoy. The musical result is essentially the same, but your appreciation would be different. Think about that for a second.

Remember Star Wars? You actually thought it was too long. Now, there's no way in hell that music is lacking at any point during the score (in my opinion.) Your listening habits, forcing listening habits from something else into something that quite different (and it should be, if you pride yourself in enjoying many different things), seem to be ruining part of that music. That doesn't sound right to me.

[Wojo 2,453]

Oh it's certainly possible for a master painter to create a masterpiece with only three colors, while lesser painters can use the entire palette and make uninspired paintings.

But comparing number of colors to the length of a soundtrack album are really apples and oranges. Number of colors would be instrumentation, while length would be canvas size, or time spent being permitted to view the painting before a bullet severs the spinal column.

[Thor 7,503]

I find it more interesting that Thor thinks The Hobbit has a 'lack of design'.

To reiterate, I'm talking about it on album, not in the film (where it obviously has a design). On album, it's merely meandering around, following the film's every turn. It could do with some serious "weeding" of cues, and maybe a way to separate it into 3-4 segments -- each with its own separate narrative and merging together to form one whole piece, like a symphony. This is what the old LOTR discs did very successfully, even those that were mostly chronological.

[Richard Penna 3,687]

The Fellowship album also follows the film's every turn and 'meanders' from place to place.

it's just a bit shorter because they only wanted to release one disc.

[Wojo 2,453]

Thor, have you ever directly contacted Howard Shore and Douglas Adams -- or any soundtrack album producer -- to express your discomfort that they have not distilled a set of music to sequence an album more to your liking? Or do you hope the power of osmosis will transfer your wishes from online forums to their actions?

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Really, all composers should be given Thor's phone number, to consult when in any doubt over to release a cue.

[Thor 7,503]

I feel that essentially length is the issue at hand, given that, even with the same circunstances surrounding an OST, you still feel a difference with a shorter OST. The "lack of design" in The Hobbit might actually be its length.

As I mentioned to you in the PM, length and quantity of music are really irrelevant to me. It's all about selection and structuring of cues. Some scores hold up to a long running time, others don't. I can listen to Wagner's "Ring" cycle without being bored, for example. What matters is that there has to be some thought process at play -- a thought process that takes the raw material from the film and shapes it in such a way that it flows effortlessly; that it's its own thing -- not a relic from the film. If a thought process like that has been at play -- and if the music is varied and strong enough to sustain it -- it could be on 5 CD's for all I care. That's rarely the case, however. When you restructure, you usually also have to shorten and cut out stuff. So a shorter length is a consequence of restructuring, not an end in itself.

In the case of THE HOBBIT, I didn't feel that a) such a thought process was present to a sufficient degree and b) that the music was strong enough to sustain it. There is, however, a great 60-minute program lurking in there somewhere. The music is definitely strong and varied enough for that, and Shore would be fully capable to create one, had he wanted to.

[Wojo 2,453]

Really, all composers should be given Thor's phone number, to consult when in any doubt over to release a cue.

Thor: Hello, who's calling?

Phone: JERRY GOLDSMITH

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Hah!

Problem with your last statement Thor is you expect the composer to choose cues that you will find interesting, and arrange them exactly in a way that forms an interesting structure.

That arrangement will be different for every single person reading this, and you get all upset when the composer doesn't get it spot on for you?

You're going to save yourself a lot of pain if you start moving things around in your playlist to suit yourself.

[Brónach 1,302]

I feel that essentially length is the issue at hand, given that, even with the same circunstances surrounding an OST, you still feel a difference with a shorter OST. The "lack of design" in The Hobbit might actually be its length.

As I mentioned to you in the PM, length and quantity of music are really irrelevant to me. It's all about selection and structuring of cues. Some scores hold up to a long running time, others don't. I can listen to Wagner's "Ring" cycle without being bored, for example. What matters is that there has to be some thought process at play -- a thought process that takes the raw material from the film and shapes it in such a way that it flows effortlessly; that it's its own thing -- not a relic from the film. If a thought process like that has been at play -- and if the music is varied and strong enough to sustain it -- it could be on 5 CD's for all I care. That's rarely the case, however. When you restructure, you usually also have to shorten and cut out stuff. So a shorter length is a consequence of restructuring, not an end in itself.

