iTunes (U.S.)
eBay (U.S.)
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
         1. Gladiator
        2. Batman
       3. Nightmare Before Christmas
      4. Titanic
     5. Justice League
    6. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
   7. Harry Potter: Sorcerer's Stone
  8. Maleficent
 9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens
10. Edward Scissorhands
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Comments about the soundtrack for The Forgotten (James Horner)

Edit | Delete
Re: quite enjoyable actually!
• Posted by: JS Park   <Send E-Mail>
• Date: Monday, December 20, 2004, at 6:07 p.m.
• IP Address:
• In Response to: quite enjoyable actually! (CS^TBL)

> 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?
> 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.

I really agree. I hate synths that are trying to sound like real instruments but the synths that arent are much more acceptable.

overall I'm totally against synths, I'm all for for orchestras...I grow weary of the synth scores of late...

Comments in this Thread:     Expand >>
  • quite enjoyable actually!  (3692 views)
       CS^TBL - Friday, December 10, 2004, at 4:18 p.m.
    •      Re: quite enjoyable actually!  (3462 views)    We're Here
         JS Park - Monday, December 20, 2004, at 6:07 p.m.

Copyright © 1998-2020, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the 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.