It is my belief that during the 90’s, filmmakers, and indeed cinema-goers, have become increasingly sophisticated, intelligent, mature, and most importantly, BROADMINDED. The result of this has been a stream of great films, recapturing the spirit of the 30’s and 40’s, and a cinema-going public that has fully appreciated what Hollywood has been producing…..record box office returns has been Hollywood’s reward. All of this has happened DESPITE the tidal wave of political correctness that has swept through western culture in recent years. Otherwise entertaining movies, such as LAST OF THE MOHICANS, BRAVEHEART, NATURAL BORN KILLERS, GOODFELLAS, and PULP FICTION have been rendered impotent and lame by political-correctness. Even the initially potent LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS later descended into a tame and pat exercise in political correctness.

The modern film composer has also become more sophisticated, versatile, intelligent, mature, and most importantly, BROADMINDED. The successful application of contemporary musical sensibilities has not only led to countless excellent 90’s film scores, but also to the ascendance of a growing number of sophisticated and versatile film composers.

So, what is CMS (contemporary musical sensibilities)? The film composer who successfully applies CMS basically gives his movie the most appropriate musical style based on the nature of the movie, AND he also successfully communicates the essence of the movie to the majority of the contemporary cinema-going public. Because the development of music, cinema and society in general has reached unprecedented heights of sophistication and broadmindedness in my opinion, the correct application of CMS allows the film composer to increasingly broaden the scope of his film music. These days it is often quite acceptable, in my opinion, for a film composer to apply contemporary musical styles and instrumentation to movies set in any era. Horner’s superb work on BRAVEHEART is a perfect example of the fusion of the traditional orchestra and contemporary popular stylings – Horner’s BRAVEHEART is a flagship CMS score, to my mind.

However, I feel it is very important for me to point out that my interpretation of CMS does NOT mean all scores SHOULD incorporate modern pop and jazz music….far from it. The inappropriate application of pop stylings is just as much a failing as the avoidance of pop and jazz colourings when they are actually required. For instance, Zimmer’s brilliant work on AS GOOD AS IT GETS or Newton Howard’s equally excellent MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING I believe to be exquisite CLASSICALLY orientated scores…..and yet were very successfully CMS, to my mind.

Those composers who have wholeheartedly embraced CMS, and that goes for most current and successful composers, from Elfman to Williams to Zimmer to Horner, are now creating film scores of increasing sophistication and intelligence.

CMS has less to do with thematic strength and MUSICAL structure, and is more about the film score successfully communicating the essence of what is going on in the movie to the CONTEMPORARY audience.

Having said all of that, some may be under the impression that I dislike early cinema and film scores. Nothing could be further from the truth. My favourite film composers have always been, and still are, Max Steiner and Alfred Newman. And you know what? I believe they were both successful exponents of CMS in THEIR day too. I see Horner and Zimmer as the Steiner and Newman of contemporary cinema. Their approach and styles may be dissimilar, but the success of their film scoring is comparable….to my mind.

As I have said, I believe there is plenty of room in the modern film score for the traditional orchestra, or at least elements of it. It is the successful fusion of the traditional and the modern that composers like Elfman, Horner and especially The Zimmer School are so adept at. Even the most successful film composer of all time, John Williams, has adapted to modern trends with apparent ease. Williams has continued to grow as a film composer and has maintained his number one status, I believe, thanks in no small measure to his enthusiastic application of CMS over a wide range of projects.

Earlier, I said that CMS wasn’t really about thematic strength or musical form and structure, something JJH eloquently encapsulated earlier. Indeed, as JJH said, film music itself isn’t just about thematic strength and structure either, in my opinion. Of course, thematic strength and unity, AND structure and form are a PART of writing music for film, but style, mood-setting, source music, and familiarity are just as important elements. Indeed, one could argue that music written for film SHOULD be familiar and NOT necessarily original. What better way of scoring a picture is there than to incorporate elements of Holst’s Mars, for instance, into your score to depict a massing army or suchlike. Not only is the music undeniably appropriate to the nature of war, but Mars may be familiar to those with only scant knowledge of Holst’s Planets Suite. Mars is a very famous piece of music, most people will recognize it and appreciate its connotations, even if they do not know it was originally written by Holst.

