But that's just my humble opinion.

for example: Why Clear and present danger is rated with 2 stars or 3 and flighplan with 4 stars?Clear and present danger has the same designed(if someone could call this sound designed) and at least this score has a more memorable theme and some great fanfarres.then why rated under fighplan?
All this is very incoherent.

the most ridiculous thing about all this reviews is the revier says:
"When I first listened to James Horner's score for Flightplan, I was checking my emails and browsing the internet. The second time, I was reading a book about stochastic modelling of mortality (what a truly exciting life I lead). If I hadn't intended to review it, I doubt I'd have listened a third time. I barely remembered it was even playing most of the time, and when it did become a bit louder and demand a bit more attention, I heard lots of music I'd heard many times before from Horner."

Kris, I actually tend to only buy scores that I consider to be 5 star albums ... if I feel they're any less than I'll stay away, unless there's one stellar piece I just must have.

I hate the whole star rating system. The star rating is by far the least important part of any review I write and by far the least likely to be consistent with other reviews, or indeed to make sense at all. It simply has to be an arbitrary decision.

If I were to get a little bit more philosophical about it then I suppose one could say that one might expect the distribution of star ratings to be approximately Normal, and so the majority of scores would get three stars, most of the rest would get two or four, and those few that remain would get one or five. I'm not sure that scores are distributed like that though - some people might think it's a Uniform distribution and so 20% of scores deserve to get five stars. I wouldn't go to that extreme either. In terms of scores I actually review (taking into account that there are a few that I get sent which I think are so dreadful I just can't be bothered to write anything about them) I guess there's a slightly negatively-skewed but approximately Normal distribution, in theory.

Add to this the abysmal range of most internet reviewers and you get people whose knowledge is so slim that they have no frame of reference that you can relate to.

For example, how can you trust a review from someone who only listens to Horner or Zimmer or Elfman or Williams or Goldsmith scores?

Also, it is intrinsically difficult to write about music without getting all technical with music terminology or so vague as to be pointless. How do you describe the sense of majesty amongst the desolation that you get from the opening strains of Lawrence of Arabia?

I am sure that there are good reviewers out there, but probably not as many as they themselves believe.

I'm not commenting on the reviews referenced above as I haven't read them, just commenting on the critical art in general.

1: 6
1.5: 0
2: 7
2.5: 6
3: 26
3.5: 22
4: 26
4.5: 12
5: 2

You're right - there are far too many at the four-star range!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
Many reviewers are not objective

---

Nothing, absolutely nothing is "objective." That's a huge myth, whether we're talking about film score reviews or any other kind of writing, you'll not find "objectivity" anywhere—maybe "balance," but nothing "objective."

NP: Batman Begins (HZ / JNH) *****/*****

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimmerito:
Its the greastest game ever played,history of violance,corpse bride....too much high ratings for so many convencional scores..
My modest opinion.

---

I couldn't agree with you more, zimmerito. It's just a matter of taste. I like big themes, big action, sweeping stuff and incredible stuff. A score like A History of Violence seemed to me, on film at least (and it's an incredible film!), to serve the picture perfectly but would be a very boring listen; Howard Shore is the master of underscore and atmosphere on whatever film he works on—a lot of it sounds strange on CD, to me.

Southall in my modest opinion a thiller score is more for composers like goldenthal or shore because they can compose a great and special sound with orchestra.In my opinion James horner is always a loser horse for this kind of films.Because is more a melodic composer.
a thriler movie is very hard to use some melodic elements.Maybe if he returns to brainstorm "sound"(a really great use of orchestra).But horner stay with his larger than life strings and his dated synth(I'm really scared to hear the chumbruse score,could be a horrendous score in my opinion)

I don't know.Maybe i'm too hard with film music.Because this summer I didn't like batman begins,war of the worlds,kingdom of heaven...maybe i lost my faith and maybe the problem is mine.

NP:Agnes of God(delure)

NP: Batman Begins (HZ / JNH) *****/*****

too much composers,and so little time!
But its hard to buy scores.Sometimes You must paid 20 euros for 35 minuts of score relase.And the most of the times you don't know if your favourite cues from the movie was on the cd release.Sometime I'm tempted to download first,and buy after.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimmerito:
i don't like alcohol(but i like his effects on me),and in spain drink is too much expensive!!!

---

Here in Canada it's expensive too, depending on where you go, but it's fun as hell and I love the taste. I don't think I like too many scores, my pallette is pretty broad when it comes to music, so I'd hate to have a hobby being super critical of this-that-and-the-other-thing with something I'm "supposed" love or like a great deal. Zimmer and Horner detractors I find peculiar and disturbing. Also, those who believe EVERY bloody film score must include a massive symphony orchestra or else it's not a real film score; gimme a break!

