Now, I’m intrigued, despite Schepisi being one of my least favourite director/producers. The subject of Swift’s novel is refreshingly far removed from the usual thing that Goldsmith gets to work on. Much as I enjoyed THE MUMMY, and admired Goldsmith’s work on the otherwise disappointing 13TH WARRIOR and THE HAUNTING, it really is about time that Goldsmith was given a more interesting and ‘deep’ movie to score.

‘Last Orders’ is a beautifully written book. Though the setting is London’s East End, the story is of universal appeal. It tells of people….everyday, ordinary people….there is something in this story for everyone, whether you live in England or not. Swift’s WATERLAND has been filmed to great effect with Jeremy Irons…..and Swift’s novels put one in mind of much of Mike Leigh’s movie output.

Swift was born in south London, not far from Bermondsey, where the characters in ‘Last Orders’ live. Though he was born in 1949, most of Graham Swift's fiction touches upon War World II in some way while exploring the larger subject of history, its meaning and its effects upon those who live it. I must admit that ‘Last Orders’ is the sort of subject that Schepisi could potentially film well…I’m reasonably optimistic, especially with the casting of Michael Caine in the main role. Whether the movie actually happens is just as big a ‘grey area’ as whether Goldsmith will finally produce a successfully intimate and subtle score.

During the past decade, Goldsmith has slipped precipitously from being one of my favourite contributors of music for film, to perhaps my least favourite of all of the current major film composers. That Goldsmith is still 29th on my list of favourite composers is due entirely to his pre-1993 work; had it not been for the thirty or forty lacklustre offerings that Goldsmith has served up since MR BASEBALL (itself no masterpiece, and fatally undone by one of the most cringe-makingly awful main themes ever composed), then Goldsmith would still perhaps be 18th or 19th on my list.

As it is, not only have Goldsmith’s 90s assignments been uninventively scored (BAD GIRLS, THE RIVER WILD, FIRST KNIGHT and many more), but the quality of the movies themselves has been hugely disappointing, especially considering that most are big-budget, and that the 90’s has seen cinema as whole flourish. Indeed, whether Goldsmith has avoided adult-themed and intelligent genres or filmmakers have avoided him, the bulk of this composer’s 90s assignments and scores have been surprisingly poor….considering this composer’s previous work, and the fact that 90’s Hollywood has seen a return to the great entertainment value and intelligence of 30s and 40s cinema.

What it all boils down to is, the bulk of Goldsmith’s 90s assignments have been childish failures. One only has to look at the movies that Goldsmith has been rejected from or withdrawn from to see that this composer has become extremely limited in his scope….either by choice or through diminishing ability. HOLLOW MAN shows no signs of Goldsmith arresting his decline. Now, I haven’t seen HOLLOW MAN, and until I do I believe it would be unfair of me to judge his work, for it is how the music works in the movie that is important. However, musically speaking, Goldsmith treads the same old well-worn territory that has become all too familiar to anyone who has followed this composer’s career. I hope the music works well for HOLLOW MAN….and it probably does….but once again, HOLLOW MAN is yet another movie in the action/horror/sci-fi/fantasy genres in which Goldsmith has become entrenched. His work in these genres during the 90s has often been efficient (and sometimes good), but where are the successful thrillers, the romantic comedies, the urban dramas and so on. Every other current major film composer is working in the broadest range of genres, and providing musical scores wholly appropriate to the nature of the movie…..be it jazz, pop or classical…..but not Goldsmith.

Like I say, I don’t want to criticise Goldsmith’s HOLLOW MAN until I have seen how it works in the movie. Let me put it this way; I thought Goldsmith’s score to AIR FORCE ONE was very good, it fitted the movie like a glove (though McNeely’s portions of the score (especially Mig Attack) contain the most detailed and subtle writing). However, away from the movie, I regard Goldsmith’s AIR FORCE ONE as a redundant and simplistic nothing…..the album is loud, without being powerful, and frenetic, without being complex….Goldsmith’s AIR FORCE ONE is overridingly derivative, repetitive, and simplistic.

During the 90s, Goldsmith has reused his own music (and musical devices) with far less effectiveness than all of the other composers who have obviously been influenced by him.

THE HAUNTING at last saw Goldsmith tapping his own repertoire to good effect. His STTMP/BASIC INSTINCT styled main theme, though clearly reminiscent of those earlier scores, was excellent…..at last Goldsmith was recycling his good ideas, rather than churning out the same old action motif that is done to death in CHAIN REACTION, US MARSHALS, and STAR TREK: INSURRECTION, or the cloying marmalade music that oozes in and out of almost every Goldsmith score since SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY.

To my mind, composers such as Doyle, Shore and Goldenthal are now light-years ahead of Goldsmith in their intelligent and ground-breaking approach to scoring, whilst composers like Williams, Silvestri and Horner are light-years ahead of Goldsmith in the scope, and the appropriate nature of their scoring. Perhaps forty or fifty other current film composers are providing more appropriate and interesting scores than Goldsmith is now, either by being ground-breaking or successfully traditional….or a mixture of the two.

Goldsmith’s scoring these days is neither ground-breaking, nor is it successfully traditional. His scores, like his movies, are the simplistic and diluted dregs of an unprecedentedly successful contemporary cinema.

