SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Incredibles 2
    2. Solo: A Star Wars Story
   3. Deadpool 2
  4. Avengers: Infinity War
 5. A Quiet Place
6. Ready Player One
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
        2. Gladiator
       3. Blade Runner 2049
      4. Batman
     5. Thor: Ragnarok
    6. The Avengers
   7. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  8. Avatar
 9. Dunkirk
10. Phantom Thread
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Comments about the soundtrack for The Forgotten (James Horner)

Edit | Delete
quite enjoyable actually!
• Posted by: CS^TBL
• Date: Friday, December 10, 2004, at 4:18 p.m.
• IP Address: 62-221-215-55.dsl.fiberworld.nl

It's not an album to be placed within the line of Legends of the Fall, Titanic Aliens, Star Trek etc. It's very haunting, almost new-age. After the album you don't remember themes orso, you remember a few basic elements such as chord-progressions (I've heard them before however.. ahwell.. what else is new.. it *is* Horner we're talking here ), instruments, synths etc. It's *very* atmospherical.

The synths don't bother me at all, even better: they're good, they belong at the place where they are now. There's a certain kind of conservatism about scores involving synths. Synths seem to work fine for reviewers as long as they simulate conventional instruments.. which is one of the 2 goals of a synth. The other goal is to create new sounds that can't be produced with conventional instruments. Why are harsh sounds always bad in the eyes of conservative reviewers? Zimmer gets the full load of it when he uses some (really) synthetic sounds, while Vangelis' Alexander gets 5 stars for an album made with samples from conventional instruments? That's the whole point, it somehow always seems to have to sound conventional, if it sounds conventional it doesn't matter where the sound comes from .. orchestra or synths.

Now the question for the conservative people: when is well-produced/mixed sound still 'ugly'? Who decides whether a sound is ugly or not?
Even better: if some instrumentbuilder invents an acoustical instrument that produces the exact 'harsh' sound as synths did before that instrument was made.. is it suddenly an ok-sound then?

I'm not a Horner fan, and tho many of his scores are well-produced and orchestrated and generally very well listenable, his ripping more or less spoils the fun. That is, many tracks of him sound amusing for sure.. but the more you listen to other music, the more you suddenly 'reckognise'
Anyhow, I would rate this score **** .. the sound is very nice, the atmosphere rocks.. if, let's say, 50% of this album would be some more different then it could be a ***** .

But really, cut the crap with the synths-bashing. Just accept a synth (referring to real synthetic tones now, not synths doing imitations of conventional instruments) as 'another tonal group' in the whole symphony.




Comments in this Thread:     Expand >>
  •   quite enjoyable actually!  (3490 views)    We're Here
       CS^TBL - Friday, December 10, 2004, at 4:18 p.m.


Copyright © 1998-2018, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.