Rings of Power The Rings of Power show discussion - spoilers allowed for all aired episodes

[A. A. Ron 1,738]

23 minutes ago, Jay said:

Am I the only one who just listens to and enjoys this music literally without ever comparing it to Shore's or any one else's music? 

I can listen to it without comparing it to other Middle Earth music. There are times when it’s hard to listen and not make mental comparisons to other McCreary works however.

[Chen G. 3,943]

26 minutes ago, Score said:

n the vast majority of the LOTR scores, a musical language that was hyper-simplified in many aspects. For example, there are long chunks of those scores which consist of only major and minor chords (and their inversions), often realized literally as close triads in the strings or the brass, accompanying fully diatonic melodies (and sometimes, one hears just "breathing" chords and nothing else).

 

A simple harmonic language isn't a bad thing.

 

Besides, the complexity of Shore's writing is less in the harmonic language and more the motivic complexity: There had flat out not been anything like it since Der Ring Des Nibelungen.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

42 minutes ago, Jay said:

Am I the only one who just listens to and enjoys this music literally without ever comparing it to Shore's or any one else's music? 

 

I think comparison is the basis for at least a part of our opinion on all art, whether we realise it or not. We like to believe we judge things on their own merits, but how can that possibly be true? We can certainly try to do that, but our experience informs everything we think and believe. 

 

Do I think ROP is a good score? Yes. But I can't unhear Shore's treatment of the same subject matter, so of course the latter is going to inform my opinion of the former.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I would be perfectly capable of listening to Bear's score without thinking of Shore, by the way, just like I can Leonard Rosenman's. But, unlike Rosenman's score, here each episode opens with a (fantastic, by the way) Howard Shore piece.

 

Furthermore, each episode features timbres which are used very deliberately to evoke Howard Shore's "sound": We see Dwarves, enter the male voices. Why? Because that's an association we have in Howard Shore's scores. Elf scenes? Ethereal female choir and harps? Why, because that's a colour Shore associates with the Elves. Hobbits? tin whistles and uileann pipes galore, because that's what we associate with the Hobbits. Even the Hardinfelle that's used to score the Soutlands scenes (and Halbrand's) recall Shore's Rohan writing. Orcs get lots of percussion and very nasal exotic woodwinds. Why? Because that's what the bad guys are associated with in HOWARD SHORE'S SCORES.

 

If you don't want to invite comparisons, write something totally different. As it is, Bear didn't do that: He intentionally wrote something that begs the comparisons, and only serves to highlight the differences.

[Stark 310]

I’ve enjoyed most of this show. A few of the lore changes are questionable, but so many things are better than I expected that I have no will to complain. I do hope the pacing picks up now that the Numenor-set plot has finally made progress.

The music, needless to say, is absolutely excellent.

[Score 770]

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

A simple harmonic language isn't a bad thing.

 

 

For me, a not-too-simple harmonic language is one of the major reasons of interest of a piece of music when taken in itself (i.e., independently on its application to images).   

[KK 3,307]

37 minutes ago, Score said:

 

 

 

I agree that Shore was doing something that was new for the movies at that time, and extremely effective. But the way he realized this new approach did not consist in *inventing* a new advanced musical language - something that is almost impossible to expect from film music after all. What he did was to use, in the vast majority of the LOTR scores, a musical language that was hyper-simplified in many aspects. For example, there are long chunks of those scores which consist of only major and minor chords (and their inversions), often realized literally as close triads in the strings or the brass, accompanying fully diatonic melodies (and sometimes, one hears just "breathing" chords and nothing else). So, the composer achieved a novel film music style by making the choice of renouncing to more advanced techniques, which are (and were) commonly used in film scoring: it was a work of subtraction. The intent is clear: in this way, the music certainly feels more naturally integrated in those particular movies, but that is due in large part (in my opinion) to the particular nature and presence of the movies, with their atmosphere of antiquity and anti-artificiality. Remove the movies, and the musical writing - not always, but in several important points - sounds simplistic.         

