Jump to content

How do you rate the 2018 Oscar nominated scores?


filmmusic

Recommended Posts

well, of course a film music score is rated by its use in the film too and I haven't seen any film, but strictly as music, how do you rate them?

Although this thread may turn out predictable in a jwfan forum! :P

 

1. The Phantom thread

2. The Shape of Water

3. Three Billboards outside Ebbing

4. The Last jedi

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Dunkirk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Shape of Water

2. The Last Jedi

3. Dunkirk

4. Three Bilboards (3 and 4 May change, 3 is based on its use in the movie rather than as a standalone listening experience)

5. The Phantom Thingy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather not rate them, as they're all disappointments in one way or another (as I mentioned in the other thread).

 

But THE LAST JEDI and THE SHAPE OF WATER are the worst, BILLBOARDS and PHANTOM sorta OK, while DUNKIRK has that weird thing where it's brilliant in the film, but -- with a few exceptions -- very difficult to get through on album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Last Jedi (it may not be my favourite SW score but my appreciation for this has increased hugely over many re-listens; it certainly beats The Post)

2. Phantom Thread (I love small ensemble scores like this and it's got a darkly beautiful edge to it)

3. Dunkirk (not great for listening independently but absolutely perfect within the film)

4. The Shape of Water (nice, but nothing I haven't heard Desplat do better in the past)

5. Three Billboards (nothing very special about this, even though I generally like Burwell)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response to Dunkirk as being hugely effective in the film and somewhat tough to get into out of it is so interesting.  I have a feeling it's the start of a new, more pure breed of film music that is inextricably married to its original incarnation, and not concerned with multiple releases, expansions, playlists, microedits, concert suites...it's solely the sonic part of a film, a part of the cinematic DNA, a part of the whole experience which one wouldn't look to as a quick fix on its own nor treat as a bottlecap to be collected and sorted any more than you'd do that with individual frames and shots or sound effects or snatches of dialogue.  For the music lover alone, not fun.  For real fans of film music, exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that new?

 

A fairly large amount of film music doesn't really have any real relevance or appeal outside of the film it was composed for.

 

It's certainly not groundbreaking or innovative on Zimmers part.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't say it was, but it's certainly one of the most notable instances of it and I wouldn't be surprised to see it become far more prevalent, and effective, as a result.  Plus, they wanted that to be the case.  I think a lot of other examples you might cite are just the result of kind of poor filmmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TGP said:

The response to Dunkirk as being hugely effective in the film and somewhat tough to get into out of it is so interesting.  I have a feeling it's the start of a new, more pure breed of film music that is inextricably married to its original incarnation, and not concerned with multiple releases, expansions, playlists, microedits, concert suites...it's solely the sonic part of a film, a part of the cinematic DNA, a part of the whole experience which one wouldn't look to as a quick fix on its own nor treat as a bottlecap to be collected and sorted any more than you'd do that with individual frames and shots or sound effects or snatches of dialogue.  For the music lover alone, not fun.  For real fans of film music, exciting.

 

I've seen you discuss this before; do you feel that "film film music", like Dunkirk, should be released on album?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

I've seen you discuss this before; do you feel that "film film music", like Dunkirk, should be released on album?

 

I mean I'm not going to suggest it be signed into law or anything, because some people might still want it and enjoy it like that, including me, but I'm ultimately with Pub.  It's a bit redundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the nominees go:

 

Phantom Thread - my personal winner far ahead of the others, not necessarily because i get all wet over it but because it sophisticated music, written outside the usual Hollywood mindset and such score much too rarely get popular awards

 

Shape of Water - it's the Mancini vote - 'gee, it had a nice tune i remember' - and it features elegant and stylish orchestrations, even if it is too static (a frequent Desplat problem) and not very imaginative apart from the lilting piping sounds, which are a nice idea. Probably the winner.

 

Billboards - it's really a good, typical Burwell that is - also a given - just too slight and background-y musically to warrant much attention (it is very effective FILM music, though).

