With the exception of the rip-off from Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" on track 5 "Gemsbock Gift" the rest of the score makes you remember the time he composed such gems as "Krull", "Brainstorm", "Star Trek II", "Cocoon"...

There isn't not even one bad or boring cue on this album, being the highlith the "Main Theme" which Horner wisely uses scarcely during the score.
As Douglas Fake wrote in the liner notes of the Intrada release, "the score is rich, serious, sometimes powerful and relentless, sometimes tender, always magnificent".

A truly inspired work by mr. Horner, his last to date in my (not so) humble opinion...

Many people in the industry at the time believed that most or all of the score had actually been ghostwritten by Horner's orchestrator Thomas Pasatieri. I don't know if this is true; I am telling you what people were saying back then. (If the picture had been a hit, then we'd probably be hearing more of those stories to this day. It was a massively troubled production, with director of photography Mikael Salomon tapped at the last second to take over from the picture's original director.)

A FAR OFF PLACE is one of my favorite movies, I watch the video all the time (has it come out on DVD yet?) and the score (which I do have on CD) is very, very good. I love it, too.

If you end up hating it, you have my permission to hate me and pick on me for all time (as if you would actually wait for my permission for doing so).

So I'm afraid that's a discussion I can't join you in!

Of course I bought other of his scores, but can't listen to more than 3 or 4 tracks without getting annoyed with all the rip-offs and fussy music - exactly what turns on geeks like DANIEL2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:
Don't forget that The Rocketeer's score is mostly rooted in Star Trek II.
Shaun

---

You said it well Shaun: rooted, not cloned like almost all his next scores, unfortunately...

You misrepresent my views.

Much as I admire Horner’s film scoring (to me, along with Zimmer, Elfman and Williams, Horner is one of the current film-scoring masters), I regard his albums with as little interest as I would any other film composers’.

Yes, I collect soundtrack albums, but not to enjoy as listening experiences, but simply because I’m a nerd….like someone may collect stamps (I do that as well)….I mean, does a stamp collector collect stamps to use them? No, he collects stamps to possess them. Soundtrack albums, with very, very few exceptions, are wretchedly unsatisfactory listening experiences….in my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:

the art of scoring a movie is not about creating ‘original’ and ‘musical-cohesive’ compositions…..the art of scoring a movie is about providing the most appropriate score, based on the guidelines of CMS. Virtually every current film composer, with ONE or two exceptions, has embraced the all-encompassing values of CMS…..that is to provide the most appropriate score based on the nature of the movie and on current society’s musical sensibilities….CMS doesn’t exclude the re-use of a composer’s previous score or the use of another composer’s music….CMS merely excludes the composer who is not willing to give the movie what THE MOVIE MUSICALLY REQUIRES.

[/B]

---

So when did this get written into the big book of film scoring?

What you say is true in the most basic sense but this theory reduces the composer's function to being a mere stylist.

To illustrate: Some actors are very good at playing a part (the one on the page) and that makes them good performers and fulfills what the script requires while adding thier particular style or imprint but the great ones are those who CREATE characters and stretch themselves or the role beyond it's basic form.

"I'm not an actor, I'm a movie star!' (Peter O'Toole quote from "My Favorite Year")

Irony, but that's the difference here and I would imagine that many composers fall into one of the two distinctions. For many of us film music is not a mere utility but an art and art by definition is a creative medium.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
But, as I have said many times before, the art of scoring a movie is not about creating ‘original’ and ‘musical-cohesive’ compositions…..the art of scoring a movie is about providing the most appropriate score, based on the guidelines of CMS.

---

DANIEL2, please tell me this is just YOUR opinion. Or are you GOD ALMIGHT himself teaching us how things work?

Anyway, I really don't give a dead rat's ass about this CMS (Composing Mediocre Scores) nonsense you invented. Does anyone??
Film music to me is an art form, just like any other and should be judged like that. And, yes, repetitive, unoriginal and/or awful scores (like those composed by your "masters" (sic) Horner and Zimmer these days) help to ruin good movies and make weak movies even more unberable.

