gman24 0 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Atleast I don't think it's been posted here yet:http://www.techcomforces.com/roxanne.wmaIt's certaintly more interesting than the other tracks online....some nice violin work by Vanessa Mae. The theme reminds me alittle of Rozsa's "El Cid". But still it reeks 80's..and I don't see how this will fit with the film. I posted a message on another board about how Williams would write far better music for this film and this is the humurous reply I got from another user:---------------The purpose of a film score is not to overpower the visuals and the dialogue of the film. A film score is the backbone. Depending on the context of the visuals and dialogue, certain sections of film scores may at times incorporate a certain amount of repetition to maintain a rhythm. It's odd that at once you chastise Vangelis, who is a master of synthesis, improvisation and innovation, and yet suggest Williams who is known for repetition. As I mentioned in another post, Williams is a plagiarist. In several scores, he repeats entire phrases and sections of Gustav Holst's seminal work, The Planets Suite. Williams gets paid a million dollars per score, and yet, in the tradition of other plagiarists like James Horner, he simply lifts note after note directly from other scores... occasionally transposing a few to obfuscate the plagiarism to only the least attentive of listeners (a similar tactic used by Vanilla Ice comes to mind). Not only does Williams repeat others, but he also repeats himself. Entire sections of the scores for the Indiana Jones films are regurgitations of phrasings, melodies and arrangements from the Star Wars scores. Why not just send in a copy of the same score to every filmmaker who hires you, and call it a day? Williams has a very recognizable pattern that emanates from the 5/4 strings and horns rhythm of Holst's Planets... except he pumps the instruments to death until there's no dynamic expression, no subtlety, and what you have is a monotonous G-chord rhythm that is mistakenly emphasized as the lead, and not the suble thematic structure that Holst had the sense to linger somewhere in the background... This nonsense can be recognized a mile away as Williams' signature bullshit.... and he reuses this technique in every fucking score he composes! Vangelis understands the importance of establishing rhythm with minor variation during scenes that require it... but across his work you find a vast range of musical styles, phrases, arrangements. Williams is precisely the opposite... he uses a gargantuan bombast that seems to suggest the film was constructed merely as a visual to accompany his music, and yet he repeats himself from one film to the next... using the same cues that are all derived from composers far more imaginative and original than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 The purpose of a film score is not to overpower the visuals and the dialogue of the film. A film score is the backbone. Depending on the context of the visuals and dialogue' date=' certain sections of film scores may at times incorporate a certain amount of repetition to maintain a rhythm. It's odd that at once you chastise Vangelis, who is a master of synthesis, improvisation and innovation, and yet suggest Williams who is known for repetition. As I mentioned in another post, Williams is a plagiarist. In several scores, he repeats entire phrases and sections of Gustav Holst's seminal work, The Planets Suite. Williams gets paid a million dollars per score, and yet, in the tradition of other plagiarists like James Horner, he simply lifts note after note directly from other scores... occasionally transposing a few to obfuscate the plagiarism to only the least attentive of listeners (a similar tactic used by Vanilla Ice comes to mind). Not only does Williams repeat others, but he also repeats himself. Entire sections of the scores for the Indiana Jones films are regurgitations of phrasings, melodies and arrangements from the Star Wars scores. Why not just send in a copy of the same score to every filmmaker who hires you, and call it a day? Williams has a very recognizable pattern that emanates from the 5/4 strings and horns rhythm of Holst's Planets... except he pumps the instruments to death until there's no dynamic expression, no subtlety, and what you have is a monotonous G-chord rhythm that is mistakenly emphasized as the lead, and not the suble thematic structure that Holst had the sense to linger somewhere in the background... This nonsense can be recognized a mile away as Williams' signature bullshit.... and he reuses this technique in every fucking score he composes! Vangelis understands the importance of establishing rhythm with minor variation during scenes that require it... but across his work you find a vast range of musical styles, phrases, arrangements. Williams is precisely the opposite... he uses a gargantuan bombast that seems to suggest the film was constructed merely as a visual to accompany his music, and yet he repeats himself from one film to the next... using the same cues that are all derived from composers far more imaginative and original than him. [/color']BIATCH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisAfonso 188 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 If you replace every "Williams" in that text with "Horner" or "Zimmer", you actually get a true statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 That person is uninformed. And the music is uninspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Look up "clueless" in the dictonary and you will see that post. Look up "smeghead" and you will see the poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 A post like that would certainly shut someone up. You just don't know how to respond. Should you laugh? Should you shrug? Or simply use faith in people? Is there a word for such idiocy? The term "dumb fuck" comes to mind, but it's not nearly close enough.