To Peter; just to let you know I visit MovieMusic everyday, it is still my favorite site on the web. It is only the message board itself that I was having problems with. I don’t blame you, or anyone else for that matter for my leaving, I took a few disgusting posts and a few idiotic members too serious and let them drive me away, for that I’m sorry. I understand Peter, that you are trying not to become the type of moderator that deletes every little controversial post, nobody wants that. I don’t think there are too many people on the board either, it is a great thing for the board and for its creator that more and more people are joining. I guess we all just have to realize that with every hundred or so members there is going to be one moron that we will have to ignore.

To Vulcantouch; sorry to disappoint you but I can not remember a single post of yours, so this obviously doesn’t have anything to do with you.

To Lou Goldberg; you asked me where my audacity is, it never left. I still speak my mind on many a subject, but I refuse to participate in the mindless arguments that some of the posts here turn into.

To Spor; I wasn’t sucking my thumb I think I had a dollop of Apple Butter Jam on there I was trying to finish.

And finally to Andre Lux; I am not quite sure what I have said to you to make you hate me so much, but more power to you. Maybe you’re like Vulcantouch and want to feel like you’re the reason I left, well sorry to disappoint you too, but your not. I laugh at many of the humorous posts you write and have had no problems with some of the bad things you say about Zimmer and Elfman. It is the diversity of musical interests that makes this board great.

I will close by stating the number one reason why I left, and why I think others have either left or don’t post as much. It is the holier than thou attitude that a lot of people here have developed that is the biggest problem. There is a difference between saying, “I don’t like such-and-such composer because…”, and saying, “whoever likes that music is stupid because they obviously don’t know what good music is.” I’m not here to argue either point, maybe the music some of us like does suck when compared to the mechanics and elegance of Classical music, but it is what we like and we shouldn’t be called down for it. I hear the same argument every time, certain people resort to name calling when discussing either a composer or the members who enjoy that composers music, then that person has the gall to demand that we respect their opinion even though they just totally trashed our opinion. I think what every one of the members of this board must work on is treating the other members with the dignity and respect we all deserve.

Of course I will welcome you back, as will everyone else. I appreciate your thoughts and continue to look forward to future posts from you and everyone else, whether you are a member since April 1999 or June 2000. I especially look forward to more posts about James Newton Howard, seeing that you champion him more than any others on the board!

PeterK

1: the quality or state of being audacious:
a: BOLDNESS
b. IMPUDENCE
2: an audacious act.
syn see TEMERITY

te-mer-i-ty:

unreasonable or foolhardy contempt of danger or opposition:

RASHNESS, RECKLESSNESS.

quote:

---

I hear the same argument every time, certain people resort to name calling when discussing either a composer or the members who enjoy that composers music, then that person has the gall to demand that we respect their opinion even though they just totally trashed our opinion. I think what every one of the members of this board must work on is treating the other members with the dignity and respect we all deserve.

Audacity

---

Something's seriously wrong with this picture.

NP: GLADIATOR

Glad to see your'e around still. I still have those JNH seminar cd's, whenever you want them! I do miss everyone that used to contribute so much and express their very intelligent opinions.

There is no point in talking about this subject because there will ALWAYS be a few people who are against the flow.

All I wanted to say is "what's up Aaron!"

Later,
Aaron

NP: Gladiator

While I see the point that it's ridiculous to trash someone and expect them to respect what you have to say and I can understand the desire for civility, for "the dignity and respect we deserve", I once again have to say that, while that would be a nice situation to have everything always be polite, one shouldn't always expect it and should be prepared to deal with a situation where politeness breaks down. I believe people have the right to get heated over their opinions, especially about art and culture. If people can't abide by that, all I can say is--Life is tough, Get a helmet! Now name-calling isn't real debate (and as much as I admire Camille Paglia, I can't say she adds to the search for truth when she threatens to kick the butts of those who disagree with her), but it does reflect the emotional content that goes side by side with holding opinions.