Having seen Goldsmith ducking out of THE KID because of creative differences, or being rejected from TWO DAYS IN THE VALLEY, or not being considered suitable for WONDER BOYS, or dropping out of THE YARDS and DECEPTION for whatever reason, more than anything Goldsmith has become a limited film composer. Versatility is one of the film composers’ most important requirements….without it, not only is the film composer limiting himself to only certain genres, he is also failing to serve those genres he does feel comfortable in to the fullest.

Let us hope that LAST ORDERS allows Goldsmith to call time on a decade of disappointing, and surprising, mediocrity.

Are you well?

Jeron

NP - An American Tail (James Horner) *****/***** (This and Land Before Time is Horner at his best! How can you *not* love this score??)

It is has never been my intention to provoke comment from the ‘film composer’ by posting here at the message-board; any such response would be of little or no interest to me. My postings are designed to engender discussion amongst the movie-goer, whose objective opinion I value far higher than the comments of those who actually write the film music.

I simply regard the film composer as a servant of the movie; in the same way, I regard myself, being a garbage-man, as a servant of the public.

However, if a film composer did choose to respond to my comments here, I would treat his comments with due respect. Having said that, what motivates or inspires a film composer to produce what he does is of far less importance to me than the product of his labours. Whether the film composer has been inspired by a profound spiritual experience or has simply stubbed his toe, if the end result is mediocre film music, it is still mediocre film music.

NP: THE PATRIOT (acquired Friday, very very good) (see Jeron, you even liked this movie, but I still can't bear the thought of shelling out $9.50 to suffer through the Evil Twins' Revolutionary War version of BRAVEHEART)

I found it necessary to delete my comments on that last message. I was a bit offended by Daniel2's comment about the composer as servant. I disagree strongly with that, and I feel it takes a greater degree of understanding of the filmmaking of the process as a whole to make a judgment on this kind of occupation. I didn't have time to constructively write my comments this way last time, and resorted to a kind of name-calling I don't condone for myself where other people's opinions are concerned. Regardless, I don't expect Daniel2 to live by my estimation, as he has already said any protest to his opinion by the composer would fall on deaf ears, so why should he listen to my comments? He can read and speaks as he likes, which goes without saying- he needs no permission from me. But I'd like it to go on record in a dignified fashion, that, while his opinions are respected and noted as well-supported, it seems that with his one statement about the status of film score composers, that he has little or no respect for their work. He may be entertained by their music, but he doesn't respect it. I say this not as a defense of composers nor am I given to throw practical reasoning of the enterainment industry out the window; but simply put- someone who understands the filmmaking process, or at least the work that goes into making the music, would have more respect than to make that statement.

I intend no undue stress upon anyone- and I may be taking this a bit too seriously- but that is my right to do so.

I cannot and will not accept the statements of any man who has so little regard for the very occupation of the people who create the music he professes to enjoy simply by being here.

Daniel2, your statements read as if the composer exists to serve you in your quest for entertainment. Without the audience, there can be no success for the composer- but the composer doesn't serve you. If I'm wrong, I apologize for any offense I make, but I will not ever apologize for how I feel about the respect that should be shown for hard working people involved with music score. Considering your intelligence, I found your statement just a bit shocking.

Shaun

No way I'd leave this place. Unless I became a jerk, or I was carried away punching and shooting. You couldn't keep away from here.

"Pananche. It means style or--"
"I know what it means."
"Really? I had to look it up."

Yet, where we seem to fall is so very different. The only composer I feel confident can write a great score every time out is Goldsmith. That goes with HOLLOW MAN, too. It's hard to praise HOLLOW MAN as a great score in Goldsmith's cannon really--as it is for nearly every new Goldsmith score.

One doesn't get these, "THE PATRIOT is the best Williams score in years" type comments with a new score generally speaking.

In my mind, HOLLOW MAN is simply the best score Goldsmith has written since THE 13th WARRIOR.

It's just that every time out, Goldsmith seems to be on top of the subject matter.

So we feel differently. It's just hard to believe sometimes, like I said, given that each of us puts so much emphasis on the music as score, in the film.

Like you say, no on the record comment about HOLLOW MAN's score is really yet justifiable, but it has all of the elements of a great one: continuity and variation, melodic basis (and a great melody in my opinion), proper conveyance of moods, and a narrative-centered approach.

Just musically speaking, I'm not quite sure how anyone can love THE HAUNTING and not be pleased to say the least with HM.

Thank you for your measured and compelling response.

Though I say the film composer’s primary objective is to serve the movie, it doesn’t mean to say that I believe his work is not skilled, often inventive and frequently worthy of praise. The film score is primarily a piece of the movie’s jigsaw puzzle that enriches the movie as a whole, but film music can also be scrutinised and appreciated as a separate entity. In the same way, though I serve the public in my capacity as a dustman by maintaining a healthy environment for the people of the City of Bristol, my work also has many secondary benefits, such as a clean and healthy city for humans and the plants and animals of the city and the surrounding countryside. Also, much of the waste is recycled, thus reducing the strain on the general environment, and there is also my own personal job satisfaction. Therefore, though the primary objective of the film composer is to serve the movie, and the primary objective of the dustman is to serve the community, each has many secondary benefits and functions.

When I call the film composer a servant of the movie, it is really a compliment.