In the case of THE HOBBIT, I didn't feel that a) such a thought process was present to a sufficient degree and b) that the music was strong enough to sustain it. There is, however, a great 60-minute program lurking in there somewhere. The music is definitely strong and varied enough for that, and Shore would be fully capable to create one, had he wanted to.

Thor, I think you might be confusing the presentation of the score with the score's own shortcomings. If the score was shortened and made seem better, these shortcomings would still be there.

Problem with your last statement Thor is you expect the composer to choose cues that you will find interesting, and arrange them exactly in a way that forms an interesting structure.

That arrangement will be different for every single person reading this.

This.

[Thor 7,503]

Hah!

Problem with your last statement Thor is you expect the composer to choose cues that you will find interesting, and arrange them exactly in a way that forms an interesting structure.

That arrangement will be different for every single person reading this.

Just as an experience of a film or a painting or a book will be different for everyone. That still doesn't mean I should edit my own film or paint my own painting or write my own book. Yes, I want the composer to choose cues because he is the creator of the artwork -- first in the film, and then on CD. I can then choose to like or dislike that presentation, but I wouldn't rob them of that artistic privilege.

[Brónach 1,302]

Many composers today would probably lean towards C&C presentation, with some exceptions.

[Thor 7,503]

Thor, I think you might be confusing the presentation of the score with the score's own shortcomings. If the score was shortened and made seem better, these shortcomings would still be there.

I'm not sure about that. There are plenty of highlights in the score to sustain a wonderful 60-minute album. And you'd get some of the 'meandering' tracks out. The design would improve drastically, I think, even if the score isn't as strong as the previous LOTR scores. Heck, Erik Woods made an 'amateur playlist' of tracks and even that is better than the album. I'll probably have to make do with something similar myself.

Many composers today would probably lean towards C&C presentation, with some exceptions.

My experience is the other way around. There are exceptions like Giacchino or Shore, but most of the composers and composer interviews I've read over the years favour some form of re-conceptualization. Just look at all the commercial releases. The C&C ideology seems to be favoured by niche labels headed by fans like yourselves who favour that thing. Which of course is sensible from an economic viewpoint, because "my" preference would leave a lot of unsatisfied customers.

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Hah!

Problem with your last statement Thor is you expect the composer to choose cues that you will find interesting, and arrange them exactly in a way that forms an interesting structure.

That arrangement will be different for every single person reading this.

Just as an experience of a film or a painting or a book will be different for everyone. That still doesn't mean I should edit my own film or paint my own painting or write my own book. Yes, I want the composer to choose cues because he is the creator of the artwork -- first in the film, and then on CD. I can then choose to like or dislike that presentation, but I wouldn't rob them of that artistic privilege.

Yep, you can choose to dislike it. But if you do, is it because the score sucks, or the composer didn't arrange it just how you would enjoy it?

And say Shore personally offered to remove all the dull/meandering parts of The Hobbit. How exactly does he know which parts you will find dull?

[Thor 7,503]

Hah!

Problem with your last statement Thor is you expect the composer to choose cues that you will find interesting, and arrange them exactly in a way that forms an interesting structure.

That arrangement will be different for every single person reading this.

Just as an experience of a film or a painting or a book will be different for everyone. That still doesn't mean I should edit my own film or paint my own painting or write my own book. Yes, I want the composer to choose cues because he is the creator of the artwork -- first in the film, and then on CD. I can then choose to like or dislike that presentation, but I wouldn't rob them of that artistic privilege.

Yep, you can choose to dislike it. But if you do, is it because the score sucks, or the composer didn't arrange it just how you would enjoy it?

So what you're saying is that you ask every composer to truncate and arrange their work in the hope that you might enjoy it. That sounds like a worthy gamble...