And that is where modern film scoring is at. Throughout the past seventy years, film composers have borrowed, rearranged, recycled, adapted and quoted existing music…..from Steiner to Goldsmith to Zimmer. But, it is today that the art of applying the ‘right’ music to the movie has reached unprecedented heights of achievement.

I fully accept that the creation of original and musically-coherent scores HAS maybe declined in favour of a less musically distinct approach to scoring. Though that may have meant a diminution in the effectiveness of film music away from the intended movie, I firmly believe that film music heard within its intended movie has reached new heights of attainment, sophistication and intelligence.

The modern film score isn’t really about creating original music that also works well away from the movie on an album. Today’s film music triumphs within the movie as it has never done before. Composers such as Zimmer and Horner are not only skilled composers of original music, they also have the courage to recycle their own material and incorporate other peoples musical ideas into their scores. In other words, they attempt to give their movies everything the MOVIE musically requires, and care little for preserving any misplaced artistic integrity. The great thing is, Zimmer and Horner don’t appear to take THEIR music too seriously. By that I mean they don’t seem to see THEIR music, in its itself, as being the important thing….it is how their music, or whoever’s music they quote, works for the movie that matters to them…..they appear to be wholeheartedly and unflinchingly committed to providing their movies with exactly what they musically require. My only slight concern here is that maybe the source of their borrowings or adaptations should be credited at the end of the movie – but that’s just a ‘technical’ issue.

Because of this pragmatic approach from the modern film composer, I believe everybody wins. The movies are served well and unselfishly by the film composer, and the audience is rewarded with dramatic score of the greatest effectiveness.

And it’s all down to CMS….in my opinion.

It is the broadminded nature of today’s cinema that allows the successful exponent of CMS to flourish, be he Williams, Horner or Zimmer. Rather than LIMIT the scope of the modern composer, today’s ‘open’ cinema allows the whole range of musical styles to be applied to film by a growing pool of talented, versatile and sophisticated composers. CMS is the thing….as long as the music is appropriate to the movie…..anything goes.

The right sound is a decision left primarily to the director and composer as they work through the collaborative process. The artistic and musical virtue or lack thereof are what determine the final quality of the score.

I was watching Crimson Tide (score by Zimmer, of course) a few weeks ago on TV and was very impressed with the music. I think it is easier for Zimmer to be in touch with CMS because of his age. Call that a cop-out if you wish, but he's about 30 years younger than some of the other composers in the business (read: Goldsmith or Williams) and I think that the age difference obviously leads to a different scoring approach.

I like to compare the musical tastes of my Grandfather (in his early seventies) and my father (in his late fourties). Granddad likes to listen to Perry Como and has every Frank Sinatra disc on earth. My dad is a fan of heavy metal. Can a man in his seventies like heavy metal music? Certainly, but it's not typical.

Thank you for your thoughtful and succinct response. I agree with your sentiments to a large degree – though I do believe John Williams to be an expert exponent of CMS – I would cite his score to SLEEPERS as a perfect example of his CMS abilities. However, I should clarify my belief that the application of CMS to a film score does not necessarily prohibit the use of traditional orchestra – I see CMS as the skilled application of appropriate musical stylistics and instrumentation based on the nature of the movie and the current state of society’s musical sensibilities. Therefore I see Zimmer’s smashing score to AS GOOD AS IT GETS as being perfectly CMS, even though it is thoroughly traditional in orchestration and stylistics. I see modern society welcoming and embracing all forms of music, including jazz, rock, classical, Celtic, Latin etc, to a far greater degree today than ever before. I believe this broadmindedness and sophistication is reflected in many of today’s great movie scores. The following essay expands further on my interpretation of CMS, and includes a description of John Williams’ CMS-excellent score to SLEEPERS.

CON AIR – A STUDY IN EXCELLENCE

Being one of the most accomplished and fulfilling dramatic scores to come from the ‘Zimmer School’, Mancina and Rabin’s “Con Air” is a frontrunner, along with the equally stunning “Armageddon” and “Face/Off” and of course much of Horner’s output (especially “Titanic”), as the most successful score of the 90’s, in my opinion. The ‘Zimmer School’, their trademarks being complete professionalism, an unerring ability to communicate contemporary musical sensibilities (CMS) to the cinema-going public, unrivalled compositional skill, and consummate versatility, have produced a seemingly unending stream of excellent movie scores during the past decade, of which “Con Air”, to me, is their crowning glory.