The film score is one element in a rich soup of components that constitutes any single movie. A movie as a whole, is greater than the sum of its parts. Without film music, most movies would be far less successful as complete entertainments – rather like an automobile without an alternator.

However, I believe, away from the movie, film music is usually rendered meaningless – rather like the alternator divorced from the automobile. By the same token, the effectiveness of the movie can be seriously eroded without the film score, as the automobile is seriously compromized without the alternator.

Though I do not enjoy listening to soundtrack albums as stand-alone entertainments (with only one or two exceptions), I am still able to appreciate the work of the film composer as the product of a gifted and talented artist. Therefore, I regard the product of the film composer’s labours as an important and integral part of a bigger artform (the movie itself). I believe that I appreciate film music as much as anyone, but rather than focusing my attention on film music as a potential stand-alone album, my overriding interest is in how the music works for the movie. That doesn’t make my appreciation of film music any the lesser, or any the less valid.

Any film composer whose primary objective is not to fulfil the requirements of the movie (through the correct application of CMS), is not only letting down all of the other contributors to a movie (the scriptwriter, the director, the gaffer etc), but he is also letting himself down.

I believe the film score to be a very important component of ‘the movie’, and the fact that the film score is usually the final creative stage in a series of overlapping creative strands, means that the film composer’s work is not just the ‘frosting on the cake’, but that the film score often serves as the ‘flour and the yeast’ or the agent that bonds the movie together, especially when one considers that the film composer is often part of the movie’s entire creative process (less so these days though).

Let me make one thing clear. If Jerry Goldsmith decided to contribute to this message board by criticising my original posting at this thread relating to his recent output, I would accept the fact that the film composer has as much right to criticise my comments about his work, as I have in criticising his music in the first place.

That said, speaking hypothetically, let’s say Jerry responded to my original posting at this thread in one of the following five ways by saying.

1) “You must be some kind of silly” or “Get a life!” or a similarly tired cliché.

Or.

2) “Look, I realize my music may not be as inspired as it used to be, but what the heck, I’m still being hired by top directors and producers”.

Or.

3) “I’m trying my best to write good film music, but I’m not getting any younger. For most of my working life I gave 100% to my movies, but at my time of life I think it’s only fair that I take it a little easier”.

Or.

4) “Here’s my wife’s recipe for Bananas Foster”.

Or.

5) “You know, the film composer must find inspiration from the movie and from his own life experience. With THE SHADOW, I dreamed of Danny’s BATMAN without the thematic strength and development, and with a few electronic ‘pings’ thrown in. When I was working on Anspaugh’s RUDY, I had a migraine. I remember when I began to work on THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, and was visited by the spirit of Dickie Wagner, Gus Mahler, Benny Herrmann and Joey Strauss…..twas like A Christmas Carole”.

Of all of the above hypothetical Goldsmith comments, I would have to say that the most important one to me would be number 4.

You see, as I said earlier, if a film composer did choose to respond to any of my postings, I would treat his comments with due respect, though any such comments would be of little or no interest to me (however, their comments would not ‘fall on deaf ears’). All that I am saying is, I would regard the comments and opinions of the film composer with far less interest and importance, than those of the movie-goer or the consumer, whose opinion, I believe, is far more valid and objective. I would say the same about actors, directors and politicians. I admire Bill Clinton as one the great world leaders of recent history, but I have no desire to meet him or converse with him. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect his abilities and achievements. But I am not really concerned about how he manages to be a great President, anymore than I am concerned about how Jerry Goldsmith came up with his magical score for THE SECRET OF NIMH.

Another important distinction; I did not say the film composer serves the individual, such as me. I said the film composer serves the movie. The film composer isn’t baking a cake for one or two people to consume. He is writing film music to enhance a movie that may receive the attention of millions. I don’t see the film composer as serving the individual, I see him serving society as a whole. In the same way, I don’t empty the dustbins of only one household, I serve a whole community of consumers. Therefore, the film composer does not exist to fulfil myquest for entertainment. The film composer exists for many and varied reasons…..it just so happens that I think the most important of these reasons is to serve the movie. That’s not undermining or belittling the composer’s place in the scheme of things….a good film composer is a team man, a willing exponent of CMS, and, by fulfilling his movie duties, is someone who also happens to enrich the lives of millions of people (though not all of them may realize it).

To summarize. I love film music, and I respect film composers as artists, but I respect them as human beings even more; as I would my friend or my neighbour.

NP: A GUIDE TO THE MARRIED MAN (John Williams, just came in the mail today. I bet I'd hate this movie, but this is a cool album! Strange how that works out sometimes. I particularly enjoy the occasional foreshadowings of the Jawa music. I kid you not! Listen closely to "The Globetrotters.")

It's interesting how directors who would never dream of telling an editor or a cameraman how to do his job feel no compunction about telling a composer what to do. "Hey, Jerry, right here I want something like you did in 'The Omen.'" Goldsmith has suffered this indignity as badly as anyone I can think of. Alfred Newman's "Hallelujah" was deleted from the score of "The Greatest Story Ever Told," because George Stevens thought Handel did it better. Ridley Scott has treated Goldsmith's music particularly cavalierly, deleting the finale of "Alien" in favor of Howard Hanson and the entire COMPLETED score of "Legend" in favor of the electronic mishmash we now hear on that film.