 

Well, sure. I'm not trying to make this a debate about the subjective musical integrity of Shore's music...there are plenty of other threads that have waded through this and I've said more than my piece on it. Though I'll add that I think you're carrying a pretty reductionist view of what you consider "advanced" and not. And that even in its simplicity, there is actually another kind of complexity Shore builds, especially as film music.

 

But all that aside, those deliberate choices ended up being fundamental to those scores' success. It's why that music made the splash it did in Jackson films...and why it felt like such a breath of fresh air in the midst of long trodden path of indulgent romantic fantasy music that had existed up until that point. Not unlike what Kilar's score did for Coppola's Dracula. And in doing that, it achieves what most film scores only dream of doing, but rarely get to. It lives and breathes as its own world.

 

I do not believe McCreary's score does that. And that's fine. I never expected the score or show to ever raise to those heights. But I also find the whole thing rather boring and flavourless for my taste. I'm glad it's doing more for others.

[Richard Penna 3,671]

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That doesn't mean it's not a good score, it is. But equal to Shore's work? No. Not in any world.

 

Why, instead of discussing the merits of both scores, is so much energy wasted on pointing out how one is inferior to the other?

 

It's a carbon copy of the usual JW vs any other composer taking over a franchise. What the hell happened to just enjoying a score on its own terms, instead of pretending a particular composer could have scored every project under the sun for a certian universe, and throwing toys out of the pram when that doesn't happen?

[Chen G. 3,943]

16 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

[why] is so much energy wasted on pointing out how one is inferior to the other [...when the one uses a] roughly similar soundscape.

 

You just answered your own question.

 

The soundscape is very, very important: leitmotives always become associated with certain orchestral colours, whether its muted horns with the Tarnhelm, rumbling pianos with the Imperial Walkers or tin whistles with Hobbits. To replicate those colours so deliberately is to invite comparisons and, in so doing, ensure the score lives with an inferiority complex.

 

Doesn't mean its not a fine, fine score; but the comparison is unavoidable. Only if Bear broke away completely with Howard Shore's practices - and, significantly, had the show not had a bona-fide Howard Shore piece in it - could those comparisons be avoided. As it is, they can't.

[Richard Penna 3,671]

Sorry, but the inferiority complex is up to you guys.

 

From a purely musical, non-theory perspective, this score is way better than The Hobbit for me.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

21 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

 

Why, instead of discussing the merits of both scores, is so much energy wasted on pointing out how one is inferior to the other?

 

It's a carbon copy of the usual JW vs any other composer taking over a franchise. What the hell happened to just enjoying a score on its own terms, instead of pretending a particular composer could have scored every project under the sun for a certian universe, and throwing toys out of the pram when that doesn't happen?

 

Oh good grief. I think this is the first time I've mentioned Bear's score (which I like) in relation to Shore's, and that was in response to another comment which was drawing a comparison.

 

And look, this is a site where we discuss film music, of course people are going to make comparisons. Especially when we're talking about two scores that are written for the same source material, and one is clearly influenced by the other. To say nothing of the fact that Shore wrote the theme for the series...Shore's music literally immediately precedes Bear's in every episode.

 

So if anyone is inviting comparisons here, it's Amazon. If Amazon didn't want such comparisons, they shouldn't have brought Shore on board. And if Bear didn't want comparisons, he shouldn't have created something so clearly reminiscent of Shore. Shore's work bears no resemblance to Rosenman's, but you can't say the same for Bear's to Shore's. So yeah, I think comparing the two works is more than fair.

 

And in any event, comparing the two scores doesn't mean you can't enjoy both. 

10 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

From a purely musical, non-theory perspective, this score is way better than The Hobbit for me.

 

Not that you're comparing them.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I do wonder if, going forward, Howard Shore's excellent theme can seep into the underscore. It wouldn't help with not drawing comparisons, but it will give the (brilliant) Howard Shore-penned material some more air-time and set it against actual visuals.

 

And I'm still hoping for a Howard Shore War of the Rohirrim score!

[Richard Penna 3,671]

(Nick) Apologies - my tone wasn't directed primarily at you, you were just the last response in the long discussion above.