Powerful thematic material, slick orchestration, a contemporary musical attitude, and brilliant use of acoustic guitar (alternatively solo string passages in “Armageddon”) in the tender scenes, are all attributes almost completely absent from Jerry Goldsmith’s work from the same period.
The ‘Zimmer School’s’ ability to ‘score the picture’, is completely at odds with Goldsmith’s determination to ‘fit the movie’ to his own, I believe, hopelessly outmoded and conservative musical sensibilities. “Con Air”, being a fun film, needed a fun score, a score that mirrored onscreen events by entering into the spirit of the movie, totally unlike Goldsmith’s apparent attempts to banalify his projects with suffocating and cloying flute, harp, oboe, strings, brass, clunky drums - and not much else, and then to distort the attitude of the movies he scores, with his knob-kerrie and tub of marmalade. Goldsmith’s scores tend to have a sobering influence on his movies, whilst Zimmer et al, enhance the excitement of their projects.

Goldsmith, in a way, takes HIS job TOO seriously. His apparent attitude is that film scoring is far more important, IN IT’S OWN RIGHT, than it actually is. Yes, writing a dramatic score is an art form, but it is only a PART of a larger and more complex art form, that art form being the movie as a whole, and the music should complement and support the movie as a whole, not work against it or become a distraction or be inappropriate. Without the movie, there would be no film music, yet Goldsmith often gives me the impression, through his attitude and music, that he believes the music to film is on the SAME plain as the movie itself, and is of similar importance, and that film music is more than just a supporting player in the complex web of components that make up a movie.

Certainly, judging by his recent comments about today’s movie composer’s over-use of synthesizers, Goldsmith appears to be forgetting that the movie needs the most appropriate musical sound that the composer can muster, and that there should be NO perceived boundaries or obstacles to the composer, least of all Goldsmith’s own conservative and retrograde belief that a film score should be restricted by, ‘The Goldsmith doctrine of conservative musical sensibilities’. Goldsmith NEEDS the movies to enable him to create film scores, but the movies don’t NEED Goldsmith. Times change, and so do the movies. Today’s films DO benefit from the increased use of synthesizers, and Goldsmith’s belief that this is not the case, only reinforces my opinion that Goldsmith’s presence within today’s film industry, though welcome, is however incongruous. In fact, I believe it to be the broad-minded, sophisticated and tolerant nature of today’s film industry that allows Goldsmith to continue to thrive. Goldsmith’s apparently snarling distaste for the changing nature, and increasing sophistication, of cinema, film music and music as a whole, does expose some ‘muddled’ thinking on his part – it appears to me to be a case of Goldsmith biting the hand that feeds him.

This situation reminds me of a wonderful musical biopic of Sigmund Romberg, “Deep in my Heart”. Jose Ferrer gave one of THE great performances, in the role of the Viennese/American composer. I always remember early in the movie, Romberg having to be coaxed and cajoled into updating his act. His music was nice, waltzy, Austrian, sweet and sometimes bittersweet, but in the early twentieth century times were changing and American producers and audiences were hungry for jazz, and up-tempo dance stylings. Eventually Romberg did relent, and embraced the musical sensibilities of the time with great success, and yet, he never jettisoned the qualities that made him a great composer in the first place, and in fact continued to compose exactly what he wanted when he was able, that being sweet and sentimental songs.

Goldsmith could learn a lot from the Romberg story. Firstly, with music, as with anything else, time never stands still. Secondly, embracing contemporary musical sensibilities does not necessitate the jettisoning of ones own musical sensibilities, the two can work together, or at least can be applied at the appropriate time. And thirdly, Romberg’s fame and success was only achieved by the composer compromising with public taste and contemporary musical sensibilities, thus, his popularity assured, he was then able in later life to expose and perform his true love, the sentimental melodies, at Carnegie Hall, to an admiring public – however, if he had steadfastly refused to break away from his own conservative musical sensibilities, he would have simply perpetuated his relative anonymity, a situation that Goldsmith now faces, he being almost the longest serving, and yet least well known, of all of the ‘A-list’ composers.