My point is that it may be the film the composer is trying to serve, but it's the director alone who gets to like or dislike the music and use or not use it. While this can't account for all the deficiencies some have found in Goldsmith's 90's output, examples like "Give me a touch of 'Patton' in the parade sequence" may go a long way toward explaining why this or that portion or whole of a movie score may not have what we OR Jerry Goldsmith want to hear.

Whilst I concede that the movie-director has no business telling the cameraman which brand of toothpaste to use, when it comes to the matter of the movie in hand, the director does (quite rightly in my opinion) have the right to instruct (or direct) the same cameraman in which direction to point his camera. Indeed, if all of the creative talents involved in the movie-making process were allowed to go their own way, you’d most likely end up with a complete shambles of a movie. Of course, each individual creative talent involved with any given movie brings his own distinctive qualities to the production, so the director’s handling of the editor, the cinematographer, the composer or whoever, will range from advice to instruction. And, it is quite frequently the case that the composer or the cinematographer or whoever will inspire the director to add, remove, or adjust a certain element of the movie. Making a movie is a pooling of talent involving an exchange of views, it is a collaborative process; but, it is the director (or/and) producer who has the final say.

The director is the guy who’s got to try and pull all of the creative elements of the moviemaking process together, be it the cameraman, editor, tea-lady, or composer. The director and/or the producer (to varying degrees), is the man with the overview of the movie, the authority, the industry status, perhaps the most experienced creative inspiration and practical knowledge, and the privilege, to make a movie work. Of course, he doesn’t always succeed in his aims, but it is the director’s decision on ‘who say’s what’ and ‘what goes where’.

As far as the film composer is concerned, let me take up your ALIEN example as an illustration of my point. The replacement of Goldsmith’s admittedly excellent end-credits sequence with Hanson’s symphony was not the only adjustment Scott made to the movie’s musical aspect. As is common knowledge, much of Goldsmith’s score (as he intended it) was chopped about and substantial elements of the temp-track were left in place. Of most importance however, was the opening credits sequence. Goldsmith’s intended opening was replaced with the ‘planet’ music. Personally speaking, though I may have some misgivings about inserting the Hanson in place of Goldsmith’s end-titles piece, I think Scott made the correct decision to open the movie with Goldsmith’s unsettling and creepy ‘planet’ music rather than the more thematically melodious (though magnificent) opening that Goldsmith intended. This is a good example of how the director’s overall perception of the movie may be more valid than the composer’s, though it is always a shame when the work of a talented individual such as the film composer has his work compromized in some way. The opening to ALIEN is indelibly etched into cinema history, partly thanks to the use of the eerie ‘planet’ music. Although Goldsmith’s intended opening music was wonderfully inspired and thematically strong, here is a case of the less thematically meaningful ‘planet’ music making more appropriate (and better) film music in this instance. This further illustrates my general point, that great music doesn’t always make great film music.

Goldsmith, like any right-minded film composer, loves movies and wants to do what's BEST for them -- but because he's the "final writer" on the film, as many directors have put it, then if the director doesn't know what to ask for or how, the composer may well be stranded. Following ALIEN (LEGEND was a great experience, he said, except for being thrown out from the US version), Goldsmith said his worst experience ever was trying, and failing, to please director Rowdy Herrington on the ill-fated GLADIATOR (1992). On the other hand, he said of Spielberg, "working with him is a joy, because he loves music so much and he knows exactly what he wants." The quasi-religious choral tone of some of the POLTERGEIST score was Spielberg's idea, not Goldsmith's. One of the finest themes ever written for films, Goldsmith's six-minute cue "The Enterprise" from STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, was retooled at the insistence of director Robert Wise, who said "This is pretty, but you're just not nailing it." Having heard both versions of the cue, I say Wise was right, and Goldsmith was, correctly, happier with the second version. More recently, Alan Silvestri said of director John Frankenheimer that he was a dream to work with because he was so specific about what he wanted. Making a movie is a challenge, and anyone who's a part of it knows that ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere, and usually it's with the director.

Remembering our previous discussions at this message board and elsewhere (assuming you are who I think you are), I believe our differences to be actually quite small, but nevertheless important.

Putting our overall opinions about the art of composing for film to one side for the moment (on which we appear to broadly agree), I believe we both regard Jerry Goldsmith as a very important contributor to the development of the film score and, when one takes Goldsmith’s career as whole, we both see him as a composer who has produced a large number of superb film-scores.

Our main differences of opinion only seem to begin when it comes to Goldsmith’s 90s output. You seem to be of the opinion that Goldsmith has continued to evolve as a film composer, whereas I tend to see Goldsmith as having regressed rapidly to a point prior to his entry into movie-scoring.

I see Goldsmith’s general film-scoring output today as being far less successful as film-score and, incidentally, from a purely musical point of view, than at any other time during his career. I see his general output over the past decade as, at best, only efficiently serving the musical requirements of the movie, and from a purely musical perspective, being almost completely devoid of interest.

I see Goldsmith’s general film-scoring output now as lacking in all of those qualities that were his trademark prior to 1992, those qualities being a distinctive individuality, versatility, innovation, thematic strength, energy, and the ability to develop his musical material to the fullest.

