I knew that many people would dislike the score after listening to it for the first time. It has the same minimalistic approach as OotP (which I liked BTW). I was never the biggest fan of the soundtracks John Williams has written. I like them but none of the three blew me away. The comparison between Mark Snow's work and Nicholas Hooper is apt because they both work with the atmosphere of a movie/series and do not establish themes. Yes I also would have like it if Pat Doyle had returned because his scorew GoF is still my favourite (even if the movie itself is the one I like the least) but the score Nicholas Hooper worked very well in OotP and I hope that this very dark and brooding score reflects the movie.

> I knew that many people would dislike the score after listening to it for
> the first time. It has the same minimalistic approach as OotP (which I
> liked BTW). I was never the biggest fan of the soundtracks John Williams
> has written. I like them but none of the three blew me away. The
> comparison between Mark Snow's work and Nicholas Hooper is apt because
> they both work with the atmosphere of a movie/series and do not establish
> themes. Yes I also would have like it if Pat Doyle had returned because
> his scorew GoF is still my favourite (even if the movie itself is the one
> I like the least) but the score Nicholas Hooper worked very well in OotP
> and I hope that this very dark and brooding score reflects the movie.

Well, see, that's terrific that Hooper is so acquainted and comfortable with atmospheric writing without any themes.

But it has nothing to lose in a Harry Potter movie.
You wouldn't hire Howard Shore for a James Bond movie. You wouldn't put deliciously creamy chocolate on a delicious pizza capricciosa. And you wouldn't hire Mark Snow for a Harry Potter movie - nor SHOULD you.

I, and many fans, care a flying crap about David Yates' good work relationship with Nicholas Hooper, when the result is hopelessly inadequate in such an obvious way.

There are less and less big pictures that have good scores by competent FILM composers, that are not teeming with Remote Control crap.
If I want an atmospheric score, I'll turn to the appropriate genre. Harry Potter needs themes, it needs variety, some major moded music, class ... for god's sake, it just needs good music!
Is that too much to ask for?

> Well, see, that's terrific that Hooper is so acquainted and comfortable
> with atmospheric writing without any themes.

> But it has nothing to lose in a Harry Potter movie.
> You wouldn't hire Howard Shore for a James Bond movie. You wouldn't put
> deliciously creamy chocolate on a delicious pizza capricciosa. And you
> wouldn't hire Mark Snow for a Harry Potter movie - nor SHOULD you.

> I, and many fans, care a flying crap about David Yates' good work
> relationship with Nicholas Hooper, when the result is hopelessly
> inadequate in such an obvious way.

> There are less and less big pictures that have good scores by competent
> FILM composers, that are not teeming with Remote Control crap.
> If I want an atmospheric score, I'll turn to the appropriate genre. Harry
> Potter needs themes, it needs variety, some major moded music, class ...
> for god's sake, it just needs good music!
> Is that too much to ask for?

I seriously do not get why you are complaining, people are indeed entitled to their own opinion about Hooper's music. When I first heard his score for OOTP I thought it was excellent but then after several listens, I thought that it was only above average. What mattered is that it served the story and fit with the tone that David Yates established for the series and that is all what it all boils down to when it comes to film scores.

And what do you mean that Harry Potter needs variety? Williams, Doyle and Hooper have all put their own stamps to the films bringing a musical variety that is rooted upon Williams' now signature theme and each composer is allowed and entitled to interpret the music that came before them and put their own spin on them, regardless of how many people like it or dislike it. Then again who is to say what kind of music belongs in a Harry Potter movie?

I do not intend to argue with people like you about the qualities of film music, qualities that they are apparently not able to discern from utterly failed attempts at it.

The excuse that the music is only there to fit the mood of the film and not more holds no candle, not even a matchstick, for the entire history of film music classics - to which Philosopher's Stone belongs - PROVES otherwise.
I do not care about your opinion, when the entire history of film music backs me up.
Great film music has always lifted their respective films by showcasing classy, not necessarily classical, music with a distinct touch and style, and enough guts to take center stage from time to time.
Film music was BORN with the entire attention of the audience on it, and later became an offspring of opera - film music is supposed to be heard and to be recognised, and to be REMEMBERED.

Just scoring what's already there is a cheap way to earn your paycheck for a movie that screams, BEGS for more. Hooper doesn't take center stage, that's why he will fall into oblivion.
There are movies, thrillers, comedies, horror films, that need subtle, supportive music.
Movies like Harry Potter do not.
Williams' Harry Potter music is heard constantly all over TV, in commercials, coverages ... Because the music connects with something, a particular atmosphere, singular to these movies.
Hooper's bland charade connects with nothing, except the notion of "I've heard that somewhere else before ... better."

Maybe HBP does have a few merits, in its own desperate way, but it isn't the right ones.

And even from a purely, PURELY, musical point of view, Hooper's score is shoddy to the extreme. Even if this approach were mildly effective in Harry Potter, it features NOTHING we haven't heard elsewhere a million times, and a million times better.