- Marc, lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry B 50 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 Meh, people who say Williams is all bombast are my pet peeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QMM 4 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Ass hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docteur Qui 1,544 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 If you replace every "Williams" in that text with "Horner" or "Zimmer", you actually get a true statement.Good idea, in response to that bitch's post, quote what he has said and replace every "Williams" with "Horner" or "Zimmer" and then add "I completely agree." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisAfonso 188 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 And don't forget to exchange the "Vangelis"s for "Williams".In fact, I can't believe how he states that Williams only used the movie as BG for his bombast music and Vangelis would take a more subtle approach, when it's the other way around... Williams really knows how to enhance a movie with his music, whereas Vangelis's "1492" is some of the most gorgeous and beautiful music I have ever heard, but completely out of place in the movie (except for the "sailing montage"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Vangelis is not a very good film composer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tharpdevenport 4 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 The guy must be a compelte idiot! The last cue, first cue, from Alaexander is a "lift" from Chariots Of Fire. Vangelis ripped himself off!And why are sound clips always in some fucking form I can't hear cause I don't want the blasted Real Player? .ram, .whateverthehellthisalexandercueisI can't even listen to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 The link is .wma. It does not require real player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QMM 4 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 The music's pretty bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 The music's pretty badWhich means it probably fits the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAG-SI 10 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Is this the extended version for the "Malayasia, truly Asia" comrecial?? Well, even I can compose something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendal_Ozzel 36 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Where did this post come from? The Vangelis Fan Network? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tharpdevenport 4 Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Rioaudio Port Manager pops up and does nothing. So I download the track and still can't play it.I will just have to assume it was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,276 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I don't why so many of you think this film will suck. It has a great director, a great cast and deals with one of the greatest stories ever.The latest trailer looks fantastic. It's a movie I would have loved for JW to score. Vangelis may do a crappy job, but I'm pretty confident the movie will have quality. It's the movie to see in 2004 for me. It has been that way since I heard this thing was going ahead.Check out the latest trailer anyway. www.comingsoon.net is hosting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 It has a hit and miss director, a great cast that's headed by an actor who's wrong for the part and who has the worst and least natural wig I've seen in a while, and deals with concpiracy theories regarding one of the greatest stories ever. Action and adventure have never been Stone's strong points. The latest trailer looks awful. The music sounds bad. I'm not sure I would want Williams any more (thoguh it would be his first explicit homosexual love scene scored, and I have a feeling he wouldn't be able to avoid having to write soft core porn music like he did in Presumed Innocent by using the main theme). Stone is too Stone, too 90's, too of his time. We need someone who has an idea of history. Wolfgang Peterson is not a particulaly good director. But his outlook on Troy was right on- he looked at it as a classic Hollywood epic. Like most hollywood epics, he didn't make a very good film, but seeing Troy I saw what I missed in Gladiator and what I'm pretty sure I'll be missing in Alexander- a sense of history. Ridley Scott is of his time, and that's produced fantastic films and infused sucky ones with great style (though I find his virtuoso directing to come out more in retro films like Matchstick Men). Gladiator was too 90's. Stone is way too 90's. That's great for JFK, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Any