Now on to something less abstract. I read all the posts of people voicing about the MI2 soundtrack album, also the posts about Gone in 60 Seconds. OK--there are a lot of people who like these films and these scores. I can understand that. But, not being a supporter of these things, I can't help but wonder what some people are using for taste buds this season. People say--It was soooo cool. It kicked Ass! I say--get a vocabulary. And try to find a context that's broader than what came out last week or last year. Take Gone in 60 Seconds--I had to leave after 30 minutes, I couldn't take another frame of it. This was sooooo bad it made MI2 look like Kubrick. Why didn't I see this in a different light? Because I have the experience of 100 years of cinema and thousands of films seen under my belt and have things to compare it to and know when I'm in front of something worthless to me. I realize people like it, OK. But how am I suppose to say anything about it without coming off negative. But the film itself is only part of the problem. As long as people are going to respond to these things in awe, Hollywood is going to make more of them and I'm going to have to turn away from the experience of going to new movies on a big screen. In the 70s, the question every filmmaker asked was, is there are personal statement, does it say something intelligent about the culture. If it didn't, the critics came down hard, the industry people snubbed their nose, and people even refused to go. Even in 1975, when Jaws was the most popular film of the year, Spielberg wasn't even nominated for best director--it was guys like Lumet & Fellini that got the nods that year. Today, the major studios make films that used to B movie exploitation films and all that matters is how popular or how much money a film makes. When Leonard Nimoy was working on one of the Star Trek movies, he heard a plot synopsis of the upcoming one and asked, "Isn't this film about something?" Nobody asks that question anymore--it's irrelevant. So, I can't just slam the supply side. The demand side is just as responsible and the demand side is you and me and others who post on this board. We're responsible for what we get.

If you guys expect me and some others to remain civil about this at all times, I'm sorry, it ain't gonna happen. Virginia, there is no Santa Clause. Better get a helmet.

NP: Nothing by Hans Zimmer or Trevor Rabin, you can be sure about that.

NP-13th Warrior complete *****/*****

Thank you for coming back!!! It'll be good to discuss music with you again...and perhaps argue on some of the finer points of todys (and yesteryears) film scores.

"I personally do not like Golden Age scores at all."

"If there is a discussion going on about Golden Age scores I won´t necessarily participate as I have no input of value into these discussions."

Please clarify. The last two statements leave me wondering how familar you actually are with films behind Golden Age scores.

You said it all.

Anyway, back to the proper subject of this thread: Welcome back Aaron!

I am very happy you are back. All the power to you man.

Thank you for responding. You are a good sport. Others might have considered my request a direct challenge and gone ballistic or ignored it completely. The former possibility, I might add, would be interesting in light of this thread's tenor.

I am now going to stretch the limits of your good sportmanship as I now unload on you before Lou does:

By admitting to a limited knowledge of 'older' films you ultimately (1) undermine the credibility of both the first sentence of your response to him and your later assertion that "You can find an equal amount of quality films in this era as in any era", and (2) support the exact point he was making when he asserted "As long as people are going to respond to these things in awe, Hollywood is going to make more of them and I'm going to have to turn away from the experience of going to new movies on a big screen."

As one who tries to avoid the old-fogey attitude that "what's new is crap, what's old is good" as well as the young-fogey attitude that "what's old is old, what's new is where it's at", I nevertheless have a hard time with dismissive remarks that infer "things are always the same as before, it's all relative." That's not true, and I'll go one up on Lou by stating that as long as folks are going to respond to mediocre soundtracks in awe, Hollywood has no incentive to upgrade the quality of music in film beyond this most abysmal decade of music in film history just ended.

You may respond that there was plenty of good music in the 90s and you would be wrong. There was some good music, certainly not a plentiful amount when studiously compared to the output of any previous decade and especially when compared to those decades prior to the 70s. You may say that's your opinion and your opinion is no better than my or anyone else's and that's fine. I would respond by asking on what basis do you make your opinion because it does not sound like an informed one.