No, I'm asking them to arrange their scores according to how THEY want it arranged -- with a set mind on musical re-conceptualization, not just 'preservation' (which is another thing altogether). Period. Then I and everyone else can evaluate it -- both the music and the presentation. They're the artists, we're the artist consumers. Let's not mix roles.

It would have been an interesting experiment to be served a film with all the raw footage and then ask us to assemble the cut ourselves into a film of our liking. But somehow, I doubt that's a feasible option.

[Richard Penna 3,687]

But how do you know that their idea of 're-conceptualization is the same as yours?

[Brónach 1,302]

What if a presentation makes a score look worse than it could be?

For example, Tintin was a pretty good score, and the presentation was terrible.

Another example I mentioned earlier: The Last Airbender.

Another example I like to mention: A.I. it had two terrible, repetitive songs instead of some wonderful material that was ignored altogether.

I could go on and on and on. The Temple of Doom was destroyed on album, it barely shows the extend of the brilliance of William's work in that film.

[Thor 7,503]

But how do you know that their idea of 're-conceptualization is the same as yours?

Why should it be the same as mine?

What if a presentation makes a score look worse than it could be?

For example, Tintin was a pretty good score, and the presentation was terrible.

I liked the presentation of TINTIN, actually.

But you're right, that's a scenario too. Even with A&A releases sometimes. Just because it's A&A doesn't guarantee greatness. If you give me some time, I will try to think of an example where an A&A album was unsatisfactory structured (doesn't happen very often since the album producers usually know what they're doing; that's why I need some time to think).

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Then why are you surprised when the result is an album you don't like?

You're only going to enjoy it if the composer knows what sort of music you like and how you like your albums to flow. They have to do their job exactly how you see it, otherwise it sucks.

[Brónach 1,302]

I liked the presentation of TINTIN, actually.

I think you were disappointed at the score because of the presentation of it.

But to know something like that, one needs to know what else is there.

[Thor 7,503]

Then why are you surprised when the result is an album you don't like?

I'm not sure I understand. Could you clarify? It's not the composer's job to create an album I like. It's their job to create an album THEY like, governed by their artistic Muse. And then it's up to me whether I like it or not after that. If I don't....well, shit happens. Maybe next time. If I do (which is usually the case if the parameters are right)...great!

By the way, I just thought of an example of where an A&A album was unsatisfactory -- Chris Young's MURDER IN THE FIRST. It's a gorgeous score, but I disagree with the sudden intrusion of those upbeat, march-like tracks. Disrupts the atmosphere that the rest of the score is slowly building up.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you clarify? It's not the composer's job to create an album I like. It's their job to create an album THEY like, governed by their artistic Muse.

Well, then according to this, Shore did his job well on The Hobbit OST (to stay on that example), because I doubt he created an album he doesn't like.

[Jay 37,356]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you clarify? It's not the composer's job to create an album I like. It's their job to create an album THEY like, governed by their artistic Muse.

Well, then according to this, Shore did his job well on The Hobbit OST (to stay on that example), because I doubt he created an album he doesn't like.

Ding ding ding!

[Quintus 5,399]

Ding dong the witch is dead!

[Thor 7,503]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you clarify? It's not the composer's job to create an album I like. It's their job to create an album THEY like, governed by their artistic Muse.

Well, then according to this, Shore did his job well on The Hobbit OST (to stay on that example), because I doubt he created an album he doesn't like.

No one has argued that he doesn't like it.

However, the jury's still out when it comes to what ideology was the major player in the assembly of the album -- created for 'optimal listening' or more towards 'preservation'? I would go for the latter, and it may very well be that Shore himself likes that approach -- especially after the success with the LOTR extensions.

When I said 'governed by artistic Muse' above, I obviously meant the artistic impetus in re-conceptualization. I thought that would be pretty clear by now through the hundred different repetitions. If that's not in play...well, then it is my opinion that it's not really artistic album production. It's technical/craft-like album production, which is a very different thing. With THE HOBBIT, Shore was closer to that than the first. I don't know how many different ways I can put it.