 

Some were clearly expecting Bear to meet Shore's theory and talent and don't feel he did. That happens in every field - you have the 'top men' in their craft, who possess unusually good abilities and have the right circumstances, and then everyone else is doing their best to contribute their bit to that field.

 

If the most talented set the bar for what constitutes an acceptable score, where does that place everyone else? That's why, even if I accept that the theory-related arguments against Bear have some merit, how is he ever meant to produce work that you like? How is any composer who isn't in that top 5 list meant to please? It feels like the answer is that they don't, and that you were denied a potential masterpiece simply because not everyone's perfect.

[crocodile 7,984]

I'm still enjoying the show and the score. Not quite "loving", mind you, but there's still plenty to like about both. I can understand what @KK means about some of the more unfortunate modern drum-driven scoring sensibilities, and it is hard to disagree, but the majority of McCreary's work, especially the gentler passages, remains quite lovely. And yes @Chen G. I am also hoping Shore's theme ends up in the score itself.

 

Listening to episode five's album now.

 

Karol

[Score 770]

11 hours ago, KK said:

 

Well, sure. I'm not trying to make this a debate about the subjective musical integrity of Shore's music...there are plenty of other threads that have waded through this and I've said more than my piece on it. Though I'll add that I think you're carrying a pretty reductionist view of what you consider "advanced" and not. And that even in its simplicity, there is actually another kind of complexity Shore builds, especially as film music.

 

 

Well, discussing musical aesthetics in a forum post is always difficult; due to reasons of brevity and time, one is forced to select certain aspects and not mention others that might be equally important, and inevitably this can be incorrectly interpreted as superficiality. Rest assured that I have a much more articulated view of what I consider advanced, and I am well aware that the quality of music is not just determined by its harmonic language (although for me, it is an important factor). I was just pointing to one particular aspect that I think McCreary dealed with in a more advanced way than Shore. Since earlier in this thread some people were trashing McCreary's score because they felt it inadequate in comparison with Shore's, I was just trying to propose that, depending on what you look for in a piece of music, McCreary's score can be seen as equally interesting and well done as Shore's. McCreary is just using a different aesthetic system, which I feel is more suited to the series he had to score. In that perspective, he did a very good job; contrarily to what others may think, it takes skill to write in that way.    

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

12 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

If the most talented set the bar for what constitutes an acceptable score, where does that place everyone else?

 

I think its a very fine score, definitely well beyond and above "acceptable". But for reasons outlined earlier, its hard - for some more than others - to not think of what could have been hearing this instead of this and this instead of this.

[TolkienSS 405]

13 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

Why, instead of discussing the merits of both scores, is so much energy wasted on pointing out how one is inferior to the other?

 

For the same reason flea market paintings of landscapes don't hang in the National Gallery, and Van Gogh's Wheatfield does.

 

We don't live in a world where things exist in a vacuum.

 

[Richard Penna 3,671]

But we do live in a world there not all composers are equal, nor all meet your personal standards.

 

You and others are having one hell of a hard time accepting that. You've got to be able to accept a score on its own terms, without living permanently in a state of 'what could have been'.

 

There's certainly encouragement and striving to be better, but then there's denigration of any work that doesn't match what an expert in the field does. Who wins from that perspective, except academics such as yourselves who want to constantly remind the rest of us that you know more about music and that what we're hearing is unacceptable, despite us enjoying it from a lay musical perspective?

 

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I think its a very fine score, definitely well beyond and above "acceptable". But for reasons outlined earlier, its hard - for some more than others - to not think of what could have been hearing this instead of this and this instead of this.

 

The Gondor theme is indeed nice but I personally don't see what's so inferior about the Numenor theme.

[Score 770]

35 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

The Gondor theme is indeed nice but I personally don't see what's so inferior about the Numenor theme.

 

Absolutely nothing, of course!

[Chen G. 3,943]

Not accounting for tastes, the Shore theme has the advantage of being something we've already heard (or, for new listeners, something they will hear) multiple times, in several forms and with all manner of associations, and so it has a significance to the listener that a completely new theme by Bear doesn't have.