The point is not to pick on you personally, but as Lou made clear it is very aggravating to one who has been around the block to hear broad generalizations kicked around by those who speak as if they've been around the block but who in reality are barely out of the starting blocks.

I'm not trying to justify personal rancor in the course of creating posts or responding to others' posts. The fact is that things can get pretty passionate around here and sometimes we unwittingly set the bait for the negative trap that follows.

Other than that, I once had an academic interest in films but it was more of the self-educated variety. This, however, made the few relevant college courses I later attended that much more interesting. And meaningful. Glad I did it that way than the other way around, for it left me with little need to catch up on anything.

I don't think that--and correct me if i'm wrong, here--that pietari doesn't have capability to appreciate the golden age, but that for him, they don't hold much entertainment value.

It may be an over-general statement, but it was once said that there are two kinds of music: good music and bad music. great music enobles the mind and lift the spirit.

Yes, that is a fairly subjective thing--for with music, one may be enobled where another may be annoyed. And at this particular venue, we all bring our different palates.

Golden age scores are not all "golden", to everyone. I look at the evolution and growth of the film music--whereas the earliest composers, the big 5, all really matriculated from a very classical, European style of music composition, so the "silver age" grew from them, and from the influence of jazz--Mancini, Goldsmith, Barry, Williams--all jazz musicians "back in the day". Now the younger generation of composers grows in turn, from them, and from the influence of rock/electronic music at the latter half of the 20th century--Michael Kamen, Hans Zimmer, David Arnold, Mark Mancina.....you see the progression?

Of course, there will be those who think it is more of a de-evolution, degeneration....not much you can really say to that, except to expect them out there.

I find myself somewhere in the "limbo" between the older and the newer....I soak in the best (and worst) of both worlds. (I do like Korngold, but mostly as a means to understand the influences of Williams, and Debney, ala "Cutthroat Island") However, I will admit to being a product of my generation. Growing up in the 80's...listing to "cheesy" synthesizers. Yes, I really love that stuff too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Audacity:
And finally to Andre Lux; I am not quite sure what I have said to you to make you hate me so much, but more power to you. Maybe you’re like Vulcantouch and want to feel like you’re the reason I left, well sorry to disappoint you too, but your not. Audacity

---

Oh, Audacity... I don't hate you mate.
I'm just kind of bored with all this crying of the self-proclaimed "the originals" (sic) about "how this board was so great in the past and now it's ruined by all these nasty people bashing composers (i.e., expressing their negative opinions about Zimmer, the untouchable and his clones), bla, bla, bla... So now I'm leaving this place for ever and never!!! FAREWELL..."

I just don't get why almost all Zimmerities are so touchy. I still remember the old days at FSM board when people could say whatever nasty things they want about any composer... except... GUESS WHO?? Yes... Hanzimer, the almighty!!
Whenever you said why think this guy's music sucks - bingo! - you just got a WARNING mail from JoelSandiego, the self-proclaimed-proud-to-be "sheriff" of that late board. How pathetic and boring...

And I'm not like vulgartouch. He's much more witty and bold than any of us togheter. Just look how many interesting and relevant things he keeps writing on this board...

Don't take me the wrong way, Audacity.
Don't have anything against you or anyone... Althought I can't say the same about everyone here.
I'm here just for the fun and the informations. Have made even some (few) friends around...
I love film scores. Maybe not the same kind you like, but still film scores.

Cheer up pal!