So, Romberg, by meeting popular taste halfway, then found his personal preference, the gentle and sentimental aspect of his music, being warmly appreciated by a far wider audience than would have been the case if he hadn’t incorporated contemporary sensibilities into his music and given the public a reason, or a ‘hook’, to look further into Romberg’s repertoire. You see, Goldsmith could still produce his soppy and ponderous “First Knight”’s when the nature of the movie allowed him, whilst at the same time embracing and employing contemporary musical sensibilities, a more ‘adult’ and unresolved sound and style, plus the application of overtly contemporary musical styles, even throwing in the odd song (witness the incredible success of the Horner/Dion collaboration), when REQUIRED. Thus, a larger proportion of society, if not the majority, might warm to, and appreciate more, this composers complete repertoire. As it stands, hardly anyone is likely to appreciate any of Goldsmith’s work, simply because his current output DOESN’T embrace contemporary musical sensibilities and there are not those ‘hook’ works that grab the attention of the public, like Horner’s “Titanic”, and Williams’ “Star Wars”, so there is no reason for the public to take any notice of Goldsmith. Of course, Goldsmith probably doesn’t crave recognition, and certainly his conservative and non-contemporaneous output of the 90’s would suggest this, but it is an interesting situation, to find an important member of the film industry, like Goldsmith, positively avoiding the chance to ‘make a name for himself’. I mean, the film composer is in the enviable position of being able to write a whole range of musical styles, and has the option of writing attention-grabbing popular songs, as Horner has done. The possibilities that his profession offers him, seem lost on Goldsmith. As I say, it’s entirely up to Goldsmith, he is sought after and he is extremely well paid, but it is just interesting to ponder what ‘might have been’.

I am reminded of the words of Henri Frederick Amiel, “OUR DUTY IS TO BE USEFUL, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR DESIRES, BUT ACCORDING TO OUR POWERS” – Goldsmith should take note. He seems to think his own conservative ‘musical sensibilities’ can be forced upon a movie, whatever the genre. Goldsmith gives me the impression his first loyalty is to music (HIS music), in its purest sense, his second loyalty being to the movie – perhaps he is in the wrong profession. Sure, Goldsmith IS a fine composer (at least technically), but maybe his temperament, conservative musical character and ‘single-mindedness’ are NOT best suited to the requirements of movie scoring. Setting the ‘tone’ of a movie through music, is just as important, if not more so, as composing film music that makes ‘musical’ sense and is certainly just as important as scoring individual scenes. Therefore, a score comprising little ‘musical’ sense, can be just as successful as a film score, as a complex symphonic masterpiece, sometimes more so.

However, Goldsmith usually FAILS to create the required musical character his movies require these days anyway, AND, somewhat less importantly from my point of view, fails to create particularly compelling music in it’s own right. Take Horner, his musically slight score to “The Devil’s Own” is equally excellent AS FILM MUSIC, to his huge, symphonic, complex, and magnificent “Krull”. The only thing that is important to the movie, and to the cinema audience (me included), is that the music works for the film, irrespective of the depth of the music per se. This is a concept Goldsmith seems to fail to grasp. Goldsmith tries TOO hard to give his scores ‘musical’ meaning (a start, middle, and end), and considering his, I believe, dramatic decline in use of thematic material, Goldsmith fails anyway to produce music, during 93-98, that is any more than mediocre, in it’s purest sense. Goldsmith could ‘get away with’ his recent inability to create strong and original thematic material, by providing more ambiguous scores, soundscapes and ambience, and by incorporating contemporary musical sensibilities, that would appeal to public and RESPECTED film makers alike. As it is, the movies Goldsmith has scored during the 90’s, with very few exceptions, have been very forgettable and the sort of film that doesn’t appeal to the majority. I mean, you listen to a group of ‘normal’ people talking about the movies they like in a pub say, and they’ll mention “Sleepless in Seattle”, “Seven”, and “As Good as it Gets”, you know, that sort of thing, the sort of movie that producers will NOT hire Goldsmith to score, and if they did, the results, judging by his work, 93-98, would be less than satisfactory. Additionally, it is amazing the growing number of people I come across who positively despise Star Trek, another substandard element of cinema that Goldsmith has been, fittingly, saddled with. However, many of these people, myself included, pine for the sixties series, or at least miss it. A fun, camp, and distinctive sixties original has been replaced by a cringemaking, embarrassing, politically correct, repetitive, and extremely dull farrago during the 80’s and 90’s.