[Stark 310]

It feels like a big deal that they got Plan 9 to write a song for this project.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Did Plan 9 compose that?

[TolkienSS 405]

1 hour ago, Score said:

 

Absolutely nothing, of course!

 

Is this one of those things where one can't have a critical opinion on something because the person in question "tried really hard"?

 

Like soccer moms, you want people to take off the proverbial scoreboard, so that despite getting their asses kicked for everyone to see, they can pretend their little Timmy or Tony played with so much heart, and are just as good as the 6 foot 5 semi-pro midfield monster.

[Score 770]

32 minutes ago, TolkienSS said:

 

Is this one of those things where one can't have a critical opinion on something because the person in question "tried really hard"?

 

Like soccer moms, you want people to take off the proverbial scoreboard, so that despite getting their asses kicked for everyone to see, they can pretend their little Timmy or Tony played with so much heart, and are just as good as the 6 foot 5 semi-pro midfield monster.

 

Nope, it was just a civilized conversation between people having different points of view. Nobody is forcing anyone to change their critical opinion. Nobody is a soccer mom here; actually, Timmy happens to be a real pro. But of course, in a Middle-Earth thread one should expect to encounter trolls! 

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Did Plan 9 compose that?

 

They wrote the melody, and McCreary arranged and orchestrated.

[Richard Penna 3,671]

I'd imagine Plan 9 composed it as the actress needed a melody to sing during filming.

[Jay 37,287]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Did Plan 9 compose that?

 

https://www.jwfan.com/forums/index.php?/topic/34784-bear-mccrearys-the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-2022/&do=findComment&comment=1911867

[Jay 37,287]

I still haven't seen episodes 4 or 5 yet, but I just remember two other things that bugged me that I forgot to mention

 

The first is the opening titles, which I have two things to say about.  1 is that I thought it was pointless to purposely omit them from episode 1.  In episodes 2 and 3, it works very nice to have a nice "previously on", and then the nice little title sequence, and then all the episode in one go.  For episode 1, I thought it was a bit hokey the way they went for like 15 minutes right away, then randomly dropped a title card, but not the whole title sequence, then resumed the episode.  I think they should have started with the full title sequence and just had the whole episode be continuous after that.  I don't see the point of episode 1 not having the full sequence.

 

Anyways, also: What's up with the title sequence?  Shore's music is cool, but what is the imagery?  Pebbles of sand forming various images of some kind, then dark sand representing Sauron coming in and changing things?

 

 

2nd thing was, in episode 3, by and large I liked it just fine, but one part made me laugh out loud.  When Galadriel and Elendil got on horses to ride to the library, it started with a nice enough wide shot of the terrain they were covering, then starting having a bunch of really weird slow-motion shots of Galadriel on her horse, with this crazy look of sheer joy on her face.  It was awkward on its own, but then in comparison to the sour tone she has in literally every other scene of all 3 episodes, it really stood out as being quite silly.  I dunno what happened there!

[Chen G. 3,943]

16 minutes ago, Jay said:

starting having a bunch of really weird slow-motion shows of Galadriel on her horse, with this crazy look of sheer joy on her face.  It was awkward on its own, but then in comparison to the sour tone she has in literally every other scene of all 3 episodes, it really stood out as being quite silly.  I dunno what happened there!

 

That moment had many people laughing out loud. It certainly did me. They just chose the wrong take for her closeups: there are better takes in some teasers where its more her having a moment of respite and appreciating the wind on her face and it looks like a nice moment; whereas in the finished piece, its this silly grin which, if you saw a lot of interviews with Morfydd Clark, she does a lot. But it doesn't work for this Galadriel - I timed it, it happens less than two minutes after she threatens to stab Elendil. 

 

Its perhaps worth saying that Clark hadn't ridden horses prior to this show, and so while I'm sure we're not seeing her literally first horse-ride, its nevertheless a fresh experience for her and so what we're seeing is Morfydd Clark's joy of horse-riding rather than Galadriel's. There's also a rumour that when the shot was taken she hadn't mastered the gallop and so we're seeing a juxtaposition of her face on a riding double, but that's as of yet unconfirmed.