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeInSanDiego:
[B]This is Audacity's response thread...not a "Let's get up on a podium and trounce everyone" thread. The holier-than-thou attitude that pervades a few posters here could be cut with a butter knife...WHATEVER...B]

---

Oh... Joel... you're so cool man...
Thanks for keep teaching us what this is all about...WHATEVER!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------****--------------------------------------------------------------------

I know a fella, a relative of sorts, and he lives for Star Wars. He's 26 and he's still got Star Wars coming out the ying-yang. And, apart from Star Wars, he knows nothing of cinema besides that which arrived in theaters yesterday. He makes no effort whatsover to learn anything more beyond that which is immediately relevant to himself and his peers. Or, for that matter, why Star Wars is as entertaining a picture as it was; as though cinema was invented in 1977, and nothing before it could possibly be of any consequence (except for Jaws, perhaps).

What annoys me most about his myopia is not his fanaticism for a Western/WWW II frolic in outer space but, rather, how his utter blindness to the BIG PICTURE has left him unable to verbalize an articulate opinion. Whenever I have made the attempt to enter into a more specific discussion with him on the various pros and cons of the movie du jour it inevitably dwindles down to: "I don't know about that...but I know I really liked it". THUD. I hit the jello wall again... So, I will smile politely and, if it's convenient, leave the table in search of someone who has something, anything, to say that doesn't sound like 'ad speak'. The usual Chomsky attack, as I like to call it (and, if you don't know who he is...look it up...yer on the WWW, aren't ya)!

--------------------------------------------------------****--------------------------------------------------------------------

Audacity: I hope you were putting it to some salacious use.

Whiners: For individuals who attest to such self-control, you always manage to have a promiscuous prescence in threads of this sort. If any topic is more redudant, more fatigued, more self-indulgent, it is these. But, hey, the space is free. I can't stop you...I wouldn't even try. Heck, just look at me.

Also, as briliant and as charitable as you might think yourself to be...sometimes you can really be just plain stupid. Being only 17 is not a valid excuse anymore. This isn't 1930. With all the information at your fingertips you can't play the naivety card any longer. Doing so only demonstrates your stupidity. So, consider it a compliment that someone actually paid your thought any attention at all. You might even consider offering a rebuttal instead of a cry for mommy. It may not convince but it will surely get you respect for trying.

YOUR HOMEWORK FOR TONIGHT CLASS.....

(Don't bother, I know how it all sounds. But, if you must, do it with a bit of wit).

I have to admit that Joel has hit the mark. I'm two sided about all this. I used to be a non-assuming guy around here until I opened my mouth. Now I feel like the resident iconoclast making enemies right and left. On the other hand, maybe it's all for the best somehow.

Back to Joel---Yes, I plead guilty for my Holier-Than-Thou attitude. I do consider myself seasoned (actually not as there are so many films I just haven't seen--you can spend a lifetime trying and never catch up). I didn't really set out to lord my experiences over the other posters here. As I have said--my opinions are mine--I just lose perspective at times and get righteous and heated over them. I also have said that this is an OK thing to do IMHO and if I didn't do it someone else would and with good reason as passion and opinion go together with something you care about. But you're right Joel, I've come off thinking I have a superior position in my thinking to other posters and I'll work to tone it down (though it isn't going to be easy and flare ups are likely).

Pietari--I'm sorry we clash again as I really respect you. I don't see it as old films vs new films or golden age scores vs current output. There are great new films and great new scores. I try to see as many new movies as I can stand in the hope of finding another one to love--though I have cut back in my filmgoing to about 3 a week. I do not have Elvis Mitchell disease. One of EM's first gigs as a critic was in Detroit (now he writes for the NY Times) during Summer. Every Summer movie he reviewed he panned. They just weren't Citizen Kane. I know what to expect if I go see something like Good Burger or Dogma. The problem is stuff like MI2 or Left After 30 Minutes are so lacking in intelligence or humor or plot consistency that they don't even live up to the fun summer movie level I've seen other movies do, they put off instead of entertain.