By attempting to maintain his own ‘musical values’, Goldsmith fails to give the movie EVERYTHING it requires. Zimmer, Horner and Elfman, are willing to compromise, to adapt to the REQUIRED attitude of the movie, they put the movie first, and any musical considerations, in it’s purest sense, second. For example, Goldsmith seems to find it difficult to accept that often things in life (and movies) remain unresolved, and music should do too – cinema, like life itself, just isn’t, ‘and they all lived happily ever after’ – at least not every time. His music is almost always too ‘nice’ (without being warm), and simply too ‘tame’ when it should be ‘strong’. These extremely boring and cumbersome action passages, such as those heard in “The Ghost and the Darkness”, “Chain Reaction”, and a host of others, merely induce catatonia. A slick, smooth and ‘cool’ contemporary sound is what is required, as Zimmer invariably provides, not the distracting, jagged and jarring orchestral cacophony that Goldsmith provides – fine in “Planet of the Apes”, sorely misplaced in “US Marshals”.

I mean, how on earth could his ‘Villa’s Theme’ from “Fierce Creatures” fit into “Two Days in the Valley” successfully, as apparently Goldsmith originally composed this admittedly very ‘nice’ theme for that rejected score. No wonder the producer’s opted to reject Goldsmith’s “Two Days in the Valley” if ‘Willa’s Theme’ is an example of what Goldsmith gave this movie. The only truly successful ‘adult-scoring’ from Goldsmith since 1992, was at the very beginning of the cell brawl in “LA Confidential”. ‘Bloody Christmas’ began with an urgent synth rhythm, and a particularly smooth contemporary feel, before lapsing into the all-too-familiar combination of thunderous brass and hollow, clunky acoustic drums. This deafeningly ‘acoustic’, and seemingly omnipresent, aspect of Goldsmith’s 90’s style would be easier to accept if there were more passages of contemporary smoothness, as heard at the beginning of ‘Bloody Christmas’.

Movies like “Two Days in the Valley” are definite cases of ‘style over substance’ (movies that require musical subtlety, hazy stylings, and unresolved musical ideas, and NOT Goldsmith’s penchant for thematic exactness, ‘sonata form’ and resolution), and are no less entertaining for it. And, these are just the sort of movies that Goldsmith seems to be wholly unsuited to, movies that require unresolved musical ideas, subtle shadings, and brooding ambience. Goldsmith can’t help himself, he seems compelled to attempt to score all of his movies with a start, middle and end, fine for childish entertainment like “The Mummy”, but completely inappropriate, contrived and naff for movies like “Two Days in the Valley”. It wouldn’t be so bad if Goldsmith had created ‘great’ music in it’s own right during the period 93-98, but in my opinion his music during that period has been almost totally devoid of musical interest, whilst at the same time not serving the movie for which the music was written to anywhere near a satisfactory level.

Goldsmith appears to be the only ‘A-list’ composer who patronizes cinema audiences, spelling out the nature of the movie in a musical language of Sesame Street simplicity. ‘Willa’s Theme’ was fine for a movie like “Fierce Creatures”, but this probably INAPPROPRIATE application of ‘Willa’s Theme’ within “Two Days in the Valley”, is a prime example of what I have been trying to say for some time. Goldsmith seems intent on writing what he wants to first, whilst attempting to satisfy the requirements of the movie second. All of these ‘Goldsmith weaknesses’ are exacerbated, and further emphasized, by the composer’s pronounced conservatism these days. I am reminded of the fine words of Andre Gide, ‘ONE DOESN’T DISCOVER NEW LANDS WITHOUT CONSENTING TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE SHORE FOR A VERY LONG TIME’. Well musically speaking, Goldsmith has been in dry-dock for much of the 90’s. It’s funny, to me, the best part of Goldsmith’s score to US Marshals was the synth ambience he created for the ‘car park shooting’ scenes – that’s the only time the score was really effective, apart from ‘Eyes on the City’ – the only elements of the score coming anywhere near the level of subtlety and sophistication of the ‘Zimmer School’. Almost all of the rest of his score to “US Marshals” was dull, conservative, ponderous and inappropriate – often the music was more likely to induce a headache, rather than inspire excitement.

One finds it difficult to imagine how a Goldsmith score would fit into the smooth 90’s slickness of “Con Air” and “Armageddon”, though his ponderous, clumsy and unimaginative “Air Force One” and “US Marshals”, provide disturbing pointers. It is astonishing to witness how Goldsmith’s narrowing and narrow-minded compositional style and attitude to his movies these days, prevents him from SUCCESSFULLY scoring a rapidly increasing pool of genres. Small wonder then that almost all of Goldsmith’s 90’s works are for childish and forgettable movies.