[Richard Penna 3,687]

I said this above:

And say Shore personally offered to remove all the dull/meandering parts of The Hobbit. How exactly does he know which parts you will find dull?

If Shore were to approach it as more of a listening experience, there's no guarantee that you'd end up with something that conforms more to your tastes. He makes one cue selection; you may make another.

In fact, you answered an earlier question of mine by saying you'd leave dull parts in if they were part of the composer's album. Yet, when he makes a slightly longer one, you complain about them.

So it seems that you will listen to the composer's playlist, no matter what rubbish they've whittled it down to.

[Thor 7,503]

I said this above:

And say Shore personally offered to remove all the dull/meandering parts of The Hobbit. How exactly does he know which parts you will find dull?

If Shore were to approach it as more of a listening experience, there's no guarantee that you'd end up with something that conforms more to your tastes. He makes one cue selection; you may make another.

Someone said above - you may be confusing the art of making an album, with the art of writing a good score.

This has always been a strange argument to me. Do you also fault a director for not making a film to your taste? A writer for not writing a book to your taste? The filmmakers and authors and composers make artwork according to THEIR taste, and then when they're finished -- and ONLY then -- is it up to us to evaluate it.

All I demand from a soundtrack production and an album producer is that...

a) he picks out the cues he thinks gives the album a flowing quality, and omits cues that don't add to what he wants to say, musically

b) he re-arranges those cues in an order that makes the piece as a whole have its own musical identity, separated from the film

What cues he picks or what order he puts them in is up to him (as long as it's not just the film's order, because then you automatically lose the artistic aspect).

After that, I'm free to evaluate both music and presentation. I can like it, dislike it or be indifferent. At least I have the finished artwork in front of me to evaluate, and not being asked to complete the artwork myself.

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Again, this insistence that film chronology always equals a lack of artistry.

The Fellowship CR is C&C, and yet there's plenty of thought into joining cues where necessary and removing some repeated sections. But since it's all in film order, it can't possibly be listenable away from the film. What a stupid suggestion.

This conversation just goes round in circles, like it always fucking does

[Thor 7,503]

Again, this insistence that film chronology always equals a lack of artistry.

The Fellowship CR is C&C, and yet there's plenty of thought into joining cues where necessary and removing some repeated sections. But since it's all in film order, it can't possibly be listenable away from the film. What a stupid suggestion.

A C&C presentation is basically just 'copy-paste' (a bit simplified, but you know what I mean) and has no artistic thought process going through it in terms of structuring. That's not to say that a C&C album may occasionally be listenable away from the film. Although extremely rarely for me. Once in a blue moon, maybe, and it very much depends on how the tracks are composed.

[Wojo 2,453]

A C&C presentation is basically just 'copy-paste' (a bit simplified, but you know what I mean) and has no artistic thought process going through it in terms of structuring. That's not to say that a C&C album may occasionally be listenable away from the film. Although extremely rarely for me. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

No, we DON'T know what you mean, because if a C&C presentation was "basically just 'copy-paste,'" then Varese Sarabande's Predator, Intrada's first Predator, and Intrada's second Predator albums would all have been identical.

And you're now crossing into the domain of accusing the niche labels of having "no artistic thought process," which the Lukas Kendalls and Mike Matessinos and Robert Townsons and Neil S. Bulks* of La-La-Land, Intrada, Varese Sarabande, and Film Score Monthly might all take grievous offense to. And when that happens, your credibility vanishes and nobody really cares what you think.

*

Who?

[Thor 7,503]

A C&C presentation is basically just 'copy-paste' (a bit simplified, but you know what I mean) and has no artistic thought process going through it in terms of structuring. That's not to say that a C&C album may occasionally be listenable away from the film. Although extremely rarely for me. Once in a blue moon, maybe.