I'll tell you something--I think Steiner's score to GWTW is dull. He wrote a lot better stuff elsewhere. Also, Zimmer's scores to Backdraft, Crimson Tide, Beyond Rangoon, and Smila's Sense of Snow are good. I've posted this elesewhere. But in general, in terms of movies and the overall trend, I think Zimmer is a bad idea. I think I'd love new films and scores more than those of the past if they just kept up the quality but it isn't happening IMHO.

I don't get what past or present has to do with it. What matters is good or bad regardless. I can understand not liking Citizen Kane so much. It's a film so many people have said things about that you can't look at it objectively. As much as I love Welles, there are times when Citizen Kane strikes me as an arty student film. But fighting one on one with individual posters tastes isn't something I want to do. I'm thinking in terms of overall trends. When a film prof at the University of Michigan confides in me: "My students don't want to see Black and White. If I show subtitles, half the class walks out." then I've got reason to worry, to even get Holier-than-Thou about things, to start shaking my finger and saying--What the **** (if the censorship on the board will allow it). And I'm not Fussell or Bloom who've written books about the dumbing down of culture--these guys would cry or give up if they saw the things I see.

Maybe there's a generation gap I'm not getting. I'm in my 30s but it's old enough to lose touch with the post-Star Wars babies. In any case, maybe I'm too touchy, sometimes I really do feel the sky is gonna fall if you don't like Welles and it hasn't happened yet.

And hey, I know who Norm Chomsky is (it isn't Norm? I'm an idiot.).

[This message has been edited by Lou Goldberg (edited 17 June 2000).]

Back to my point. Anyone who posts after me in this thread will not be getting any bonus points anywhere. I could delete you, I could just put a temporary restraining order on you. Sadly, I'll probably just suspend you! Is it hard to just move on? If it is, hopefully this post of mine will make it a little easier.

PeterK

Good luck!

PeterK

quote:

---

Originally posted by vulcantouch:
-re this last one: i suppose i should give you points for Trying to be sardonic. instead i'll just take your words at face value, and refrain (this time) from imploring you to stop making us all sick by dressing like richard simmons
vulgarcrotch

---

I wasn't trying to be sardonic, vulga.
I leave it to the witty ones.
You must know that I really admire your wisdon and boldness. It's not easy to be a stud on message board these days, even using a silly fake name...

And I would love to know what's Richard Simmons and why it's so important to my friend, vulcantorch, the one who likes to make us all sick by writing like Pedro de Lara, Xitãonzinho e Xororó's grandfather.

I've not physically attacked you in anyway, shape or form. By joining this community and forum, you are freely giving yourself to abide by these two rules we have here.

When you claim that nothing is a crime until one physically assaults someone, yet state I've committed a crime by censoring (reminding people of the two rules we have), I think your statement needs a little refining. Have I assaulted? Which definition of crime do you mean?

People have argued, just as you have, that this censorship I invoke is employed to enforce politeness. You couldn't be more wrong. Once again, folks are suspended because I gave them the choice to get back to following the two rules we have here. To remind people to argue charitably is much more of a different beast than to enforce politeness.

It's not against the law for me to censor anyone using my property to communicate, especially if the use of this property doesn't follow simple moral guidelines I find true to the heart and spirit of every human being.

Have you ever tried yelling to the President of the United States of America "I want to kill you!" but never actually touched him? I'm afraid you'd be in prison for more than rest of your life, even though you never physically assaulted him. Is this a violation of the free speech you refer to?

Finally, the will to choose or not to choose to post in this thread after I said I would suspend people remained free. If you want to post, go ahead, but you face the circumstantial consequence. I could have just locked the thread, preventing anymore posts, but I intended to keep people's free will intact. There's nothing totalitarian about that.

I hope you and others understand where I am coming from. Feel free to email me with any response, and use your time out time to think about the two rules for this place. If you find them too harsh, it would probably be best to move on.

PeterK

P.S. Remember, this is nothing personal. I would say the same thing over and over again to every single person who questioned this "censorship" at movie music.

See you in other discussions....