It's so ABSURD! Why participate in an open discussion if you're afraid to have your position questioned! Why should it be necessary to divide this board into an electronic sandbox where those who want to play G.I. Joe must be seperated or barred from those who just want to play 'Dress Up Barbie'! Perhaps this is just the wrong forum for me. Perhaps, I should just be content with Top 10 lists and 'Music to Masturbate To' threads (oops, I'm being naughty again...sorry, I keep forgetting I'm over the age of 12 and sarcasm is a sign of moral weakness); or content with critical commentary that extends as far as "it's so cool". Again, I apologize for not growing up during the MTV revolution where "cool" is a sufficient examination of the facts. That is why a critique, such as Michael Ware's is so exemplary...it feeds the mind...not the cozy self-delusions of the groupie mentality. Whether or not you agree with him his beside the point, but mocking intelligence and thumbing one's nose at those who obviously know better than yourself is, in my opinion, pure hubris. And you think I'm being unkind!!! Goodness, I expect, if he were alive and visiting this site, G.B. Shaw would find himself unwelcome and his remarks deleted for the 'greater good' of society: "Now, now, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, do we?"...or, more en courant: "Can't we all just get along". Balderdash!!!! That not one of the more vocal nay-sayers has even bothered to offer a reply beyond, "Well I don't care what you think, I liked it" or "that's just the way it is..." only prooves to me who should and who shouldn't be adding their two cents into a discussion.

For once I'd like to see Jerry Goldsmith's attribution of his listeners proven wrong...that we're not just a bunch of "bottle-cap" collectors who can't see past the shiny surface, to be so completey self-absorbed by our novel little fetish that we know not when to call a spade a spade.

Vive La Libèrté!!!

Yours truly,

SPOR2

Honestly, there are many many ways to go after people's positions. Some better than others. I like to see charity, not belittlement.

You can argue a point charitably or uncharitably. I am not saying you, SPOR, were uncharitable in this case. What I am saying is, if I am in the mood to remove a post partially or entirely because I feel it doesn't help the tone of the message boards I'd like to uphold, so be it.

If someone feels, because the've been edited by me, somehow offended, it's natural. Just know there is nothing personal about it!

That's it for now... back to the discussions.

PeterK

I also don't have to belittle (G-rated, or otherwise. "Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy." Yes, Buckaroo Banzai is a favorite of mine, as well.)

I respect others right to opinions. Occasionally, I disagree. Sometimes I disagree even though the "educated" response doesn't agree with me. Does that make me uneducated? I do not think so. My tastes are quite varied, and I find pleasure in diversity.

The world can be like the Mississippi river: Shallow where you think it's deep, and deep where you think it's shallow. Sometimes the odds are stacked against you, but you don't cave. Cliched? Perhaps. My conclusion is that no amount of arguing will convince you that my preferences are better suited to you, but they are better suited to more than you think. I've stated it in the past--my general observation is thus: We are so small a percentage of film score appreciators to be bickering amongst ourselves. It's more expected of two adolescent girls arguing over which boy band is better.

Yes, we can have the general tiff, but I think that anyone who contributes to the art form does so for a reason, and that more often than not, that reason is a well-intentioned one. The greatest hinderance to the art is producer who'd rather back a "songs inspired by" album, than a score.

Remember that movie from a while back, "Defending Your Life"? Albert Brooks. Yeah, you know the one. There's a scene where Albert Brooks asks what his defender in Judgement City is eating, and asks if he can taste it. Tastes like crap to him, and he spits it out. The defender explains that with his acquired knowledge and abilities, he can alter his palatte to accept what he is eating, even though it tastes like crap to others.

Now, using this as a type of metaphor for our own situation, you may put me in Albert Brooks' position, explaining that I'm too unexperienced, uneducated, unrefined--to ingest what to you is quite delectable. However, the roles can just as easily be reversed, and I could be the one who's digesting what to you seems like crap.

The truth? It's not out there. It's only within ourselves, and what we bring to the music. We all bring our individual experience, our preferences, our own tastes to the table. We eat from the same table, though, so don't insinuate that I'm not just as worthy to dine from it as you are.

Alas, I do love a hearty argument. No more than when I'm proven wrong...

???Peter???