I have written hundreds of reviews throughout the years and I feel that the most difficult thing is to review film scores in the right context: should it be compared to other scores by the same composer, or should it be placed in time against film music history? I remember having this problem when I was reviewing a bunch of Goldsmith CDs many years ago. Bad Girls got a 3.0 rating, because it didn't stand out in the Goldsmith discography - it was a good, solid Goldsmith score. But in comparison with scores written by the majority of other composers, it sure as hell stands out as a very good score. On the other hand, put in a historical perspective it definitely does not stand out! So, you have to decide what approach you should have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimmerito:
oops! i forgot the most over rated score in the list of the over rated scores of this year.
Oliver twist.Some sites rate this score with 4 starts...
And its a simple piano work with some charming melodies!!!!!

---

LOL. Zimmerito, you have to understand that 1) reviews are subjective, 2) a "simple piano work with some charming melodies" can certainly be a masterpiece!!! IMO, very often less is more. Do you realise how difficult it is to get "a simple piano work" right?

That said, I haven' heard Oliver Twist yet.

Sometimes the reviewers are fans only posting what they like. Some are stuck wishing for the "good old days." Some are faced with trying to say at least something that can help someone make up their mind to buy the CD. If they are honest about what they are hearing (and like) it's a little easier.

A good example could be a Morriconne spaghetti western score being "reissued." Some will go nuts about this, even if you like the style of music, a good reviewer will know form the start where that piece fits in historically in film, in the composer's output, and as a genre score.

I can tell you from personal experience that depending on what I have had to listen through in a given day, I might rate something higher simply because the previous 2-3 scores I reviewed were awful. Sometimes even mediocre music can sound like masterpieces if they are preceded by drech.

"Flightplan" seemed to work well in the movie, it was pretty non-descript when it needed to be and did not draw attention to itself. Not sure about the score on its own but my guess is that it is run-of-the-mill Horner. Which only means a top drawer composer working their art well.

Zimmerito in relevant non-polarizing thread shock!

It is an interesting point. .Is it possible to be dispassionate about something clearly designed to inflame passion? Sean would probably say no. I might even agree. But if a film score can arouse my passion and make me care then I have to say that it is probably a very effective score. I would also wager that many others would see it that way as well. Unless my tastes are so outré compared to most score fans as to make my views alien.

Saying that nothing can be objective means that it is impossible make any judgments about art without knowing the lens we see it through.

While I can see that some individuals could view or hear art in a highly subjective way that would seem alien or even unknowable, it is possible for a consensus about a work to form. For example, most people consider a Cézanne a work of art. Some may not agree but the consensus is that it is art. Is that an objective view? After all it isn’t one subjective viewpoint but a collective one formed by years of thought and criticism by a horde of art critics and plain folk who are stirred by beauty of the work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
True objectivity might be like perfection, an unobtainable goal but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.

It is an interesting point. .Is it possible to be dispassionate about something clearly designed to inflame passion? Sean would probably say no. I might even agree. But if a film score can arouse my passion and make me care then I have to say that it is probably a very effective score. I would also wager that many others would see it that way as well. Unless my tastes are so outré compared to most score fans as to make my views alien.

Saying that nothing can be objective means that it is impossible make any judgments about art without knowing the lens we see it through.

While I can see that some individuals could view or hear art in a highly subjective way that would seem alien or even unknowable, it is possible for a consensus about a work to form. For example, most people consider a Cézanne a work of art. Some may not agree but the consensus is that it is art. Is that an objective view? After all it isn’t one subjective viewpoint but a collective one formed by years of thought and criticism by a horde of art critics and plain folk who are stirred by beauty of the work.

So perhaps these good and bad reviews are the avant garde of future consensus. The harbingers of objective thought to come, if not objective in their own right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Well, I just think most people will have a pre-conceived notion about almost anything placed in front of them, or will just have no opinion whatsoever. (Someone who listens to ONLY 50 Cent or something like that may just dismiss a film score as sounding "old fashioned" or wierd, on it's own.) Like, we make snap judgements about people everyday just by looking at them across the street or in class or at work, whatever: you don't know that person at all but you still may judge and criticise them for their fashion, their looks, anything ... same goes for music or movies: I see the trailer for Elizabethtown and I've already made up my mind that it's just sentimentalist crap that I need not waste my time on.

---

I certainly understand that first impressions can be deceiving that is why I am willing to revaluate them if I receive new information. For example if I see someone across the street who looks like Cletus, the slack jawed yokel, I might assume that is what he is. If he crosses the street and engages me in conversation about data cubes and SQL coding I am happy to rethink my view of him. In this way, a review could be helpful.