[Jay 37,287]

Yea, it was silly. 

 

The thing is, even without the bizarre expression on her face totally killing the scene, even before that, the slow motion was already pointless and out of place to begin with. It should have just taken a few seconds to cover their travel out of the city across the nice landscape, but focusing on the ride, with slow motion (something the show hasn't done elsewhere that I recall), was an odd idea that I don't really get.

 

Bayona didn't have werid stuff like this in his two episodes. 

[Faleel 5,340]

I was just pleased that they were allowing the score to play out on its own in a modern show to worry about it being "wierd"

[WampaRat 1,105]

I didn’t mind the slow motion in tandem with the score. But yes, they held the shot of Galadriel smiling just a biiiit too long. Probably could have trimmed the other shots by a hair or two. I’m sure some ambitions “fan edit”is already underway.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

 

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

That momet had many people laughing out loud.

 

That happened to me a couple of times in the last episode. When they showed those mystics or whatever they are, and the blond emo guy who looks like a Slytherin reject, I literally just busted out laughing. Even Galadriel's constant over-earnest anger is just funny now, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes the hundredth time she made a big speech about how dire everything is.

 

And stuff that worked so effectively in the films, e.g. the slow motion walking to underscore poignancy, border on parody in this show, if for no other reason than overuse. They've even taken to copying PJ's camera angles...there are a couple shots of Halbarad that are clearly lifted from those of Aragorn, to the point where the looked just like Viggo (more so than he already, and quite intentionally, does). Those elicited a laugh as well.  

 

At this point I can't imagine any of this is working out how Amazon planned. 

 

On 23/9/2022 at 7:06 PM, Incanus said:

But the sea is always right!

 

Only if Helsinki is on your left.

[Chen G. 3,943]

I really don't want to be too harsh - I like the slow-motion, I don't mind the returning lines, I think this Elrond is a great character, I think the Durins are great, I like a lot of the tableaux. Its really just the length of the setup - five hours fifteen minutes of it! - and now this most recent plot development (and one yet to come in the upcoming episode) that are throwing me off.

 

Quote

there are a couple shots of Halbarad that are clearly lifted from those of Aragorn, to the point where the looked just like Viggo (more so than he already, and quite intentionally, does). 

 

Many people are thinking he's Sauron, but I think the idea of an ersatz-Aragorn (Ersatzagorn, if you will) would be too appealing to these writers to play it anyway other than straight.

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

There's one big thing that I honestly don't when I watch the Opening Title.

 

Why didn't they choose to name the actors or show them.

For f**k's sake, they should've hired Alan Lee to illustrate the characters like in the credits of Return Of The King & Battle Of The Five Armies. Hell, they could've asked John Howe to illustrate something, he did some of the conceptual designs on the series, so he was already there.

That would've been soo cool. To go over all of them, by the place on the map they are or something.

 

Then with Shore's music that could've been something outstanding. And now it's just, like Jay said, some weird sands which form a tree or something. And Shore's music is just kind of sitting there. It's a wonderful piece, but I don't think the images itself raise the music to an even better level.

[Chen G. 3,943]

1 minute ago, JNHFan2000 said:

For f**k's sake, they should've hired Alan Lee to illustrate the characters like in the credits of Return Of The King & Battle Of The Five Armies. Hell, they could've asked John Howe to illustrate something, he did some of the conceptual designs on the series, so he was already there.

 

I hadn't thought of that! That would have been awesome!!

[TolkienSS 405]

You don't understand the title sequence?

It's close-ups of cymatics, where you make waves of sound visible by playing it underneath a surface or membrane, filled with sand or other particles.

It's the visualization of the Ainulindale, where Iluvatar creates the universe from sound and music, as all matter is made of waves.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Yes, we get it.

 

Just because you have symbolism in your visuals doesn't mean its good symbolism or that they're good visuals. The title sequence is simply not worthy of Shore's great music.