 

TLJ - really doesn't belong in this category, it's neither original nor does it need an award.

 

Dunkirk - as assault on the senses it was great in IMAX but large parts weren't really 'music' and as such also is grouped into the wrong category. As with TLJ it begs the question if the Academy has forgotten its own fucking rules (multiple guys wrote it - to put it mildly - the most distinctive part is a reworking of Elgar, and by mostly technical means etc.)

 

I mean, if Star Wars scores mostly composted out of prior material and Zimmer team efforts are OK now, hey, it's time to change the ruleset. If TGP's dire prognosis becomes reality there's no way around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it isn't, and doesn't need to be - it's a purely technical achievement that is not bad or awful, and has not enough characteristics of the art form to label it such, though i think the semantics aren't that important. It's another step in a wrong -IMHO- direction and i very much hope it's not another awful fad for lazy filmmakers (like the mannerisms spawned by Inception et al.). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious now, where would you draw the line with the likes of Varese, Scelsi, Murail, Boulez, Stockhausen...music or not?  Agreed semantics aren't important, but wondering what the context for this opinion is.  And the propensity for some to want to term certain music as "sound design" and hold it at arm's length does grate, and cry out for a good talking to from a Cageian with great patience.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tangibles that i would label 'musical dimensions' and lining up artists that dabbled in expressive noise (not a putdown) is of course too relativistic and misleading for our merry bunch here, as you very well know that these guys touched the boundaries of traditional symphonic writing but still integrated it into an orchestral fabric and wrote instrumental parts, just that they chose a more revolutionary form to escape traditional idioms.

 

And that's were we differ: i wouldn't, in my weakest moments, dare to compare the results of 15 guys working up drab propulsive bass spheres for 'Dunkirk' with the genius of Boulez or Varése. The goals are completely different, as are the results. If Zimmer would write something along the lines of Hyxos or Répons, i am sure there would be much more appreciative comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like any of them. That's a first for the oscars for me. Shape of Water and Phantom Thread do nothing for me at all. Three Billboards sounds just like typically oddball Burwell, and the less said about Dunkirk the better.

 

All of those are textbook examples of the music riding on the film's cache. I'm not sure why TLJ has been nominated, and outside a few cues, that largely passes me by too.

 

I reckon Shape has it, if only because of how well the film is doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Last Jedi

2. The Shape of Water

3. The Phantom Thread

4. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing

5. Dunkirk

 

 

4 hours ago, TGP said:

I have a feeling it's the start of a new, more pure breed of film music that is inextricably married to its original incarnation, and not concerned with multiple releases, expansions, playlists, microedits, concert suites...it's solely the sonic part of a film, a part of the cinematic DNA, a part of the whole experience which one wouldn't look to as a quick fix on its own nor treat as a bottlecap to be collected and sorted any more than you'd do that with individual frames and shots or sound effects or snatches of dialogue.  For the music lover alone, not fun.  For real fans of film music, exciting.

 

In my view you've gone too far. Dunkirk is not all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TGP said:

For real fans of film music, exciting.

I disagree with that remark!

So, whoever wants film music that besides serving the film is great as music and shows "craftmasnhip and creative substance" (per academy awards rules wording) is not a REAL fan of film music?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

I disagree with that remark!

So, whoever wants film music that besides serving the film is great as music and shows "craftmasnhip and creative substance" (per academy awards rules wording) is not a REAL fan of film music?

 

I didn't say anything about "real" did I?  My implication is that there is such a thing as film music that is purely film music in a functional sense, tied to its cinematic role, but which still has great craft and substance, and that there are people who appreciate that and people who don't.  Good grief. 

 

28 minutes ago, Luka said:

Dunkirk isn't that bad! lol

 

I think you're right.  Don't let any of the petty potshots against it from some of the critical geniuses of fucking JWFan, or their peanut gallery supporters, color your perspective, at the very least.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TGP said:

 

I didn't say anything about "real" did I?  My implication is that there is such a thing as film music that is purely film music in a functional sense, tied to its cinematic place, and there are people who appreciate that and people who don't.  Good grief. 