Now, take Newton Howard, a composer who has achieved success by dint of great effort across a wide range of genres, and, interestingly, a composer obviously influenced by Goldsmith. Not only has this composer improved on Goldsmith, (when one can detect the Goldsmith influence in his scores (such as “The Postman”)), Newton Howard has done so much more, in so many different genres. Take his seemingly effortless work on “My Best Friend’s Wedding”. Elegant and witty, and once again one can imagine, with a mixture of amusement and exasperation, a Goldsmith score to this entertaining and stylish movie being as jarringly inappropriate as Lambrusco at a wine connoisseurs convention. “My Best Friend’s Wedding” is another perfect example of a score oozing with contemporary musical sensibilities, and yet WITHOUT employing ‘hip’ contemporary styles and instrumentation, though the score is complemented by excellent use of songs. In fact, Newton Howard’s classically orchestral “My Best Friend’s Wedding” was ten times more successful at capturing contemporary musical sensibilities than Goldsmith’s synth-heavy “Chain Reaction”. Unbelievable as it may seem, Goldsmith managed to reduce the contemporary nature of the instrumentation employed on “Chain Reaction”, to the same level of sophistication as a boatswain’s whistle.

You see, Newton Howard will provide an appropriately ‘action’ orientated score, that may put one in mind of Goldsmith, when it is required. However, give him a different genre, such as “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, and he’ll produce a score a million miles away from the orchestral nobility of “The Postman”, but just as appropriate to the genre and satisfying in it’s own way. “My Best Friend’s Wedding” is just the sort of smart and stylish movie that Goldsmith seems incapable of scoring effectively, which is probably why he isn’t asked to score such movies. I can’t think of another film composer, and there are dozens, who would be less appropriate a choice to score a movie like “My Best Friends Wedding” and any number of other successful modern movies, be they romantic or drama. Goldsmith’s simple, unsophisticated, orchestral and un-cool style is only suited to the most obvious and childlike movies.

Take Williams’s “Sleepers”. Here is a composer who has done everything Goldsmith has done, only ten times better, and so much more as well. His “Sleepers” was perfect for the movie, smooth, contemporary and often unresolved. I dread to think what Goldsmith would have done with this movie, perhaps his weak “City Hall” provides an indication. You know, some people have explained Goldsmith’s “Angie” score, by saying “Angie” had no agenda for Goldsmith to get his teeth into, hence his disappointing, to say the least, score (though I do recognize that many have registered delight at this score). I totally disagree with this point of view. “Angie” did have an agenda, it did have a story, it did have strong characters and there was a clear plot to the movie. Goldsmith failed here because of his conservative compositional style, his avoidance of modern musical culture, and his insistence on creating a score that, often unnecessarily, makes MUSICAL sense – to put it simply, Goldsmith was TOTALLY unsuited to this project. The amazing thing is, I can’t think of one other film composer, past or present, who I would say ‘isn’t suited’ to a particularly genre – this ONLY applies to GOLDSMITH.

Goldsmith tends to force his ponderous, unsophisticated and banal mono-style on whatever genre he is scoring, be it First Knight or Angie. Absurd it may seem, but First Knight and Angie had an awful lot in common, you knew straight away that Jerry Goldsmith, he of the mono-90’s-style, was responsible for both scores, not because of the positive aspects of those scores (there weren’t many anyway), but because of the incredibly numerous deficiencies and similarities that littered both compositions – stylistically both scores were SO similar – they were obvious, simplistic and fatally lacking in 90’s musical sensibilities. And just about every other score Goldsmith has done, 93-98, can be bracketed within the same category of underachievement. There is no doubt in my mind that Goldsmith has the potential to be so much more accomplished as a composer of film music with contemporary attitude, however gaining experience is one thing, learning from experience is another. I am reminded of the words of Rene Descartes, ‘IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE A GOOD MIND; THE MAIN THING IS TO USE IT WELL’. And as Einstein himself said, ‘IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE’.