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

56 minutes ago, JNHFan2000 said:

Why didn't they choose to name the actors or show them.

 

In this case it would be more apropos to list the names of the visual effects artists, no?

 

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I really don't want to be too harsh - I like the slow-motion, I don't mind the returning lines, I think this Elrond is a great character, I think the Durins are great, I like a lot of the tableaux

 

Getting worried Fellowship of Fans is going to revoke your membership card?

 

 

[Tom Guernsey 2,280]

42 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

In this case it would be more apropos to list the names of the visual effects artists, no?

 

Having seen at least 3 people watching TROP on their iPads on various forms of transport over the weekend, I think those FX artists could have done something better and Amazon should just have spent 10 pence on the FX given that clearly lots of people won't see any of that artistry ;-)

[Chen G. 3,943]

46 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Getting worried Fellowship of Fans is going to revoke your membership card? 

 

You jest, but a while back there was a discussion about how negative opinions don't play as well to the Fellowship of Fans audience and how we might go about redressing that balance... I think this most recent episode, however, granted me some more leeway because we ALL thought it was bonkers.

 

But I do generally try to point out good things about what I watch: even in something awful like The Rise of Skywalker I try my darndest to find some positives like "it looks beautiful" or "the action setpieces are nice", etc... Up until the recent episode, I didn't find the show a fiasco on that level - mostly it was just a little dull.

[Richard Penna 3,671]

I've skipped past the title sequence for all except episode 2, precisely because of whatever unidentifiable 'thing' it's meant to show. Those who adore Shore's piece will be horrified by this admission - for me, the combination of his piece with those visuals are just a bit 'meh'.

 

The slo-mo stuff is unneeded IMO - especially that shot of Galadiel getting on the boat at the end of ep 5 - it felt like it went on forever and not in a good way.

 

1 hour ago, TolkienSS said:

You don't understand the title sequence?

It's close-ups of cymatics, where you make waves of sound visible by playing it underneath a surface or membrane, filled with sand or other particles.

It's the visualization of the Ainulindale, where Iluvatar creates the universe from sound and music, as all matter is made of waves.

 

I just googled Ainulindale and still barely understand what you're on about. How's the average Amazon viewer going to know all that sybolism?

[A. A. Ron 1,738]

The title sequence should be the forging of the rings. Also, the title logo looks disappointingly cheap. Great music from Shore though obviously.

[Jay 37,287]

The other strange thing about the title sequence is, it's all pleasant music as the pebbles form a bunch of random images, then the music gets darker as the black sand arrives and starts turning everything black.  But then as it gets the blackest and then "The Rings of Power" title appears on the screen, the music gets optimistic, which is weird.

I guess that's the problem with naming your show after an evil object instead of something from the good guy's side

[Nick1Ø66 4,688]

48 minutes ago, Jay said:

I guess that's the problem with naming your show after an evil object instead of something from the good guy's side

  
Well, it’s not as if “The Lord of The Rings” is exactly referring to a nice person either.  

[Jay 37,287]

Oh shit, that's true!

[Holko 9,499]

1 minute ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

  
Well, it’s  not as if “The Lord of The Rings” is exactly referring to a nice person either.  

Well, it's not as if the History of the Ring statements over the title cards are exactly optimistic either.

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

Another small nitpick. Am I the only one who absolutely hates that it's being called:

The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power.

 

The only thing that you can call Lord Of The Rings are those books and those 3 films. All the other stories aren't that. They should've either called is just The Rings Of Power or something with Middle Earth in it.

 

In my library I've changed the names of the albums as well.

They all just begin with The Rings Of Power. I just can't put The Lord Of The Rings in front of it. It doesn't fit

[Jay 37,287]

I dunno, Sauron is the lord of the rings, and the show is about what he got up to in the second age, so it seems fine to me

[Mr. Who 919]

I'm not watching this show but I think that the main function of the LOTR name is to tell audiences that the show is connected to Middle Earth which is not a bad idea in my opinion.

[Jay 37,287]

Yep