Given Sunday, but not for Alexander. I was always looking forward more to Luhrman's version (which will probably not get made). Big, showy, theatrical, old fashioned, full blooded score, but with enough knowledge that all that color and style doesn't take the place fo content, the problem with so many "epics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,276 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think we'll have to wait a few more weeks before saying wether Colin is right or wrong for the part.I wouldn't call a movie about Alexander the Great an action adventure film and cospirathy theories are not that far fetched concerning this historical figure, although I don not know what Stone's aproach to the story will be like. I'm hoping Stone will really explore the man, and not the myth, meaning I hope the film won't be a continuous praising of Alexander's god like abilities.Stone has never tackled a subject like this before, so he may very well fall on his face. But IMHO, TROY is in no way an example on how to tackle epics. And the battle scenes were plain boring and repetitive. I heard that Stone is actually using real extras for the battle scenes in this movie, but I don't know how much of that afirmation is true. I don't think Stone should take a different aproach to this filme that he did with his other historical films (although they deal with modern history). Go for realism instead of spetacle. Don't treat the characters as myths.If Stone tackles the subject in such a competent way as he did with Nixon, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and JFk, I think I'm in for a treat. If he tackles the subject as a pretext for eye candy and huge battle scenes, I think this project will fail. That was one of the mais faults with Troy.As for Luhrman, I liked Moulin Rouge, but I hated his take on Romeo and Juliet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,276 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I think we'll have to wait a few more weeks before saying wether Colin is right or wrong for the part.I wouldn't call a movie about Alexander the Great an action adventure film and cospirathy theories are not that far fetched concerning this historical figure, although I don not know what Stone's aproach to the story will be like. I'm hoping Stone will really explore the man, and not the myth, meaning I hope the film won't be a continuous praising of Alexander's god like abilities.Stone has never tackled a subject like this before, so he may very well fall on his face. But IMHO, TROY is in no way an example on how to tackle epics. And the battle scenes were plain boring and repetitive. I heard that Stone is actually using real extras for the battle scenes in this movie, but I don't know how much of that afirmation is true. I don't think Stone should take a different aproach to this filme that he did with his other historical films (although they deal with modern history). Go for realism instead of spetacle. Don't treat the characters as myths.If Stone tackles the subject in such a competent way as he did with Nixon, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and JFk, I think I'm in for a treat. If he tackles the subject as a pretext for eye candy and huge battle scenes, I think this project will fail. That was one of the mais faults with Troy.As for Luhrman, I liked Moulin Rouge, but I hated his take on Romeo and Juliet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Stone is way too 90's. That's great for JFK, Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Any Given Sunday, but not for Alexander.Both JFK and Nixon did not take place in the 90's.Numbnuts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I don't think Stone should take a different aproach to this filme that he did with his other historical films (although they deal with modern history). Go for realism instead of spetacle. Don't treat the characters as myths. But Alexander was in reality a lot of spectacle. Stone seems to be preocuppied with the 'real' Alexander, which apparantly is a bisexual man with an Oedipa complex. We did not need to waste a perfectly good historical story on that. Both JFK and Nixon did not take place in the 90's.Numbnuts! So? The movies were 90's. Not the stories they were based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 And Platoon and BOT4OJ were 80's films.Wallstreet was DEFINATLY 80's in every sense of the word.Stone is not a "90's" director, your claim is completely unfounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 No it is not. I said Stone is of his time. Right now, he happens to be stuck in the 90's. In the 80's, his films were %100 80's. I don't think someone who is inherently of his time is right for a historical epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I still dont understand why Stone saw fit to hire Vanglis in the first place. Did he ever explain why he went with that guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Longbottom 0 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Williams gets paid a million dollars per score, and yet, in the tradition of other plagiarists like James Horner, he simply lifts note after note directly from other scores... occasionally transposing a few to obfuscate the plagiarism to only the least attentive of listeners (a similar tactic used by Vanilla Ice comes to mind).Finally someone points out to that injustice! Well, Williams gets paid for new themes composed for the particular new score (approx. $ 3.000.000 per a theme). That's why Horner gets paid so drastically low in comparision and he's got a few scores he never got paid for. You never get paid twice for the same thing, do you. Official table of earnings, I think it's fairly deserved:John Williams: $ 14 - 18.000.000 per a score (peaked with: Accidental Tourist: $ 19.500.000)James Horner: $ 100 - 120.000 / score (Jumanji: $ 690.990)Howard Shore: $ 250 - 300.000 (Return of the King: $ 350.700)Hans Zimmer: ? 