I am not a huge fan of Hans Zimmers work and almost never buy his scores. But if I read a post or a review that explains to me why this score is different and what is good about, I might reconsider my NOBUY policy on his scores.

It seems that what your saying by your example of Elizabethtown is that no matter what a critic or reviewer says about the film you will never see it because you have decided from the trailer that it isn’t for you. I would hate to never be surprise by a film or a score.

In any event, this doesn’t seem relevant to the nature of consensus that I was talking about in my previous post..

quote:

---

Originally posted by MMM:
Most reviewers depend upon comp copies from the label, and they know that if they trash a release they are less likely to get all or any of the comps they want in the future. So many reviews get "boosted" a bit higher than they would normally be if the reviewers were being honest about the product at hand and not (maybe just subconsciously) thinking about all the freebies they hope they'll get in the future.

---

I just have to say this is definitely not the case with me. Such an approach would be unprofessional and unethical. In fact, some composers - and record producers - have written to me after I've written an unfavourable review and has been very interested in the criticism. We have had some good discussions.

Now, on the flipside, the most honest reviews are those from people who are not journalists... those who not trying to impress a label or composer for the sake of it, etc. I am speaking of the consumer with a passion for this stuff and the comments they write at places like Amazon.com and here at MovieMusic.

Right here at home, I am certain no label has sent free junk to Swashbuckler, KenS, pianoman, craig, filmfactsman or alessio_wrx. These are people who love the stuff they've bought enough to care about sharing their experiences with readers. Plenty of others have submitted comments, tons, but those mentioned above are those still at it and coming to all of us from different perspectives. Check out the ages and backgrounds... all different.

Swashbuckler: Mostly technical, matter-of-fact reviews, very thorough and most helpful for the discerning soundtrack fan.

Craig: Succinct commentary highlighting the moving dramatic musical moments in film, shared through personal experience with the music.

pianoman: Long-winded reviews expressing overall enthusiasm for the score in layman's lexicon. Although lengthy at times, complete honesty is the expression.

filmfactsman: Very well-written, concise accounts of older (and some newer) soundtracks as related to their films, directors, histories, etc. Most accessible for the not-so-hardcore soundtrack nut looking back.

Ken S: One of the few reviewers I've had the pleasure of editing who actually cause me to pull out CDs he's reviewing. Manner of description and enthusiasm is very engaging.

Alessio_wrx: Heavy metal fan #1. Reviews cover things most people here would never touch, and I'm grateful he's keeping tabs on it for the metal soundtrack fans.

Thanks to you guys for taking time out to share the passion outside of the message board!

Finally, and this is probably something no one here would care about for its generic qualities, but the front page soundtrack features on this site are written for the larger society with the short attention span (as this represents most types of visitors to the overall site). This means the possible mixture of 1) and one or all of the rest:

1) short
2) movie description
3) music description
4) director association/involvement
5) worldly associations
6) historical context
7) humor
http://www.moviemusic.com/search/reviews.asp?viewfeatures

Do you guys read these features at all? I'd be interested in how you think they help or hurt things. Too general? Too short? Pointless? Etc.

Interesting thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MMM:
Most reviewers depend upon comp copies from the label, and they know that if they trash a release they are less likely to get all or any of the comps they want in the future. So many reviews get "boosted" a bit higher than they would normally be if the reviewers were being honest about the product at hand and not (maybe just subconsciously) thinking about all the freebies they hope they'll get in the future.

---

I suspect this has been more true recently of the in-print magazines than the websites, much though that goes against popular theory, simply because the majority of the websites are those around today are the same ones that were there before the days of record labels thinking sending CDs to internet sites might be a good idea. As has been said earlier in the thread, there was a whole raft of websites appearing a couple of years ago, which were almost all dreadful, and almost all gave five-star reviews to the latest junk release of a synth score by a composer nobody's ever heard of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by zimmerito:
Very interesting.
Did you talk with hans zimmer or james horner about your bad reviews?
tell us ,please.

---

With Zimmer, yes I have. And believe me, he actually isn't very fond of Pearl Harbor himself.

As someone who reviews both discs received as "comps" and ones I purchase, I can say that there are times when promoters for comp discs get a little touchy about what you say.

I have found it common on occasion for a composer, or label producer to write with a thank you for something many times. And I have had to work with some promoters to help them understand that I will not review certain discs at all. (This is more a problem with the ones that are songs from a movie instead of underscore.)

Part of the problem is that new promoters need to build up their freelance base. What that means is that they have to find out a reviewers "favorites" and they can sometimes gain a good review that way.

A case in point was "Fanfare"'s assigning of third tier repertoire to John Baumann back in the 1980s. The poor guy could find good things to say about even the least interesting classical piece from some forgotten 19th century composer.