The one quality that Goldsmith has unflinchingly maintained during the 90s has been a musical cohesiveness to his film scores, each individual score being like a mini-symphony, with an opening statement of the thematic material followed by variations and explorations of the material. Paradoxically, I see this rigid application of sonata-form or thematic unity to his scores as these days working against the success of his film-scores in their primary objective of serving the movie. You see, though most film scores (by other film composers) should, and do, have a certain thematic unity, I think Goldsmith takes this formal discipline too far – a film score is less about musical form and more about augmenting the movie’s images, agenda and subtext. The relationship between musical form and the enhancing of a movie’s images does exist, but I believe a ‘musical structure’ or ‘musical form’ should never interfere with the effectiveness of film-score as a superficial overlay and enhancement of the movie’s agenda. During the past decade, not only has Goldsmith’s strict adherence to the thematic base-line reduced the scope of the development of his thematic variations, such little deviation from the thematic base-line has also limited the breadth and scope of Goldsmith’s orchestrations and stylistics.

In addition to that, the fact that the quality and strength of Goldsmith’s thematic material has diminished during the 90’s, basically having been reduced to the recycling of old ideas in a weak and diluted form (such as the limp and sketchy rehashing of LIONHEART’s classic main theme for FIRST KNIGHT, or the blatant, straightforward and unimaginative reuse of Leonard Bernstein’s ON THE WATERFRONT for LA CONFIDENTIAL), or the creation of bland and predictable themes such as those heard in CITY HALL, BAD GIRLS, ANGIE, and THE GHOST AND THE DARKNESS, merely exacerbates and accentuates Goldsmith’s folly in maintaining such a cramping thematic and stylistic unity to his film-scores.

Cinema today is very free and easy. It is becoming increasingly acceptable for a film composer to loosen the shackles that restrict his application of music to any single project. Goldenthal’s interesting score to COBB comes across more as a display of ‘look what I can do’ rather than a fully appropriate film-score. But COBB does highlight two things. Goldenthal is such a complete and accomplished composer, that he was able to throw in many disparate styles and yet was still able to create a thematic unity. But, I believe it would have been just as acceptable for him to have applied several completely unrelated thematic strands to COBB, and the score would have been just as appropriate as film music. In the instance of COBB, Goldenthal came up with an amazing range of styles that were also bound by a thematic unity – a thematic unity that may have displayed Goldenthal’s incredible ability, but was not necessary to the success of the music as film-score, in my opinion. In fact, as I indicated earlier, I actually believe Goldenthal did too much for COBB – another example of a movie’s musical requirements falling well short of a film composer’s potential ability. With film music, the old adage ’less is more is definitely the case.

At the other extreme, take Goldsmith’s US MARSHALS, an incredibly conservative and simplistic film score in my opinion. The thematic material is particularly weak, basically amounting to a watered down version of EXTREME PREJUDICE mixed with the annoying action motif that first surfaced, in its most obvious state, in CHAIN REACTION, and would continue to crop-up like an unwanted garden weed throughout half a dozen Goldsmith scores of the period, most notable STAR TREK IX. And yet, Goldsmith rigidly maintains the thematic unity of the score, and in the process cuts his own throat simply because of the shallowness of the thematic material in the first place. Other film composers disguise the occasional lack of thematic inventiveness in their scores by fleshing out their music with a variety of appropriate stylistic modulations, contemporary musical devices and colourful orchestrations that basically adds to the superficial effectiveness of their score. Because Goldsmith does nothing to dress-up his work these days, his scores are laid naked, exposing all of the glaring faults and inadequacies that most other film composers make an effort to veil. When it comes to a film score, a ‘musical structure’ is far less important than the music’s superficial qualities, in my opinion. The exact opposite is true of music intended for stand-alone consumption, though in both cases, film score and stand-alone music should both have a certain amount of thematic unity and superficial colour.

Today’s movies, more so than ever, often contain a mixture of several or more genres, and most film composers have responded to the mounting challenges that modern cinema presents by creating film scores with a great range of styles, or at least a versatile universal-contemporary-style, such as the Zimmer-sound (as heard in THE PEACEMAKER or BROKEN ARROW for example). And yet, Goldsmith has become increasingly conservative during the 90s. Not only are his individual scores almost mono-stylistic, but his overall output during the past decade has had a similar sound from score to score whatever the genre, with only the barest minimum of concession to the jazz, pop, Celtic, Latin etc styles, and with only the occasional departures from the norm, such as the use of soloists (beyond the complete and utter over-use of cloying and marmalady harp, flute and oboe solo passages that turn up from score to score with the reliability of the rising sun).

When it comes to Goldsmith’s general 90s output, what one is left with is a basic orchestra that is kept well within itself by Goldsmith’s incessant thematic simplicity, orchestrational conservatism, and stylistic limitations. The addition of electronic elements to the orchestra are often jarring, inappropriate and incongruous.

Having said that, Goldsmith’s three 1999 releases have displayed a refreshing rediscovery of some of those attributes that made Goldsmith’s output prior to 1993 so fascinating. I’ll reserve judgement on Goldsmith’s score to THE HOLLOW MAN until I have seen the movie (some time in 2002), but at least LAST ORDERS may give Goldsmith the opportunity to flex his film-scoring muscle in a more serious and adult-orientated movie genre.