So, you think writing unoriginal material isn't a problem? Well, lets just think about this them:

...according to the "new guidelines of WMB (Writing Mediocre Books)" one should use his contemporary inputs to make money by selling books to the MTV generation.
Happy with this new philosophy of life, new book writer, Rans Horny, decided to make millions by writing a book of his own.
It will be a trilogy, called the "The Master of the Nike". It tells the tale of a rapper called Tupac Fru'du who lives in New York city and by chance finds the lost powerful magic Nike Tennis of Shaquile O'Neal, the sage.
It's said that whoever use this tennis will be transformed into the greatest rap singer ever and will conquer the world.
But evil forces,leaded by Xarubroder Manson, the merciless, are trying to steall the tennis from Tupac who now needs to throw the terrible magic tennis into the same steel factory that melted Arnold Schwartzkapoff, the Terminator.
On his quest, Tupac will fight the evil forces several times, listen to lots of raps tunes (one must think into the movie adaptaion) and make sex with lots of chicks.

********************************************

After receiving the "Best and most Original Book of the Year" award by the hands of MAXIMUS2, President of the Academy of the New Guidelines of WMB, writer Rans Horny was asked if he was, somehow, influenced by Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". His answer:
- "Never heard of it, altought his daughter was my date for 2 years. As a matter of fact I only write great original material, since I don't believe artists are influencied by the work of others. This is nonsense... Now ****-off!"

APLAUSE!!!

Of course I was somewhat biased being a fan of Laurens Van Der Post in general. A very interesting guy--author of books on subjects as diverse as Carl Jung and Russia and Japan as well as the stories that Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence was based on.

Likewise, this was one of the good Horners.

I’m rather flattered that you think I may be ‘Jehovah’….and, if I actually believed in the existence of God, I might agree with you and admit to being ‘the omnipotent one’.

However, the above post is only my opinion.

To Hal 2000 as well, I would like to clarify one point I made in my earlier post. I said – “….the art of scoring a movie is not about creating ‘original’ and ‘musical-cohesive’ compositions….”. Apart from intending to say ‘musically-cohesive’, I should have said – “….the art of scoring a movie is not JUST about creating ‘original’ and ‘musically-cohesive’ compositions…..”.

Of course, a good score can be original and it can be musically-cohesive (as opposed to being simply ‘cohesive’), but, all I am saying is, that in my opinion, this is nowhere near being the most important requirement of the film composer….applying the most appropriate music, original or not, should be the first consideration…that’s the art of CMS.

By the way Andre Lux, if you’re still having trouble understanding what I mean by CMS (contemporary musical sensibilities), just follow this simple rule…..

CMS = Appropriate Score.

I should also clarify that I DO regard film-scoring as an art-form, it’s just that I see it as part of a ‘bigger’ art-form….the movie itself. Hal 2000 says that based on my theory, the film composer is ‘reduced to a mere stylist’. Well, yes….sometimes a film composer’s job on a movie is just about being a ‘stylist’….the requirements of every movie are different. Additionally, I don’t see it in terms of a composer being reduced to a mere stylist…..that’s my whole point….the composer’s ability to incorporate the RIGHT music (whether original or not), is just as important a SKILL as his ability to compose original thematic material or create an ‘album-worthy’ musically-cohesive work. Anyway, a film score can still be cohesive, even if not a note of it is original….indeed, the requirements of many movies urge the film composer to actively apply familiar, non-original music….in many cases, without the application of existing music the film score may lack coherence. Likewise, the composition of distinct thematic material can work against a movie. Vague thematic phrases, brooding ambience and unfulfilled musical ideas may sometimes be required….the music may be original, but as an album would be totally meaningless….YET, such a composition can still make great film music. In other words, too much music, or too complex music, or too thematically distinct music, can actually sabotage the agenda and atmosphere of a movie….therefore it is fair to argue that the film composer is a ‘slave’ to the needs of the movie…the film composer is often ‘restricted’ by the requirements of the movie. Of course, this works both ways. The film composer is also helpfully ‘inspired’ by the images to which he is composing to. All I am saying is, there is a huge distinction between composing to film and composing music for stand-alone consumption….they are two completely different animals, and as such, the way in which the quality of stand-alone music is judged should NOT also be applied to composing for film….in my opinion.

That’s why I regard Horner in such high esteem….his ability to score his movies appropriately is not handicapped or compromised by his desire (if he has such a desire) to create ‘original’ music or music that is in tune with his own personal sensibilities. Some may see this as Horner selling his musical soul to the highest bidder….I see it as a supreme professional fulfilling the wishes of the filmmaker, thus enhancing his movies and adding to the entertainment value of the finished product, thereby satisfying the cinema audience. Sure, if Horner was writing stand-alone music and was ‘guilty’ of plagiarism and repetition and all the rest of it, I’d be highly critical….who wouldn’t be? But, the fact is he is ‘writing’ music for film….a completely different ballgame. And let’s face it, whether you like it or not, it is Zimmer and Horner (along with Elfman and Williams) who are among the most sought-after ‘all-round’ film composers of today….so, in the eyes of the filmmakers (and therefore the paying public (who are spending record amounts of money to see today’s Hollywood product….thereby giving their tacit approval of the film scores of today)), Horner and Zimmer can’t be doing much wrong. But then again, you often find that Horner and Zimmer’s detractors are also critical of contemporary cinema as a whole, you know, ‘Zimmer’s muzak is the perfect accompaniment to today’s bland popcorn-movie cinema’. That’s the argument many seem to use, but needless to say I totally disagree. Indeed, I believe Hollywood today has regained the tremendous entertainment value that characterized 30’s and 40’s cinema.