No, we DON'T know what you mean, because if a C&C presentation was "basically just 'copy-paste,'" then Varese Sarabande's Predator, Intrada's first Predator, and Intrada's second Predator albums would all have been identical.

Aren't they, basically? Structure-wise, they definitely are.

[Wojo 2,453]

Where's Trent? We need someone with hyper-attention-paying-gift to answer this one.

Aren't they, basically? Structure-wise, they definitely are.

There's more to the fine art of listening to C&C presentations than simply worrying about the "structure" of the complete work. It's not enough to simply say "oh, I have a main title, some of the music from this scene, and some of that scene, and a snippet of that theme, and a bit of that theme, and here's the end credits, and here's some album themes spread out in a concert track, and here's a medley of small cues all slapped together in a long suite to close out the album...what was that, 35 minutes? Splendid, I still have time for tea." like you might consider for older versions.

[Thor 7,503]

And you're now crossing into the domain of accusing the niche labels of having "no artistic thought process," which the Lukas Kendalls and Mike Matessinos and Robert Townsons and Neil S. Bulks* of La-La-Land, Intrada, Varese Sarabande, and Film Score Monthly might all take grievous offense to.

Actually, I've never hid that.

What they are doing, however, is fantastic preservationist work -- preserving cultural treasures that would otherwise be lost and taking great care to present them with as good sound as possible, often with extensive liner notes. They should get loads of applause for that, even though it has very little to do with why I'm into soundtracks. But although very far from my own preference, it's a legitimate, DIFFERENT type of album production that also deserves to exist -- and that also happens to be favoured by the majority of niche fans.

[Wojo 2,453]

I think you need to get out of soundtracks.

[Thor 7,503]

I've thought about it.

Fortunately for me, most commercial soundtracks are still tailored to my preference (except for the occasional HOBBIT).

[Richard Penna 3,687]

I've seen Thor make it abundantly clear at FSM. I think when Breakdown came out, people were jumping all over him for even hoping that LLL might make a listening experience.

(Which, by the way is ironic, because despite being a comprehensive release, it's actually not complete, nor in film order. It's actually pretty much what Thor would want from such a release, but since it was 3-discs, there's no way LLL would possibly have put enough thought into it.)

But yeah, either get out of soundtracks, or stop complaining

[Brónach 1,302]

I'd like to ask the opinion of someone who isn't a niche fan and is completely unaware of such a discussion.

Which, by the way is ironic, because despite being a comprehensive release, it's actually not complete, nor in film order. It's actually pretty much what Thor would want from such a release, but since it was 3-discs, there's no way LLL would possibly have put enough thought into it.

Like I said. Length. But he denies it!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I'd like to ask the opinion of someone who isn't a niche fan and is completely unaware of such a discussion.

He/She'd probably say: "I don't give a shit about that".

[Brónach 1,302]

I'd like to ask the opinion of someone who isn't a niche fan and is completely unaware of such a discussion.

He/She'd probably say: "I don't give a shit about that".

Obviously not random guy on the street nº 546.

[Wojo 2,453]

Which, by the way is ironic, because despite being a comprehensive release, it's actually not complete, nor in film order. It's actually pretty much what Thor would want from such a release, but since it was 3-discs, there's no way LLL would possibly have put enough thought into it.

Like I said. Length. But he denies it!

Hey, plenty of women walk away if there's more length than they're comfortable with.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I'd like to ask the opinion of someone who isn't a niche fan and is completely unaware of such a discussion.

He/She'd probably say: "I don't give a shit about that".

Obviously not random guy on the street nº 546.

What do you have against him? He's nice guy, overall.

[publicist 4,643]

[Thor 7,503]

But yeah, either get out of soundtracks, or stop complaining

Right, because God forbid people should be allowed to have their preferences and their opinions and their right to state them whenever relevant.

One thing that has always bothered me -- especially at FSM -- is the bootlicking "either shower each new release with unadulterated praise or STFU!" attitude. As long as the criticism is reasonable, relevant etc., I welcome it with open arms, even when I disagree with them. In fact, that's what makes discussions interesting.