1 - 2.000.000 (Thin Red Line: $ 6.000.000)Vangelis: $ 50 - 100.000 (Conquest of Paradise: $ 149.200)Enya: $ 5 - 7.000.000 / score song (May It Be: $ 9.000.000)And the record holder:Don Davis: Jurassic Park III: $ 26.000.000(source: Undiscovered Obscurity, November 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Williams makes 14-18 million PER SCORE? Are you serious? That must be too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,364 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Williams makes 14-18 million PER SCORE? Are you serious? That must be too high.Yes, these figures are baloney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Yup. One decimal point too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,276 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I still dont understand why Stone saw fit to hire Vanglis in the first place. Did he ever explain why he went with that guy?Probably because he's greek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Mariachi 0 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Here's my first impression:I started off thinking was I listening to the correct cue? What's with all the ethereal synth? The violin work minus the background "mud" might actually fit the film. Just what kind of film is this if this is the music that fits it? It sounds like this music was from some crappy 80s movie, not an historical epic.Is it too early to mark this up as another missed epic-score opportunity this year?-M- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,364 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 Just what kind of film is this if this is the music that fits it? It sounds like this music was from some crappy 80s movie, not an historical epic.-M-That's because for this track a typical 80s sample sound is used. It's a Fairlight CMI (one of the first samplers) sound and I believe the sample's patch name was "Sarah". Art of Noise had a big hit with this sound.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 John Williams: $ 14 - 18.000.000 per a score (peaked with: Accidental Tourist: $ 19.500.000)LOL, i doubt The Accidental Tourist even had a budget anywere close to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Mariachi 0 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 That's because for this track a typical 80s sample sound is used. It's a Fairlight CMI (one of the first samplers) sound and I believe the sample's patch name was "Sarah". Art of Noise had a big hit with this soundI'm sorry, I don't know what Art of Noise is. Is it something I need to know?What are your opinions on the music, Alex? Do you think it fits?-M- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,364 Posted October 2, 2004 Share Posted October 2, 2004 That's because for this track a typical 80s sample sound is used. It's a Fairlight CMI (one of the first samplers) sound and I believe the sample's patch name was "Sarah". Art of Noise had a big hit with this soundI'm sorry, I don't know what Art of Noise is. Is it something I need to know?What are your opinions on the music, Alex? Do you think it fits?-M-'Art of Noise' was a band (Trevor Horn, producer). They had a massive hit in 1984 with 'Moments in Love'.Listen to a short clip here:http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?...&cart=207812242It's track N°6.It could have worked, if Vangelis had opted for a more musically experimental approach and sticked to his analogue synthesizers, instead of combining bad workstation sounds with a real orchestra.----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tharpdevenport 4 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 Yes, The Art Of Noise is good. All hail. :-)I have two CDs myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoby12 0 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 I think the biggest salary a film composer ever made on a front end deal was 3.5 million. Which was Danny E for coming to save the day on Hulk. Even though the all time record has to be Horner for Titandic which I think he made nearly twice as much on back end royalties. I wonder how much Johnny makes per movie/album now. I think he could be charging 3M a film and people would be paying for that at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,364 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 The final Alexander trailer looks like a hip, modern day trailer to me (complete with 500.000 bowmen).----------------Alex Cremers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morlock 11 Posted October 3, 2004 Share Posted October 3, 2004 At least the arrows don't look as bad as Hero's. Farrell was a bad choice for this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now