Apart from Horner, great film composers like Zimmer and Elfman fulfil the musical needs of their movies to the highest degree of success in their own way, as do many other fine modern composers such as Williams and Burwell.

Whatever differences of approach these composers make to their task, each, along with upwards of fifty other successful modern film composers, falls snugly within the broad expanse of the CMS umbrella.

Your likening film composers to actors illustrates your point well, Hal 2000. And, I agree with you in principle….it’s just that to be a successful film composer, with a distinctive ‘film-scoring voice’, the film composer doesn’t necessarily have to create ‘original’ or ‘musically-cohesive’ film scores….it is how the film composer applies ‘music’, whether it is his or someone else’s, that is the difference between a ‘good’ film composer and a ‘great’ film composer, in my opinion.

As I said at the recent LEGEND thread, great music does not necessarily make great film music…..and the reverse is also frequently the case.

quote:

---

I’m rather flattered that you think I may be ‘Jehovah’….and, if I actually believed in the existence of God, I might agree with you and admit to being ‘the omnipotent one’. However, the above post is only my opinion.

---

Thanks God! I mean, the true one, not you, DANIEL2, "the omnipotent one"...

quote:

---

By the way Andre Lux, if you’re still having trouble understanding what I mean by CMS (contemporary musical sensibilities), just follow this simple rule…..
CMS = Appropriate Score.

---

No DANI3L2, I never had a problem with this CMS (Composing Mediocre Scores) nonsense you invented recently to reinforce your lunatic affirmations of what a good score is. So, a good score is that who fulfill the action well. No matter how ugly it is musically (Zimmer) or if it's just a shameless ripp-off from another composer's work (Horner)... Once again, I just find it quite amusing... You probably have never heard about Ennio Morricone, have you??

Anyway, now that we all know that your "statements of the truth" are nothing else than your opinion (omnipotent or not), I can relax and enjoy...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaun Rutherford:
Don't forget that The Rocketeer's score is mostly rooted in Star Trek II.Shaun

---

I was hearing it again today and you know what? It seems much more rooted on STAR TREK III, particulary "Stealing the Enterprise", than STAR TREK II...

Thank you for confirming your understanding of what I mean by CMS (contemporary musical sensibilities).

I have always been a great admirer of Morricone’s work…here is a reminder of my top thirty favourite film composers, in order of merit. This list was originally posted April 6 2000 at a previous thread. Please note, there have been a few movements since this list was originally posted, the most important of which has seen Christopher Young rise to 27 from 30.

1 Max Steiner
2 Alfred Newman
3 Horner
4 The Zimmer School, past and present
5 Tiomkin
6 J Williams
7 T Newman
8 Elfman
9 Barry
10 Herrmann
11 Alwyn
12 Morricone
13 Shore
14 Jarre
15 Newton Howard
16 Waxman
17 Isham
18 Silvestri
19 E Bernstein
20 Skinner
21 Poledouris
22 Rozsa
23 Webb
24 Spoliansky
25 Mancini
26 Frankel
27 Young
28 Malcolm Arnold
29 Goldsmith
30 Clifton Parker

Of all of the current film composers, John Williams has my greatest respect, for maintaining his ‘number one’ industry status during thirty years of rapidly improving standards. Each passing year, since the late 80’s, has seen an increase in the number of quality scores from a growing pool of versatile, talented, and increasingly sophisticated composers. 2000 looks set to continue that trend with another batch of potentially classic scores in the pipeline, not least Williams’ score to THE PATRIOT.

Of course, there are many other excellent film composers who do not fall within my PERSONAL top 30, from Rosenman to Raksin to Revell to Burwell to Ottman to Doyle to North to Goldenthal to Sarde to Yared and so on. Additionally, it may be the case that a composer has written very few scores or I haven’t seen enough of a particular composers’ movies to form a personal opinion. For instance, Harry Robinson (THE VAMPIRE LOVERS, THE BEST PAIR OF LEGS IN THE BUSINESS) is a particular favourite of mine, but I haven’t seen enough of his movies for him to qualify for inclusion in the above list.