How did I quote you then? :P

You said "real fans of film music"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, filmmusic said:

How did I quote you then? :P

You said "real fans of film music"!

 

Real fans of film music, yes.  Not fans of real film music.  See the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TGP said:

 

Real fans of film music, yes.  Not fans of real film music.  See the difference?

Yes, I see it and I didn't think you said otherwise.

I commented on your "real fans of film music".

 

Implying that we, those that don't appreciate film music ONLY as a musical functioning rug, are not real fans of film music!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, filmmusic said:

Yes, I see it and I didn't think you said otherwise.

I commented on your "real fans of film music".

 

IMplying that we, the others that don't appreciate film music ONLY as a musical functioning rag, are not real fans of film music!

 

Dude if that's what you got from it then you have a thin skin or are just looking to be insulted/attacked/argue. 

 

I meant real fans of this specific type of score, hence underlining film music to highlight that specificity.  Nothing at all said about what you're getting at.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TGP said:

 

Dude if that's what you got from it then you have a thin skin or are just looking to be insulted/attacked/argue. 

 

I meant real fans of this specific type of score, hence underlining film music to highlight that specificity.  Nothing at all said about what you're getting at.  

then maybe you should have worded this otherwise?

I bet I'm not the only one that got the meaning I said from your post.

Anyway. Don't looking to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently I never will, because it still makes me wonder what the point of being a part of a community like this is when so much of it is just people complaining about things I say, or other people compulsively "liking" anything that does.  

 

After all these years on here, there are still people, even regular visitors, who seem to want to always peg some kind of pretentious or derisive implication to things I post.  There've been times when it was definitely there, definitely intended.  But by and large it's not.  It's like there is this need to be victimized, and being vocally unorthodox with my opinions and occasionally crass, I guess I'm just the perfect scapegoat for it.  Even though there are some people who appear to actually have such a demeanor.  They have it in the right direction, looking down at the stuff that it's popular and acceptable to look down on.

 

I'm sure Stefan or Quintus, the usual police of such things, will chime in and suggest I'm being childish or something, but Christ man, how many times can I try and clarify shit because my way with words is, seemingly, heavily dependent on actual in person tone to come across correctly?  You've got to admit that it would get fucking tiring, and frustrating, because naturally I enjoy discussing things on here and don't want it to constantly devolve into semantic clarification.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I know what you mean about semantic clarifications. Some people (like some former colleagues of mine) tend to read things very literally and usually at face value; they can't seem to read between the lines or intuitively understand the intention behind a sentence or statement, instead they like to waste energy pouncing on how it was worded and persist in attacking what they think you said based on their false interpretation. Usually just to play "gotcha".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say, if someone is very often misunderstood in his posts by MANY people, then MAYBE he should be more careful with his wording.

I can't believe that all the other people have the problem!

 

I rarely get misunderstood in my posts in any forum, and English is not even my native language!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Denise Bryson said:

But I know what you mean about semantic clarifications. Some people (like some former colleagues of mine) tend to read things very literally and usually at face value; they can't seem to read between the lines or intuitively understand the intention behind a sentence or statement, instead they like to waste energy pouncing on how it was worded and persist in attacking what they think you said based on their false interpretation. Usually just to play "gotcha".

 

Yes, another bit of internet age nonsense I guess.  The gotcha game is a lot more appealing than actual discussion.

 

3 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

I say, if someone is very often misunderstood in his posts by MANY people, then MAYBE he should be more careful with his wording.

I can't believe that all the other people have the problem!

 

I rarely get misunderstood in my posts in any forum, and English is not even my native language!

 

Yeah, thanks for the tip.  Just so I don't misunderstand, how should I read this?  Rude, accusatory, and haughty, or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I think TGP you took it very personally (probably it has happened to you many times as you said) but I didn't even know who you are.

I don't keep track of members' characters or posts around here, and with the username change it's even harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.