In recent months I have developed a minor bladder irritation that makes a visit to the cinema impossible without an ‘incontinence pouch’. Despite manufacturer guarantees, on my last visit to the cinema (to see NOTTING HILL) the bag split open during the course of the movie. The ensuing events are best left to the imagination; suffice to say my desire to visit the cinema has been somewhat stifled.

I think I can sum myself up pretty well here. I really think that atmospheric film scoring--while it is certainly something perhaps liberal/contemporary in the film scoring art form, lacks skill and does not weave a film together successfully; it fails to really paint a musical picture--to tell a story. This is the first and most crucial element of film music.

As characters in a (linear narrative) film are introduced with a plot line and then the story is developed from there, so too the music should be. It should be reflective of this in the overwhelming number of cases.

First off, I found Goldsmith's score to U.S. MARSHALS (which I just bought on DVD and watched) to be fantastic. The music certainly conveyed moods, and it told a story. The theme is like a slick, contemporary version of a heroic western theme--Gerard and the other agents are like John Wayne-type cowboys in their respective era.

HOLLOW MAN is wonderfully done; I feel very capable of expressing my satisfaction with the project in general. I'm sorry you can't yet see it.

I just believe, and very strongly, using the logic I have in a previous paragraph, that, a film composer must make the drama comprehendible to us, the audience. You are dead on when you say that the composer is the servant of the film. I might modify this to say that really, he is the servant of the AUDIENCE. He is there for the audience's benefit. He helps them to suspend disbelief and to become part of the world created for them in a movie.

I think that theme and variation, that concept, is best for what an audience demands.

You continually say that James Horner is the personification of all that is great about film music nowadays. I believe--no, wait, he has--taken Goldsmith's ideas right from him and employed them himself. ZORRO is a great example, and a fine score. (My problem with Horner though continues to be his lack of compositional skill and integrity, although this matters not much more to me during the course of a film as it does to you.)

I also just watched STAR TREK IV on DVD, having purchased that today as well. In terms of continuity and development, Rosenman did a fantastic job on this score, especially with varying his theme. The Russian cues were fascinating permutations of his thematic material. Really great, except there goes my reputation because I've officially said I enjoyed this score....

Thank you for your kind words, but my bladder ‘complaint’ really is nothing. In fact, the specialist I have been seeing decided the problem wasn’t worth an operation and that it would mend itself with time.

So, please don’t imagine me wandering around with an incontinence bag strapped to me all of the time.

I lead a completely normal life. I work, drink, walk and smoke, and like most people, I often go for hours without having to urinate; but when I do, because of my current bladder condition, it may lead to two or three involuntary evacuations over the subsequent, sometimes uncomfortable, ten minutes.

Therefore, even if I hadn’t suffered a ruptured ‘incontinence pouch' during NOTTING HILL, on balance, it just isn’t worth the hassle of going to the cinema for the time being, especially when there are more than enough movies to watch at home and you don’t have to wait too long for new movies to turn up on video or satellite anyway; besides, a commode is far more accommodating.

I heard a day or two ago that Goldsmith may be scoring ALONG CAME A SPIDER for EDGE director Lee Tamahori; this would come out in the late fall, I imagine. (I already posted this at the Goldsmith/Future thread, but I've found that not everybody clicks everything.) The film is the prequel to KISS THE GIRLS, with much the same cast, including Morgan Freeman. I have no idea what it's going to be like, except probably an improvement over KISS THE GIRLS, due to the involvement of Tamahori. Mark Isham is credited as the composer in the current IMDb listing, and he did score the previous film in the cycle, so it only makes sense, but now I'm hearing it's Goldsmith. Who knows? I don't. Yet.

Thank you for clarifying further your film-scoring theory; please allow me to expand upon my opinions.

I totally agree with you when you say Horner lacks compositional integrity, owing to his frequent plagiarism and re-use of his own music. However, in my opinion, this fact does not undermine his ability to provide a movie with the required musical score; in fact, I believe that Horner’s willingness to re-use existing music (his and other composers’) helps to ensure that he does provide his movies with the most appropriate music. You see, I don’t see why the same piece of music cannot be used in two or more different movies. I’m not just talking about sequels of course. My point is that each individual movie is a completely separate entity, and it is how the music works for the movie in hand that really matters, not whether or not the music was used a couple of movies ago, having already been lifted from Khachaturian or whoever. After all, you get to see the same actor (often playing the same ‘character’) in different movies (I mean, Joe Pesci is almost always the same, whatever movie he appears in), so why not re-use the ‘same’ or ‘similar’ music, just so long as it is appropriate. Indeed, it is quite frequently the case that famous popular and classical music is incorporated into a film score often to work in the same way as ‘original dramatic score’. Apart from Horner’s uncredited reusing of famous pieces of other composers’ music, you often get to hear something like Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde working as dramatic score. It’s effectiveness in HUMORESQUE was in no way undermined because it was also used in A FAREWELL TO ARMS.

I also agree that Horner has learned a great deal from Jerry Goldsmith’s approach to film scoring. Not only has Horner overtly re-used the occasional Goldsmith thematic idea, but he has also extensively re-used many of Goldsmith’s innovative musical devices and film-scoring techniques, as have many other current composers, especially Debney, Silvestri, Young, and Newton Howard. But this is only natural; whilst Goldsmith was at the height of his powers he helped redefine the art of film-scoring, less through individual influential scores such as STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, but mainly through his collective output. It is often very easy to recognize Goldsmith’s music, more so than most composers, simply by the distinctive musical devices that Goldsmith pioneered during the 60s and 70s. The fact that many of Goldsmith’s film-scoring ‘inventions’ can now be heard in other composers’ music is a tribute to Goldsmith’s profound impact on the world of film-scoring.

