Did Jaws win the best score Oscar because it's a "gimmicky" score?

[crocodile 8,006]

16 hours ago, king mark said:

 

Harry Potter just happened to be on the most unlucky year ever for Williams because LotR was there. it would have won otherwise I think. Superman and Raiders were probably composed to close to Star Wars, and too "similar" to win (bombastic brassy blockbuster scores)
 

Do you think LOTR was unworthy of an award?

 

Karol

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Asking that to KM? lolololololol

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

JWFan only survives as a gimmicky forum.

[Thor 7,495]

12 hours ago, Richard said:

Not to denigrate Thor, but...it's interesting to read such posts from a man who prefers not to listen to complete scores

 

 

Not sure what that has anything to do with it. We're talking about the score-in-context here, which is what the Academy votes for.

 

While the main theme/motif is interesting in and of itself -- the stravinskyian 'primal' force of it -- it's really its application in the film which is the most interesting. And then there are obviously all the other great cues, like the shark cage scene, the music for the city and community etc. There is nothing 'gimmicky' about this. It's just great, realized ideas.

[Will 2,215]

*Sorry for the extreme length here!*

 

14 hours ago, Loert said:

Personal biases do play a part, but I think it is no mere (cultural) accident that Beethoven is seen as one of the greatest composers. And similarly it is no accident that Williams, Goldsmith, and a handful of others, are seen as the masters of film scoring. They all did the best they can, they all tried to write the "greatest" music they can. 

 

It could be argued that everything is a cultural accident! But more specifically for this case: I would argue that, when you get down to it, Beethoven can be called one of the greatest composers not because he is objectively great, but rather because many people subjectively experience him as great (and maybe think he is objectively great as well, even though he is not - or so I argue). In practical every-day terms, the distinction doesn't matter very much, but when people are having an actual argument about which composer is greater, it seems to become more important. 

 

Meaningful argumentation can only occur between those who share the same vocabulary (note that here I am not necessarily using "vocabulary" in the sense of a particular world language). Someone whose definition of musical greatness is "music that makes me feel happy" may have a wildly different choice of greatest piece as compared to someone whose definition is "music that has really complicated harmonies," and there will be absolutely no way to satisfyingly reconcile the two views. You might try to bring in a third-party mediator, but that presents another problem. Should we have someone who agrees with the first person decide it? Since he agrees with the first person, how can he decide fairly? Should we have someone who agrees with the second person decide it? How can they decide fairly? Should we have someone who differs with both people decide, perhaps someone who thinks that the best type of music is sad music? But then is it really fair to give one person's opinion more weight than the others merely because they were called into the discussion later? 

 

Of course, if the parties in the dispute agree on criteria beforehand, there might indeed be an objective right answer. For example, if both people think great music is music that has the most parts written for it, then it seems that there is an objective right answer in that particular dispute (so long as they don't get really post-modernist and start questioning whether the number of parts they notice on the page is really an objective truth - but I don't feel like going down that rabbit hole right now!)

 

14 hours ago, Loert said:

So I think that the post-modernist view of rejecting "greatness" (and Truth, with a capital T) is very cynical, and personally I find it a little sad.

 

Indeed it is cynical. And just last year, I held the same view you hold now as I battled TGP in the political thread. But I've changed!

 

As you know, postmodernism is not a rejection of greatness or truth per se - it's a rejection of the notion that greatness or truth exists outside of human perception, outside of individual contingencies. Returning to a point you made earlier... 

 

Quote

I take the view that just because you can't define or articulate something easily, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What "greatness" is, is tricky to define - humans have been trying to articulate it for centuries, and music is one way of doing so.

 

I do think that's an important point. Indeed, I suppose the fact that no one can really agree on a truly objective definition of greatness is not necessarily good enough to conclude that no truly objective definition of greatness can be discovered. However, as I see it, that's a little like saying that because it is impossible to prove in a 100% satisfactory manner that there is not an invisible puppy floating over my head, it is not true to say "There is not a puppy over my head." I do not think you would agree with that approach, even though I might. I mean, perhaps a form of matter as-yet undiscovered makes up the puppy, and indeed there is a puppy floating over the head of every human, something which will be discovered several thousand years from now. Or maybe there's not. But I don't think that would stop you from saying, "There is no puppy over my head." 

 

I know it's not completely satisfactory - few post-modernist arguments are, given that many are filled with paradoxes that still haven't really been solved (e.g. the statement "There are no absolute truths" appears to contradict itself) - but the best response I can give to this point of yours is that because no one can really provide what I find to be a satisfactorily conclusive definition of "greatness," I prefer to act like there is no objective greatness. Somehow it just makes intuitive sense to me, that greatness is subjective, even more clearly than some of the other terms post-modernism deals with. 

 

But this is a really strong point, and as you can tell I'm still grappling with it. Hmmm... 

 

14 hours ago, Loert said:

But imagine if one of the scores was written by a 5-year old in the space of one hour. Ignoring that a post-modernist might reject the idea of a "high standard", could you honestly argue that you 'aren't wrong' if you say that the score by a 5-year old is "better" than a score like E.T.?

 

I probably would argue that, for the reasons already described. 

 

14 hours ago, Loert said:

But if, say, Williams suddenly stopped caring so much about writing memorable melodies and supporting the film so closely, you and me would probably notice and be disappointed. And I think that's because the music wouldn't be as great. 

 

I think we would be disappointed because we didn't enjoy the music as much or find it as interesting, not because it failed on some objective metric.  

 

14 hours ago, Loert said:

However way you look at it, you could tell a good melody from a bad melody. There is no step-by-step instruction manual on writing a good melody, but it doesn't mean that "good" melodies don't exist.

 

Giacchino's "Night on the Yorktown" was loved by TGP and others here, but Mr. Big didn't really like it. Is it a good melody? Who decides? At the very least, I don't think there's a clear answer there. 

 

(I do realize that this argument is a bit silly and pedantic, without much practical implication. But it's still fun to spar intellectual swords every once and a while. )

[King Mark 3,631]

Night on the Yorktown is actually one of Giacchino's best movie melodies. I've been very dissapointed by most of the other ones he wrote (ST main theme,Jurassic World, Spiderman...)

[crocodile 8,006]

The main theme from Tomorrowland (or one of the main themes) is pretty good.

 

Karol

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

At the end of the day, who cares?

It's JW, it's JAWS, it's his second Oscar. End of