The differences between Newton Howard’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding” and “The Postman”, are enough to confirm this composer’s versatility and justly accredited “A-list” status. Goldsmith’s “A-list” status is ONLY fuelled by the reputation he had built up in the previous three decades – a body of work that on reflection, and with the passing of time, is beginning to look somewhat diminished in attainment – THE MAGIC IS FADING. As the sophistication of film composition grows at a rapidly increasing rate these days, Goldsmith’s existing portfolio diminishes in importance.
Of course, some may say that the ‘Zimmer School’ has a similar sound from movie to movie, at least in the action/fantasy genres, just like Goldsmith has a similar sound from movie to movie, but my argument is that the ‘Zimmer School’, by having the ability to communicate with modern audiences through the expert deployment of contemporary musical sensibilities, has hit upon THE most successful formula. Zimmer, and his entourage, almost always sound great, Goldsmith almost always sounds clunky and ‘not of this time’. Take Silvestri’s excellent ‘Predator’ scores. I know we’re going back a bit now, but these two movies and their music helped to define the ‘typical’ 90’s multi-genre entertainment that most of the cinema-going public are lapping up these days. His “Predator 2” had everything, it musically combined the urban setting with the ‘fantastic’ elements of the movie seamlessly, something that composers (except Goldsmith) and directors alike, now do instinctively. I say unlike Goldsmith, and yet, witness his superb score to “Total Recall”, up there with the best scores of the period - complex, exciting, diverse and progressive – WHAT HAPPENED to Goldsmith after 1992?

Looking back on the 90’s, it is fascinating to observe just how many genres have become alien to Goldsmith’s rapidly diminishing talents. The adult drama, the crime drama, the urban thriller, the urban drama, the romantic comedy, the romantic drama, and so on – all of these genres being those areas of cinema that are taken more seriously by critics, audiences, and HISTORY, alike. It’s strange that Goldsmith has worked on a much broader range of genres during the 90’s than he did during the 70’s and 80’s (though that isn’t saying much considering his pigeon-holing as a composer of non-serious fantasy scores during the 70’s and 80’s) , and yet, just as he has been given the chance to score a broader range of movies, his powers have diminished to their lowest point, and he seems unable or unwilling to produce a necessarily broad range of musical scores with contemporary musical sensibilities. Having said that, though he has been given movies covering a broader range of genres than he has been used to for quite some time, the movies themselves have, with a only a few exceptions, been lame genre entries. Goldsmith is stuck with appropriately dumb action movies (US Marshals), juvenile comedies (IQ), hollow blockbusters (The Haunting) and so on, movies that are either forgotten with time, or viewed, with hindsight, with derision. Goldsmith has side-stepped movies requiring musical wit, depth and a contemporary attitude with great dexterity, or is it that producers of these movies have avoided him? I BELIEVE IT IS A MIXTURE OF THE TWO.

Thus, Goldsmith has escaped the spectre of rejection more successfully than if he had been given more successful movies to score. I firmly believe that Goldsmith has produced some very lame scores, particularly during the period 93-98, not because the movies are poor (though they are), not because schedules are tight (though they can be), not because of interference from producers and directors, but SIMPLY BECAUSE GOLDSMITH HIMSELF HAS DECLINED – NO OTHER REASON. If Goldsmith had been given Titanic, Men in Black, Mission Impossible, a Bond film, or any number of other successful and popular movies of the 90’s, I believe his work would have run the risk, a very high risk, of rejection. It is because the movies he has worked on have been poor, Bad Girls, the Schepisi movies, Chain Reaction and so on, that producers have often decided to ‘live’ with Goldsmith’s score. The producers and directors may actually LIKE what Goldsmith did on “Bad Girls” or “Chain Reaction”, but that only shows THEIR lack of judgement also – after all, any director who came up with “Bad Girls” must suffer from a serious case of MISJUDGEMENT on all things cinema-related. So, if Goldsmith was given movies that would have to ‘stretch’ him, I believe then he would be ‘found out’.

Goldsmith has become an enigma – many who have had a keen interest in cinema for some years, quite rightly, refer to his ‘importance’ and influence within the world of film composition, and yet, at the same time, may find it difficult to remember why he is so “IMPORTANT”, simply because it has been so long since Goldsmith has provided a great SCORE to a great MOVIE. I mean, “Planet of the Apes” was a long time ago now. Obviously that is a bit of an exaggeration, but many youngsters BECOMING interested in film, will find it difficult to reconcile the fact that the composer of such excellent scores as those for “Chinatown” and “Papillon”, is also responsible for the exceedingly lame “Angie” and “Chain Reaction”. In fact, those of us who may have only become keenly interested in cinema during the 90’s, having become familiar with Goldsmith’s mediocre output during that period, may be somewhat surprised to discover the great things that this composer has done in the past.