In short, though Goldsmith may be a better composer of music than Horner, but I think Horner is a better film composer.

However, it is a strange paradox that during the 90s, those many composers (including Horner) who have been overtly influenced by Goldsmith’s ‘hey-day accomplishments’, have re-used and further developed Goldsmith’s innovative and original musical devices with far more inventiveness than Goldsmith himself, in my opinion. In fact, whilst Horner et al, have built on Goldsmith’s strengths, Goldsmith himself seems to have merely recycled his weakest and most redundant musical ideas.

Apart from that, whilst I respect your opinion and knowledge of the art of composing for film Bulldog, I believe the film score is far less important as a cohesive and unified composition than as a magnifier and/or interpreter of onscreen events, subtext, and images for the audience’s elucidation. Whilst musical thematic unity is desirable and often important in a movie-score, I believe it is far less important than music’s ability to provide pointers for the audience, to reinforce the movie’s agenda, to amplify emotion, to reinforce or even create atmosphere, and to link scenes. To do this, thematic unity and musical structure is of secondary importance. The reverse is true of music intended for stand-alone consumption, where strong thematic strands are vital, and colouring and superficials less so (but still necessary to a certain degree).

If you like, the movie itself provides the necessary backbone (the equivalent of a stand-alone composition’s thematic base) to any individual film score. A movie’s agenda and its oft linear narrative equate to a stand-alone work’s carefully constructed thematic unity so vital to a symphony’s success. Beethoven’s Symphony Number 5 is perhaps, even amongst Beethoven’s work, the most accomplished work of musical symmetry and technical excellence ever written, as well as being an immensely entertaining work. Though the 5th symphony is far removed from the written programme or broadcast agenda of a Tone Poem (Beethoven’s 5th is the closest thing to pure music), the 5th is still about something. Beethoven’s 5th is best thought of as a magnificent and technically brilliant celebration of music itself, but it also happens to be brimming with positive emotion, something that rubs off onto the listener – it’s like a call to arms. Therefore, even the most pure of musical compositions has some kind of agenda or purpose. And yet, it is the thematic strength of Beethoven’s 5th that is so vital in propelling the symphony. That thematic strength, ie the three or four related thematic elements that makes the entire symphony so memorable, are all positive and uplifting, that is the 5th symphony’s agenda.

Thus, the equivalent of Beethoven’s 5th symphony thematics in a movie, is the movie’s plot and agenda. Therefore, the movie composer, in my opinion, should concentrate on accentuating the agenda of the movie (ie the existing theme), the plot dynamics, the character motivations, the geographical locale, the mood etc etc etc. The movie itself provides the film score’s ‘thematic’ framework. In fact, too much thematic unity or musical structure in a film score can have a detrimental effect on the movie as a whole, especially when the thematic material is weak – Goldsmith’s score to US MARSHALS is a prime example of this, in my opinion. The music can become intrusive, inappropriate and out of context. Indeed, I felt that Goldsmith’s score to US MARSHALS overwhelmed the movie at times, not just through the volume of the music, but Goldsmith’s determination to force his own, I believe incongruous, inappropriate and outmoded, musical sensibilities on the movie. Goldsmith’s simplistic and ponderous thematic material actively damages US MARSHALS’ potential success – though it wasn’t a particularly good movie anyway. Indeed, if CITY HALL had been a better movie (and therefore stood a chance of making some money), I would not have been surprised to see Goldsmith’s lacklustre score rejected – indeed, there were rumours of John Barry replacing Goldsmith on CITY HALL prior to the movie’s release. Like I say, CITY HALL and US MARSHALS had music that said too much, and the weakness of the thematic material in each case merely accentuated the inappropriate nature of Goldsmith’s work.