However, one thing is for certain, there are well over one hundred film composers throughout the history of movies who have enriched cinema in their own special way for the benefit of us all.

‘The Zimmer School, past and present’ refers to that body of current film composers that either currently belongs to, or once was a part of, the Media Ventures stable.

I have listed such composers as Powell, Mancina, Gregson-Williams and Rabin collectively within the ‘Zimmer School’ bracket, not just because each, broadly speaking, subscribes to the Media Ventures ethos, but had I listed each member of the Zimmer School individually, there would have been very little room left on my top 30 list for those composers who have no connection with Media Ventures.

Please allow me to expand upon my perception of what the ‘Zimmer School’ is. Here I quote a post I made March 21 2000 at Steve Hughes’ Gladiator thread. The following refers to the issue of more than one film composer working on a single project.

……..I think it is always a pleasant surprise to hear that a film composer of Zimmer’s outstanding ability is willing and able to work with other talented composers on his projects. Often it is the case that a creative talent feels restricted or uneasy about combining with another talent…..and that is fair enough…..everyone is different.

However, during the 90’s, Zimmer’s Media Ventures has blown film scoring convention apart…..part of the MV culture being the pooling of resource and the harmonization of disparate talent. Zimmer and his school of talented composers are pioneering new and unexplored musical terrain whilst maintaining many of the traditional values that makes composing for film an art-form that we all admire. Many of today’s finest and most successful film composers learned their trade at Media Ventures, Mancina for example, and apart from Zimmer himself, many other aspiring and established composers (such as the immensely talented John Powell) continue to be based at the Zimmer stable.

Versatility, depth, and sheer devotion to the musical needs of the movie are the hallmarks of Media Ventures output…..values expounded by its gallery of astute and assiduous film composers past and present. Each movie that is connected with Media Ventures is usually blessed with film scoring excellence…..indeed, every new film score from the Zimmer school, whether it is from Gregson-Williams, Powell, Zimmer, Mancina, Rabin etc, or a combination of these composers, is an event that I eagerly anticipate, such is the quality, diversity and expertly appropriate application of music to movie that these composers provide.
Not only does Zimmer often work with other composers on any single film score, he also often employs multiple orchestrators on his scores, as well as other additional creative talent, such as the conductor. This combination of numerous creative talents has benefited cinema for much of the 90’s…..and long may it continue.

The combination of composers, orchestrators, conductors, arrangers and other technicians….and the frequent application of remarkable choral and solo talent, creates movie scores greater than the sum of its parts…..the epitome of the sophisticated, mature and complete 90’s film score experience. As I have said, this pooling of talent has led to the creation of some of the best scores of the 90’s……and that is quite remarkable during a period of generally exceptional film music and movie quality.

This is taking nothing away from the achievements of Horner, Elfman, Williams and other excellent ‘lone’ composers during the 90’s……..these men too have continued to create marvellous movie scores during a period of rapidly improving standards and increasing sophistication. However, it is my belief that the line-up of creative talent that revolves around a Zimmer score can only BENEFIT his movies.

To me, the benchmark by which film scores today are judged is consistently being raised thanks chiefly to “The Zimmer School…..Purveyors of Excellence”……….

I hope that goes some way to explaining my bracketing of MV-related film composers.

H Rocco

Yes, there have been a few minor place changes in my top 30 since the list was originally posted April 6. Goldsmith’s slip to 29th place from 27th was partly due to my viewing his 1974 tv-movie A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN. Goldsmith’s position at 27 was already tenuous, Malcolm Arnold had been nipping at his heels for some time now. In fact, it was only Goldsmith’s three excellent (score-wise) 1999 releases (THE MUMMY, THE HAUNTING, and THE 13TH WARRIOR) that hauled Goldsmith back above Arnold, albeit only temporarily.

Christopher Young’s rise from 30th to 27th place was always on the cards. Young is one of those composers who’s got everything it takes to be a true A-list film composer (if he isn’t already), and yet has always SEEMED to struggle to get the BEST projects….perhaps its film-scoring politics. Anyhow, having recently viewed the very good (movie and score) JENNIFER 8 (finally), the otherwise inept HARD RAIN (only okay-ish score this time), the otherwise tedious HUSH, and the ‘funny climactic Russian dance routine’ but otherwise disappointingly unfunny THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE, etc, etc, etc….Young’s placement on my top 30 list has been significantly improved.