Your opinion on Filmtracks?

[mxsch 115]

I think that it's pretty nice database and reviews sometimes can contain interesting stuff.

But most of the time reviewer writes bullshit, some ratings for the albums are joke and the fact that the people on this site rarely can stand a score with electronics is a joke.

[Bespin 8,483]

** 1/2

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I honestly forgot that it existed

[Edmilson 7,466]

I've never read a review on that site because I can't read a sentence there without my head hurting. Clemmensen shoould've changed the horrible design of his website ages ago. 

 

Web design is not like wine, it doesn't age well. 

[Positivatee 327]

You mean it hasn't changed since 1997? 

[WampaRat 1,105]

I have to admit. I have a soft nostalgic spot for that site as I was really getting into film scores in the early 2000s and that was one of the first score sites I discovered. I was SUPER into Zimmer at the time and never understood why CC couldn’t stand Gladiator *gasp* or At Worlds End *triple gasp* 😂 I could have written his most recent review of Dune myself, I’m so familiar with his usual complaints against the guy lol. 
 

While I’ve cooled and have not visited there much, I will say the scores he awards 5 stars too are generally worth a listen. 

[mstrox 6,651]

I give FilmTracks an 8 out of 10, and it kicks ass

[crumbs 14,317]

The white on black literally gives me headaches.

 

If you read the text long enough, it burns artifacts into your eyes.

[Kühni 485]

.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

The white on black literally gives me headaches.

 

If you read the text long enough, it burns artifacts into your eyes.

It's better than black on white.  I feel like I'm bleaching my eyes

[Brundlefly 2,385]

The guy is definitely biased, for he doesn't take a film score for what it is and then tries to rate it, but instead he has a clear concept of what a film score is supposed to be like and then he looks at it and rates it accordingly.

 

For example, The Prisoner of Azkaban or The Lost World are supposed to offer a consequent development of pre-existing themes. The question here is: Are they really? It has never been the composer's goal and the new identity of these sequel scores that undeniably contrast pleasently with their predecessors on purpose should be taken as what they are first, before you start judging their quality. Of course, one can criticize the abscence of thematic continuation, but there should be any arguments for that, other than "I expected differently".

 

Another issue is the fact that he has an affection for traditional scores (thus any Star Wars score gets at least four stars) and doesn't really like the concept of modern ambient scoring at all (just look at the ratings for Interstellar, Arrival and Dune, for example). I don't think that's fair either.

[blondheim 1,157]

He definitely has a bias. I have a soft-spot because I found this site and filmtracks around the same time in the early 2000s. His reviews of the complete scores of the OT Star Wars trilogy were actually printed out by me at school to have for easy reference. That's how old I am; my parents didn't let me on the computer without supervision. The internet was very very scary. I also printed out a bunch of shit on Hook from this site. That was first. Also, the hunt for prequel music was fun to lurk and watch here at JWFan over the years. I'm digressing.

 

Filmtracks is a place where I know exactly what the review is going to say before I read it but I still read it out of sentimentality. I often shake my head or vehemently disagree, but with a smile. It bears repeating that I do not often agree with the man's reviews. But as said above, his 5-star scores are generally good choices and he makes interesting cases for his yearly round-up, by far the most interesting writing he does on that site.

[Thor 7,508]

I could never wrap my head around the interface of the board, so I've never really posted there (except some updates from my site now and then). As for the rest of the site, I don't visit it much. I did occasionally back in the late 90s/early 2000s when there weren't a lot of alternatives.

[Hrutk 1]

Sometimes I felt that reviews are junk(when its going with herd) or maybe it's personally like and views from people but personally some movies goes flop and It really nice one for me.

[blondheim 1,157]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

I could never wrap my head around the interface of the board, so I've never really posted there (except some updates from my site now and then). As for the rest of the site, I don't visit it much. I did occasionally back in the late 90s/early 2000s when there weren't a lot of alternatives.

 

I used to visit soundtrack.net and moviemusic.com. God knows the last time I clicked on either of those

[Thor 7,508]

1 hour ago, blondheim said:

 

I used to visit soundtrack.net and moviemusic.com. God knows the last time I clicked on either of those

 

Yes, me too. Soundtrack.net seems to be a rather stale resource site now (I occasionally use it to find some trailer music information, but very rarely), while moviemusic.com disbanded their forum years ago and is now basically an online store.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

4 hours ago, Brundlefly said:

The guy is definitely biased, for he doesn't take a film score for what it is and then tries to rate it, but instead he has a clear concept of what a film score is supposed to be like and then he looks at it and rates it accordingly.

 

For example, The Prisoner of Azkaban or The Lost World are supposed to offer a consequent development of pre-existing themes. The question here is: Are they really? It has never been the composer's goal and the new identity of these sequel scores that undeniably contrast pleasently with their predecessors on purpose should be taken as what they are first, before you start judging their quality. Of course, one can criticize the abscence of thematic continuation, but there should be any arguments for that, other than "I expected differently".

 

Another issue is the fact that he has an affection for traditional scores (thus any Star Wars score gets at least four stars) and doesn't really like the concept of modern ambient scoring at all (just look at the ratings for Interstellar, Arrival and Dune, for example). I don't think that's fair either.

 

Excellent summation of some of the downsides of Clemmenson's reviewing.

 

Aside from those biases, I feel that he's missing the common middle ground where a score does its job nicely but perhaps doesn't break much new ground. He tends to focus on the could have beens, highlighting flaws or missed opportunities, instead of savouring what is there.

 

In that sense, his Avoid it... recommendations often feel like he's just looking for problems, even if they don't really exist.

 

The height of pretention however, will always be this review of Clash of the Titans. It's a really funny, basically parody review. However, I also think he's a snobbish dick for writing it. Can't wait to see what he has to say about Eternals