What Goldsmith’s 90s work often lacked, was even the slightest vestige of subtlety. To my mind, subtlety is one of the most important facets of any film composers’ armoury of skills that he applies to his movies. After all, usually, music in a movie shouldn’t be heard, it should be absorbed – music in film, usually, shouldn’t be too noticeable, but should be absorbed as an important element of what the movie represents. If the music becomes too noticeable, as I believe it was in US MARSHALS, the film score can actively sabotage the overall intentions of the movie – there can be a conflict of interests between the movie’s agenda and the musical agenda. If a movie is to be a convincing entertainment (this often means the audience being focused on the dialogue and the immediate vicinity of the main players), then the film music shouldn’t intrude on proceedings, unless the movie director feels the need. Dramatic score should be bubbling away under the surface – there if you want to notice it, but never becoming more important than the visuals and dialogue. For instance, much tension can be removed from a scene if the music overplays its hand. A frightening moment in a movie can be made more frightening with the judicious use of music, but such a frightening moment can also be rendered impotent by the use of the wrong music. Having said all of that, there are plenty of times when film music should be loud, powerful, deep, complex and thematically cohesive. Indeed, it’s a bit of an obvious statement (I’m not being condescending here, I’m just emphasizing my point), but when Janet Leigh was stabbed to death in the shower scene in PSYCHO, there would, of course, not have been massed strings accompanying her bloody demise had it been real life – but Hitchcock still used film music to heighten the tension, and yet he also had to maintain the audience’s belief in the movie. Therefore, the music, powerful though it was, was made not to overwhelm the scene. Herrmann’s unforgettable shower music was still subtle because the sight of Leigh being murdered was so visually ‘shocking’ that it still overwhelmed even this most powerful of dramatic score. Music’s effectiveness in movies is not just about its volume, but also about its character or nature. These days especially, Goldsmith seems unable to write film music that has unresolved musical ideas, or music with an ambiguous quality, or music with a contemporary rhythm, or even music that is merely mood-enhancing ambience. Not only is his music often too loud (too much clunky and outmoded timpani), but it is often too thematically distinct (though thematically uninspired) and staccato-like – yes, his music is always too jerky. Goldsmith’s themes and melodies are so simplistic these days that most of the cinema audience picks up on his music too easily, not because it’s too loud, but because it is too obvious. His music is so uninventive and outmoded, that such attention is not desirable. Indeed, the film composer should allow the movie to set the agenda, and let the music merely emphasize the existing agenda, and also enhance the visuals and mood. Goldsmith’s music doesn’t create moods, more often than not, it destroys them.

Nevertheless, sometimes of course, music does come to the fore in movies – and I don’t just mean musicals, Disney cartoons, and romantic comedies where popular songs are frequently played during dialogue-free scenes. Take a movie like TOTAL RECALL. A pretty mainstream and ‘unmusical’ movie. And yet, Goldsmith was ‘allowed’ to bring his music to the fore (or at least on a par with the visuals) on a couple of occasions, most notably during ‘The Mutant’. Goldsmith’s memorable and ethereal music here was intended by the director to register fully with audience (along with the visuals). This relationship between music and visuals is continuing to mature and develop, and not just at the cinema.

When the family isn’t watching a movie or a sporting event or Scooby Doo or playing a computer-game (the kids are going wild with anticipation over Playstation 2 at the moment; apparently it doubles as a high quality DVD player aswell) or watching whatever, the television is permanently tuned-in to MTV. The kids love MTV and its associated channels, and it’s easy to see why. The television room is like a nightclub disco most of the time, Storm’s Time to Burn and Rock DJ seem to be the favourites at the moment. Many of these music videos are fabulous, it’s like the movie musical has been reborn. The visuals are superb, but it is the quality of today’s popular music that is so impressive. There’s nothing stylistically new coming out these days, but the pop music world is constantly refining and reinventing itself. Its horizons are broadening, and all styles of music are being incorporated into today’s songs. Much of the contemporary broadmindedness of the pop world is also prevalent at the cinema these days. All that remains now is for the accomplished musicians, songwriters and composers of the pop world and cinema to continue to merge.

One of the main difference between a music video and a movie is the prominence and purpose of the music. With a music video, the visuals are born out of the music; with a movie, the music is born out of the visuals. In both cases though, the music and the images are being created with greater and greater accomplishment and sophistication from all of the creative talents involved. The ongoing fusion of the world of popular music and cinema is something that I wholeheartedly welcome. Though the music video has been around for years, it is only now that the art is reaching a state of maturity. The skill and the wit of many of today’s pop songs is quite staggering, and bodes well for the future of the performing arts as a whole. As time goes by, the movie will continue to incorporate more and more of the attributes of the music video, whilst the music video continues to spearhead the development and sophistication of the marriage of music and visuals.

Now that it is confirmed that Goldsmith will work on Tamahori’s latest project, it is interesting to speculate on the composer’s approach to scoring this thriller, considering that it is a genre that Goldsmith has had little success in since BASIC INSTINCT. The apparently close Goldsmith/Tamahori working relationship may work well for ALONG CAME A SPIDER. Though I am firmly of the opinion that Goldsmith’s approach to scoring, and his limited stylist range, is most suited to horror/fantasy/sci-fi, I’m all for Goldsmith getting his teeth into genres away from horror, sci-fi and fantasy. The paucity of Goldsmith-scored urban thrillers, romantic comedies and intelligent dramas during the 90s is perhaps an accurate representation of this composer’s stylistic limitations. After all, though BASIC INSTINCT had a fine and influential Goldsmith score, by the time of THE VANISHING and MALICE (his next thriller-ish movies) Goldsmith was already repeating himself and tending to lose inspiration. This has been a major problem for Goldsmith during the 90s. There seems to have been a chronic shortage of new ideas, thus, scores in diverse genres like THE RIVER WILD, BAD GIRLS, ANGIE, CITY HALL, CHAIN REACTION and so on, have a samey sound to them, at least in the pacing and thematics of the music. Any attempts Goldsmith has made since 1992 to give his scores some sort of unique quality have failed in my opinion. The half-hearted use of sampled mandolin in ANGIE, the sampled electric guitar in CHAIN REACTION, and the ponderous and conservative use of ‘Western’ instrumentation in BAD GIRLS highlights this. Gone are the days of GREMLINS II, THE RUSSIA HOUSE and UNDER FIRE, with their authentic and accomplished use of distinctive stylistics and instrumental forces. Each of those scores had its own ‘voice’, its own character, a certain individuality that is both expected, and yet welcome.