So, Lancelot, what are you suggesting...that we just be content with gruel. Relativism is a cozy corner to be in, I know, I've used it plenty of times myself. It is not my intention to change your mind, as it were, simply to argue the demerits as I see or, as in this case, hear them. That you failed to give satisfying support to your statement (when you enter into an arguement this is its most basic requirement) I simply called you on it. You cannot compare the reception of The Rite of Spring to Gladiator without enumurating the justification for such a comparison. I called you on this as well. Proove it my good man...even if it only holds water for 5 minutes...at least you are demonstrating your willingness to share more than one-liners and off-the-cuff remarks.

I guess this board just needs to let off some steam every once in a while. I have no problems with this, as long as you can shake hands in the end.

Agreed?

PeterK

As suspected, you took my intended "arguement" and went ahead and dissected it, as a shark to chum. What I intended to illustrate--right, wrong, or indifferent--is that you are a insufferable, arguementative cynic whose writing either enlightens nor entertains as you claim writing should. You are merely concerned with your own self-appraisal of music, and anyone who disagrees is not worthy to lurk in your shadow.

Evasion? You have your nerve--visiting this board, pursing this passion of film music--is something I do because it is fun, because it is part of my soul. I don't come here to get into pithy arguements with you, who clearly take pleasure in them, and then pat yourself of the back for your superiority. Find another monkey boy to argue with and belittle and see how they enjoy it.

Laugh me off the stage, if you like, if it entertains you. Your attentiveness to this argument proves it does.

Now, shall I end here so that you can have the last word...as I'm sure you'll take it? Go ahead--say I'm not worthy of entering discussion...say I should remove myself to make way for intelligent, informed debate, so you can irradicate the cancerous "fanboys" that grow on this page, and concern themselves with top 10 lists and ratings by star, of which I do neither.

I've been reading your posts here, listening to Gladiator while doing so (ironies are my lot in life it would seem), and I have come to the conclusion that ALL Gemini's are better seen, not heard.

But seriously, this thread is probably better off being buried, as it is simply about two people arguing their points to each other and neither one listening. Poor PeterK is stuck trying to keep the peace here, when in fact there is no peace wanted between the two waring factions.

Why do I visit this thread? Well, the entertaining value of it alone is enough to make me smile, but also because I do see, within all the hoopla and snide comments, some very real issues and interesting points being made. Both Lancelot and SPOR are obviously intelligent film music fans and, in this regard, I applaude you both. The bottom line is that your disagreement is petty and does not expand any film music discussion...you two are just arguing, it seems, to be heard.

Well, gentlemen, I hear you both.

To quickly comment, Stravinsky's early struggles are well documented...only time will tell how Zimmer's music (or Horner's or Goldenthal's or Pick-Your-Composer's)will be assessed.

While I agree that the Zimmer approach to film scoring is nothing like the Williams approach, I also recognize that the times in which we live are much different now than 40 years ago. Forty years ago, atonality was unheard of in film music. Thirty years ago, GOldsmith's Planet of the Apes and Rosenman's Fantastic Voyage turned the film music world upside down. Twenty years ago, a return to the grand majesty of epic scoring (thanks to Williams' Star Wars, among others) heralded a new age. Ten years ago, electronics and minimalism began to take hold. Today, two of the top film score composers follow this line of thought. When you think of epic scores, you think of Williams, you think of Jarre, Goldsmith, Herrmann. Today, Thomas Newman, Hans Zimmer and Elliot Goldenthal are all the rage.

In ten years, who knows? John Ottman? In twenty, Aaron Collins? How will they adapt to an ever-changing world where the tastes of movie goers fluctuates like the stock market? Will they succeed?

At the end of the road, when all is said and done, talent wins out. They will succeed because they will be able to adapt. All the best have been able to do so. Those who cannot, fade away. Hollywood is truly a battleground where the fittest survive and all others fail.

Zimmer has proven he is a survivor. As have all the others we perpetually talk about and drool over here. It is one of the reasons, I think, we like them so much...because they HAVE survived and adapted and can continue to entertain us in a variety of ways.

Some of them have musical training. Some do not. Yet they marvel us. Spellbound us. Some more than others, but all, in some respect, succeed...at least for those of us who care.

No, I don't believe we CAN all just get along. But we CAN respect one another's difference of opinion in an arena where there CAN be no argument about what we love: how music for the movies enchants us and provides us all with a release, no matter how small or large, from life.