People are indeed entitled to like, even love, this piece of inadequate trash, but it remains just that - a completely indifferent, tame, unimaginitve underscore that not a single person will care for, even less remember, after a year or two will have passed.

And despite some people's adoration for it, Half Blood Prince remains the most remarkable piece of dissapointment since new coke.

> I knew that many people would dislike the score after listening to it for
> the first time. It has the same minimalistic approach as OotP (which I
> liked BTW). I was never the biggest fan of the soundtracks John Williams
> has written. I like them but none of the three blew me away. The
> comparison between Mark Snow's work and Nicholas Hooper is apt because
> they both work with the atmosphere of a movie/series and do not establish
> themes. Yes I also would have like it if Pat Doyle had returned because
> his scorew GoF is still my favourite (even if the movie itself is the one
> I like the least) but the score Nicholas Hooper worked very well in OotP
> and I hope that this very dark and brooding score reflects the movie.

I agree! top notch score, cant wait to purchase it!!

> I agree! top notch score, cant wait to purchase it!!

People like you are the death of good film scoring.

> People like you are the death of good film scoring.

um...no. while i would love the return of williams to the franchise, i think hooper has earned his keep. besides, it's my RIGHT to like it. just because YOU don't like it, Doesn't MEAN I CANT LIKE IT.

it's really people like you that are the death of film scoring. cause all you do is bitch, nitpick, and complain. I think this score deserves a place in my top 200, the 101 mark. There have classics before it and there will be after it. so [bleep!] off, and complain on the ffshrine.

> um...no. while i would love the return of williams to the franchise, i
> think hooper has earned his keep. besides, it's my RIGHT to like it. just
> because YOU don't like it, Doesn't MEAN I CANT LIKE IT.

> it's really people like you that are the death of film scoring. cause all
> you do is bitch, nitpick, and complain. I think this score deserves a
> place in my top 200, the 101 mark. There have classics before it and there
> will be after it. so [bleep!] off, and complain on the ffshrine.

Doesn't help you can't speak proper English. That, and the fact you start rambling on about your right and telling others to "bleep" off.

> People like you are the death of good film scoring.

People like you are the death of polite and intelligent debate and conversation. Some people like this score and others don't. We all have our opinions, and I personally find it rather pigheaded and arrogant of you to make rude comments because of someone's tastes.

I believe that Hooper's score is very different and inventive and fitting for the film. Everyone seems so bent on complaining about it, but I think if a score makes you feel the right emotion for the scene, it's doing its job, regardless of theme or motifs or the use of former material from say Williams or Doyle. Hooper's score, for me, is a delight. I wouldn't change a thing.

This thread has indeed taken a spectacularly rude and arrogant turn for the worse. As stated above, some people appreciate the score, some don't. That's okay. Statements about who is definitively 'right' and 'wrong' are.. well... I don't have the sense of humor to bother responding to that.

I do think that, just as the books develop and span a range of moods and ideas between the first and seventh, so too should the films develop with new ideas. The bright, hummable, instrumentally fancy Williams melodies of the first few scores were great, but I feel the final installments of the Harry Potter story are a good fit with far subtler, more emotional and introspective music.

It might not be full of melodic treats written expressly to echo through all of film history with cute, attention-hungry themes, but I'm not looking for that. In the end, the Harry Potter scores might not form a seven-disc opera of Williams ideas. And they might not support the wants of an expert critic who likes film music to dominate above all other elements with feats of musical showmanship. But I'm not looking for that. I go to see Harry Potter for a cinematic experience, for the story, as it's written in the books, and I feel the two Hooper scores fit their respective films. In my opinion, Hooper's music has been a great accompaniment to these chapters of the story, and the majority of his cues I've enjoyed and deeply appreciated over many, many repeated listens.

This may not be of any particular interest, but a few of my favorites from Half Blood Prince-
"Dumbledore"
"Farewell"
"The Drink of Despair"
"When Ginny Kissed Harry" (I thought this one was just fantastic in the film!)
"Ron's Victory"
"Harry & Hermione"

> People like you are the death of polite and intelligent debate and
> conversation. Some people like this score and others don't. We all have
> our opinions, and I personally find it rather pigheaded and arrogant of
> you to make rude comments because of someone's tastes.

> I believe that Hooper's score is very different and inventive and fitting
> for the film. Everyone seems so bent on complaining about it, but I think
> if a score makes you feel the right emotion for the scene, it's doing its
> job, regardless of theme or motifs or the use of former material from say
> Williams or Doyle. Hooper's score, for me, is a delight. I wouldn't change
> a thing.

> People like you are the death of polite and intelligent debate and
> conversation. Some people like this score and others don't. We all have
> our opinions, and I personally find it rather pigheaded and arrogant of
> you to make rude comments because of someone's tastes.

> I believe that Hooper's score is very different and inventive and fitting
> for the film. Everyone seems so bent on complaining about it, but I think
> if a score makes you feel the right emotion for the scene, it's doing its
> job, regardless of theme or motifs or the use of former material from say
> Williams or Doyle. Hooper's score, for me, is a delight. I wouldn't change
> a thing.

^^^^

WHAT YOU SAID.