I find it quite amazing how Goldsmith has conveniently side-stepped any projects that might stretch him. You would think that anyone working in the film industry, by their very nature, would be hungry to work on the ‘best’ projects, and would be keen to give his ‘best’ at all times. Not only has Goldsmith shyed away from the challenge, especially since 1992, but the music he has written has been extraordinarily conservative and lacking in interest. Horner is the exact opposite of Goldsmith. Willing to take on the most challenging range of movies, no obstacle is too great to overcome, and when he is given a plum project he sinks his teeth into the task with relish. Not only applying his own considerable compositional skill, he also applies existing musical ideas with enormous skill. Thus, his scores, almost always, fit the movie as snugly as a glove. Take his “Patriot Games”. By employing suitably Celtic sounds, excellent action material, brilliant use and development of Khachaturian, all bound together by his trademark stylings, instrumentation, and most importantly, CONTEMPORARY MUSICAL SENSIBILITIES, Horner created a masterwork. NOT a great ‘musical work’, but a great ‘movie score’. The music itself, though good, was not mind-blowing, like his “Krull” for instance, but within the context of the movie it was breathtakingly superb, an even more accomplished ‘film score’ than “Krull”. And you know what, Max Steiner used to take a very similar approach to his movies. He would frequently mix existing material, with his own ideas, to brilliant effect. I often think of Steiner and Horner as being similar in their approach to scoring movies, and in the level of success and attainment they so deservedly achieved.

Yes, Horner, Steiner and Alfred Newman, all share a great many similarities in their approach to scoring, and indeed each enjoyed a high level of consistent success throughout their careers. Horner is still young, comparatively, but the way things are looking right now, Horner has a glitteringly successful future ahead of him. What makes these three composers my favourites, is their wholehearted approach to giving the movie everything it needs musically. By the same token, Mahler and Beethoven are my favourite composers of stand-alone music, not least because they were uncompromising in their desire to produce all-encompassing works. Personally, I cannot fail to be satisfied on listening to a Mahler or Beethoven symphony, such is the scope, brilliance, and sheer entertainment value of their work. Likewise, a Horner score, or Zimmer or Elfman or Williams etc, rarely fail to satisfy, as complete and fully appropriate companions of their movies. Stand-alone composers like Bartok, and film composers like Goldsmith (though I can’t think of any other film composer as limited as Goldsmith) are too limited in their scope to be favourites of mine, though their technical skill is admirable. Goldsmith has done SOME good things, but just about every other major movie composer has done what Goldsmith has done, only better, and has done MORE than what Goldsmith has done. Barry, famous for his Jazz orientated scores, has produced a huge range of successful scores outside of his ‘preferred’ genres. Take his “Séance on a Wet Afternoon”, a score dripping with a Goldsmithian ethereal sound, years before Goldsmith’s similar sounding “Basic Instinct” and other similarly toned movies. Elmer Bernstein, famous for his western scores, has also produced a huge range of very successful scores in many genres. For instance, his “To Kill a Mocking Bird” easily outdid Goldsmith’s subsequent similar sounding scores to “A Patch of Blue” and “The Other”. So, Goldsmith has ATTEMPTED a broad range of genres during the course of his career, but has rarely EXCELLED in any of them – he certainly hasn’t achieved anywhere near the same level of success as Bernstein, Barry, Williams and the rest have enjoyed.

In summary, to my mind, “Con Air”, “Face/Off”, “The Rock”, “Armageddon”, “Titanic”, “Men in Black”, “Sleepers”, “The Thin Red Line”, and on and on are the torchbearers of contemporary musical sensibilities in movie scoring. “US Marshals”, “City Hall”, and “Angie” are the sluggards, the anachronistic dying embers of an unsophisticated and unenlightened past.

As HG Wells once said, ‘ADAPT OR PERISH, NOW AS EVER, IS NATURE’S INEXORABLE IMPERITIVE.’ – wisdom that only Goldsmith, amongst the film composing fraternity, has failed to recognize.

Clay G.