> Before I even start to reply to your post in detail, let me tell you that
> only a person blinded by awards, mesmerized by success, raped by
> Hollywood's machinery and unable to look behind a music's volume could
> possibly create a chain of reasoning like yours and believe in it.

> Who the hell are you to judge how much respect these people have? Excuse
> me for getting harsh, but you don't know a f*cking thing about their
> private personalities.
> Isn't the Zimmer defenders' desperate clinging to Spielberg's statement a
> sign that they secretly realise Zimmer has no substance? If Zimmer's work
> is really of that high quality, then it should get critical recognition in
> his own right, and not need the name Steven Spielberg attached to it.

> Yes, Hollywood lllloooooves the big money, doesn't it? Whether a
> composer's name sells or not says absolutely ZERO about his work or work
> ethics. Yes, Zimmer is bringing new fans to film music. The question is
> just: what kind of fans? The ones that visit a Christina Aguilera concert
> and listen to some Zimmer on the way home? Those folks know as much about
> the magic and subtlety of film music as Hans Zimmer does; sometimes even
> less.
> If being an elitist means being against these people being called film
> music fans, then I'll be happy to be called an elitist.
> Because these people don't embrace the musical past and hold it high as an
> example for legendary film music. They're not fans of film music, they're
> fans of Hans Zimmer, they listen to his music because it's a light and
> enjoyable listen.
> Nothing wrong with that you say? I agree, but the true mastery of film
> scoring goes far, far beyond that, and those people will most likely never
> get to understand this. Great film music grabs you by your neck, it's bone
> chilling, heartwrenching, tear-inducing, blood pressure rising
> rollercoaster of emotions.
> Hans Zimmer's music for AWE, and most of his other work, has no emotions,
> no heart, because he doesn't feel the heart of a scene in the first place.
> It's an unapproachable iceberg.

> Only a truly naive person measures a person's qualities by the number of
> times he appears on award lists.

> This may be more nonsense than my controller can take in at once. What on
> earth does it matter how many scores someone "writes" (in the
> broadest meaning of the word) in any given timeframe? I would take one
> Williams over three Zimmers any day.
> Your comments about Shore's or Williams' scores becoming redundant, I'm
> sorry, is just a definite sign that you don't know what the hell you're
> talking about. The fact alone that Howard Shore is now counted amongst the
> most respected and talented composers in the industry, and therefor a
> potential threat to any Zimmer fan (count the times Shore is mentioned in
> Zimmer discussions), shows that he has achieved more in four years than
> Zimmer has in ten. And that you name Shore in one sentence with John
> Williams probably means that you're one of those "new" fans,
> too, since Shore didn't make it big until 2002.

> I thought I could give these words some special attention, as they ooze
> truly mindboggling stupidity.
> Do you think Zimmeritos are the only ones with these "problems"?
> What about Vangelis fans? He writes like one score in a decade. Or Elliot
> Goldenthal fans? Or Horner fans? Williams seldomly writes three scores a
> year. Sometimes he even takes a year off, like now. How about three great
> scores PLUS one amazing score? He did Memoirs Of A Geisha, Munich, Star
> Wars Episode III and War Of The Worlds al in one year. Now you can choose
> which is the amazing one.

> Yes, he writes what the directors/producers want. Every composer has to do
> that, it's not like Hans Zimmer is getting some treatment other composers
> do not. On the contrary. I can't imagine hans Zimmer, being the most
> sought after composer in Hollywood, not having freedom with any given
> film. And even if the director says he wants this or that, ultimately,
> it's the composer's hands that write down notes, and if he feels the film
> needs some special tone or approach, he's free to at least try it.
> Following the director's/producer's suggestions without a question can
> quite often lead to less than average results.

> And that comment about other composers being kicked off projects is
> completely uncalled for. And don't kid yourself. Hans Zimmer and his bunch
> of yes-sayers aren't chosen as a replacement because they do perfect
> music. They are chosen because they can produce relatively big amounts of
> music of acceptable, but incredibly predictable, quality in a short
> timeframe.

> You always know what you'll get from Remote Control. The director doesn't
> need to discuss the tone of the film with them. That's the zeitgeist.
> Musical lazyness.

There's something very wrong psychologically with someone who gets that angry and verbally abusive over how others judge a composer's musical style. There are many more important issues in the world to be angry about.