> It's always interesting to see, how difficult scores cause lay critics a
> lot of reviewing trouble. Evident is the following sentence:
> "That doesn't necessarily mean that Goldsmith's score, despite its
> effectiveness in the few portions of the film where it was allowed to
> flourish, is readily enjoyable."
> What does "enjoyable" mean in this context? Does the
> enjoyability of music really rely on its tonal qualities as implied by Mr.
> Clemmensen? The answer has to be "No!". So this word
> "enjoyable" is just hiding a more appropriate word like
> "catchy", meaning that after the first listen, you already got
> accsess to the music. Well this word would have already blown Mr.
> Clemmensens's cover, that he couldn't and did not want to listen to this
> difficult music and maybe find something that you may call hidden
> structure or grandeur. Within the die-hard-melodic thinking of Mr.
> Clemmensen atonality seems to be maybe something mysterious and dangerous,
> but definetely something distracting and let's say - unenjoyable. This is
> also evident in his once again ludicrous theory, that Goldenthal
> over-intellectualized his film scores. Not to mention how early
> over-intellectualization may already begin in Mr. Clemmensens view, this
> is simply the most imprecise formulation the author could find to give his
> personal and from an intellectual point indiscussable opinion the
> semblence of anything at least related to objectivity. It's that simple.
> Two words and your view of the world, although reliing on ignorance and/or
> a lack of knowledge, is saved for the next time, when a distracting atonal
> score lands on filmtracks' personal conveyer belt of phrase-mongering with
> the goal of degrading it just because it is too intellectual for the
> author. Or the author too unintelligent for the score. Choose your answer.
> Greetings,
> Matthias Noe
You're completely entitled to your opinion, just the same as Clemmenson is entitled to his. Just be aware, ye great and self-proclaimed intellectual, that a review is in its most central form a matter of expressing ones opinion to the masses. The fact that you are read this review implies that at one point or another you showed an interest in that opinion, either for advice or for the purpose of complaining about the opinions of others. Intellectual though you may aspire to be, it shows a great deal of immaturity to complain about being subjected to opinions unsatisfying to you, and a great deal more to find that difference of opinion as reason to question the intelligence of such opposition.
Does this mean that I believe Clemmenson's comments to be correct? Far from it. I have never heard Goldsmith's score for Alien. Maybe one day I will. But if I do, I would surely maintain maturity enough to discuss varying opinions in a reasonable manner. Perhaps one day, you will find the same.
|