Spor2, you present interesting arguments in always a cogent,
articulate manner. I agree that, “suppression or avoidance of contrary
thinking,” won’t enable any of us to learn. And I don’t think any wall
should be erected to “critical discourse.” But why must rancor be mixed
into differences of opinion? But please consider the following:

1. I think any of us can take a fact being corrected, but appreciation of
music, art, literature, etc. is often about personal preference,
and who is the final arbiter of what is and what is not perfect taste?
Does the person who hangs Picasso in his house have better taste
than one who hangs Monet?

2. Taste is often subjective You may hate a melody that I enjoy.
I can’t always articulate sagacious reasons for my
esthetic reaction to an art form. This push for justification isn’t
always possible, but that doesn’t invalidate a predilection.

3. Many (most) on this Board are quite young, just forming their
preferences in music. Too often they’re told, “You’re young; you’ll
outgrow your foolish tastes and become more refined in your choices.”
What a way to alienate them and turn them away
from their first steps into music appreciation. Our tastes evolve over
time, but we all had our formative years. Novels I once thought
were classics don’t appeal to me now, but they were my basis for my
growth in literature. Also, in my HUMBLE opinion, I find most of the
“youngers” on this board extremely well-rounded and astute, whether
I agree or disagree with their choices.

4. I’m a firm believer that critical discourse CAN happen without slapping
people across the face. Admittedly, I can be a verbal knife when backed into a
corner; however, I also recognize that slashing a person’s preference
won’t change his/her mind but only alienate further discussion and learning.
When I read a post from someone who waxes on and on about how much
he loves a score and I don’t like it, a way exists to disagree without
malevolence. I.E. “I see XXX that you really enjoyed score ZZZ and are
promoting that others buy it. I’m glad it is great for you, but for me, it
wasn’t appealing”....and then my explanation as to why I didn’t care for it.
Maybe that forum is too “Dress Up Barbie” for you, but it allows other
readers multiple perspectives. It acknowledges the other’s right to have
an opinion and allows for disagreements that don’t get personal.
(An aside: Not real crazy about the Barbie reference, as most of you would
guess. Why is the worst insult to a guy a comparison to a female? I’d
be more insulted if told I think like or throw a ball like an amoebae than a girl. )

4. Sometimes we take things personally because we may actually
RESPECT the critic who disagrees with us. This is MY toughest
problem, but I’m getting over it.
M Ware wrote a fabulous essay comparing Rozsa to Zimmer’s
Gladiator, and he fluently supported his thesis. However, if I like
Zimmer’s score, that doesn’t make me a purveyor of bad taste.
He and I tease each other now and then about the merits of Forrest
Gump. I think I could write a strong, persuasive essay justifying its
worth, and he could, with his usual verbal verve, turn that
movie into “monkey brains and Pavlovian drool.” I greatly admire
his preferences, but I’m learning not to dash my own
predilections if we don’t agree. H Rocco, one of my boys whom I think
has impeccable taste, really SMASHED one of my favorite movies
and scores a while back. (He didn’t know this, but he used terms
I think like, “wretched and repulsive.”) Once again, I started to question
if my own taste was only in my mouth. (Tongue-in-cheek now.) I thought,
like a Victorian maiden, I shall take to my bed with the vapors.
All right, like a middle-aged matron, I’ll go to bed with consumption.
Then he admitted to liking Ishtar. (Chris too.) I arose from my bed and
sallied forth. (Sorry, H R, but to say it kindly, I find the movie a tad bit
hokey.) My point is that sometimes we question ourselves when others
whom we respect and admire find our personal preferences distasteful.
To heck with that. None of us are always symbiotic all the time on all
movies and scores, and that doesn’t diminish our choices; it only
diversifies them.

Argue, disagree. Fine. But why does the tone have to display malice
and animosity? All on this Board have the right to add their
“two cents” to a discussion. IMHO, if an opinion is naive, I can
choose to ignore it; if an opinion is insightful, I consider it.
If an opinion is belittling and rips at the jugular, I disdain it.

Civility does NOT preclude nor inhibit CANDID opinions, and
acrimony isn’t a prerequisite for perceptiveness and intelligence.

My two cents can also be ignored.

I kneel to you all... I am not worthy! I am not worthy!.........

Aye, this is what freedom gets you, the monster thought. Chaos. Petty squabbles about something as miniscule as musical taste. When TRUE evil lurks in the land. Where death by disease is rampant and nature claims lives by the thousands, so let the animals create even more misery but adding to those numbers that nature already takes away.

For these self-described "INTELLIGENT" beings, the monster thought, these animals sure are stupid.

(all played to "Tha Hanging Ghosts" from THE SIXTH SENSE)

Thank-you everyone for your remarks, my only concern is that the order of the posting does not reflect their proper position. My last post was intended to follow Joe's last post but joan got there before me, so it would appear to everyone who might read it that I was replying to her as well. This was not my intention. Based on jeron's reply, it's obvious what impression this leaves. That I'm some callous bastard who'll lash out at anything that moves. I may, on occassion, be a callous bastard, but I generally have good aim. But, having to rush off to the dentist denied me the opportunity to amend this before the damage was done. I regret any insult that may have been caused to joan because of this. And joe, you're well reasoned as always and I've yet to come across a commentary of yours that did not reflect considered thought...even if I may disagree with some of your conclusions. But I have the greatest respect for your contribution. Make no mistake.

Finally, and I cannot emphasize this more:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT SOMEBODY LIKES TO LISTEN TO...ONLY THAT SHOULD THEY SHOULD CHOOSE TO ARGUE A POINT THEY BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEIR POSITION. WE ALL LEARNED THIS IN ENGLISH CLASS WRITING OUR FIRST ESSAYS. AND, THAT IF YOU SHOULD FIND YOURSELF CORRECTED, SWALLOW YOUR HUMBLE PIE AND MOVE ON.

As to the downward spiral of the whole affair...well...boys will be boys. Sorry Joan.

Lancelot: Truce

Sincerely,

SO WHAT. BIG DEAL.

He said it came from a film. Something called A Buck for Two Bonsai??? One of those foreign film I suppose. And then, just before he fell to sleep, he cryptically whispered, "Camelot". Does this mean anything to anyone?

Yours truly,

What I suggest is that one learns to accept diversity and expression of opinion in a community, and generally avoid the verbal thrashing. I am not required to submit my writing to some commitee to determine its' worthiness on this board.

Near and as honestly as I can tell, I was always defending an opinion, and my original point returns to the expression of one man's opinion, in a ocean of opinions, informed or otherwise. Anything further was merely speaking against a form of musical snobbery which suggested that contrary opinions (founded or unfounded) were target for mockery. (Myself, I never heard a compelling argument to prove that Zimmer *wasn't* musically adept. No, that was not an invitation--back off. Arguements as such are rarely resolved.)

Mr. SPOR2, in some metaphorical hyperbole, suggested that equating my own likening to Zimmer and Stravinsky was comparable to likening himself as Moses chastizing the Baal worshippers at the base of Mount Sinai. Well, that's *his* own comparison--let him defend it, if he feels obligated to. Personally, the difficulty I see with that argument is that somewhere in that, Stravinsky = God and Zimmer = Baal. Well, Stravinsky didn't lay down the law for all musicians. He didn't say THOU SHALT NOT SYNTHESIZE...THOU SHALT NOT LOOP PRE-RECORDED ELECTRONIC DRUM BEAT....(Perhaps some feel he should have.)

At any rate, Teddy Roosevelt said, "It is not the critic that counts, nor the man who points out where the other stumbled...the credit belongs to the man who is in the arena...who, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Zimmer's in the arena.

First you think you're incredible smart and keen... Then you start to get angry when everybody seems to dispise your arrogant and provokative comments. Then you get extremely alone and start to attack everybody who doesn't share your beliefs - even if they were your friends in real life.

It's a really depressing experience. Believe me.
Unless you're a real jerk and gets proud to make lots of enemies to justify your miserable life. Them you'll feel very cool all the way...

There's nothing wrong with a good argument and even a little fight over an ideia. But the rest is pure giberish and juvenile self-afirmation (altough some fellas are now over 30 years old, you know... )

The Man With No Name

P.S.: Peter, you might want to work out the bugs in this program, the personality routines are displaying an inordinate tendancy toward self-righteousness. I've been testing certain algorithms and still getting the same data. Hopefully, you'll have the kinks worked out in time for the Christmas rush.

Thanks,

The "Moral Majority" is more than willing to give you all the room you need to express yourself...

We believe in freedom of expression.

Please ease up and feel comfortable.