352 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

The composer that EON needs to hire, and in a hurry, is Osvaldo Golijov. Despite the fact that he's not incredibly well-known, he's one of the few true-blue composers working today (he's a classical composer, first and foremost), and his work on YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH and TETRO is searing and powerful. If there's a composer working today that's a true heir to the tradition of great film composers like Bernard Herrmann, it's him.

I think he's very good, but wrong for Bond. Why? Because his approach to film composition is too classical, too formal, too 18th century, too Germanic for Bond.

The Bond sound needs to be a mix of late 19th Century romantic impressionism and dissonant 20th Century modernism. With that comes the Jazz influence, naturally. Great film composers like Goldsmith, Herrmann, Barry, and Rosenman were influenced by that primarily.

[Harmsway]

I think he's very good, but wrong for Bond. Why? Because his approach to film composition is too classical, too formal, too 18th century, too Germanic for Bond.

Are you familiar with his score for TETRO, or even much of his classical work? I'm guessing not, given your above description only describes a portion of what Golijov has achieved as a composer.

The Bond sound needs to be a mix of late 19th Century romantic impressionism and dissonant 20th Century modernism.

I fail to see how that doesn't describe a great amount of Golijov's work.

With that comes the Jazz influence, naturally. Great film composers like Goldsmith, Herrmann, Barry, and Rosenman were influenced by that primarily.

Well, I wouldn't say they were all influenced by that primarily. It's certainly true of Barry, but I'd argue that that's not all the case with someone like Herrmann. At any rate, there's more than a touch of jazz about Golijov's work on TETRO.

[The Shark]

I've only heard a small portion of his music online, but no where enough to say I've listened to his his whole repertoire or anything close. As I said, I like what I've heard, but unfortunately what I've heard is flamenco inflicted, classically orientated pieces, with a hint of Morricone.

I wish I could hear more.

[darthbond]

Simple answer to the question. Yes, I would like for Arnold to do more.

darthbond

[Odd Jobbies]

I think Arnold's still the right man. QoS was the best Bond OST in years, IMO.

He obviously knows how to do the ballsey set-piece numbers in a gritty, bombastic way that i think is crucial to Craig's no nonsense macho approach to the action

But more importantly his lighter, often transitional tracks that are variations on the theme really bring the character to the fore. I think many other composers would struggle to use the theme so lightly without either losing it in another melody, or over using it. Arnold's efforts usually nest perfectly within the ambience of the scene.

...Eg. 'Inside Man', 'The Dead Don't Care About Vengeance' and ' Talamone' from QoS.

Most delightfully surprising of all was the last one-minute of 'Pursuit At Port Au Prince', which transitions from the bombastic action to a light transition - simple tone& keystroke alike 'Drifting Away' from the album Reverence by Faithless - eventually incorporating the theme. Felt fresh, but still Bond.

Plus 'Camille's Story' was up there with the OST numbers by Gustavo Santaolalla on films such as Babel. Santaolalla's ' Iguazu', originally used in Michael Mann's film The Insider, is IMO among the very best pieces of music ever committed to film and i think Arnold was obviously inspired by it with 'Camille's Story', doing a great job.

'Somebody Wants to Kill You' was another nice surprise, owing a lot the the band 'Yello' (i'd love to hear them do a dedicated score for a movie one day).

I think Arnold's great work on the above mentioned tracks makes him the best man for B23.

If, for some reason Eon did consider another composer, then i guess the obvious mainstream name would be Hans Zimmer, solely for his score for The Dark Knight - phenomenal in it's brave, stunning use of disturbing, uncomfortable soundscapes - particularly in the Hong Kong scene. Though i imagine this David Lynchian approach was down to Chris Nolan.

Also his simple, but highly effective score for Sherlock Holmes (the best aspect - along with Downey - of this surprisingly good movie).
In truth this whole score was made of variations on 2 tracks pre-existing tracks: 'Farewell To Cheyenne' from Once Upon A Time In The West, & 'March of the Beggars' from A Fistful Of Dynamite, both by the greatest film composer of all time, Ennio Morrecone -- if you're gonna steal, then steal from the best, hey...

I don't suppose there's any chance of Morricone doing a Bond score...?! ....Dream on!



BTW, In case anyone gets a Déjà vu, i wrote this post for another thread, but thought it should obviously contribute to this thread.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I'd love to see (or rather, hear) John Barry come back for one final shot. But as that seems highly unlikely...

My second choice would be another veteran composer whose name I don't think has come up yet - Lalo Schifrin. Who better to do a Bond score than the man who wrote the "Mission Impossible" theme?

Choice number three would be Michael Giacchino - to me, he's the only younger composer who feels like an heir to the old guard of Barry, Williams and Goldsmith.

[Blakshade007]

YES! David Arnold is one of my favourite composers. His work on the Bond films has really raised them to a new level, specially, I feel, with the last two films which were his best overall scores. These last two films have made a transition back to the style of The World Is Not Enough, musically. It's more organic, unlike Die Another Day that used a lot of electronic music and even popular music (Green Day's London Calling).

This approach I found refreshing and it fit very well with Daniel Craig as the new bond character, who is a much more organic Bond in a sense of the word- more hands on, a bit rough around the edges- which you'd expect of Bond who has just been promoted to 00 status, and so this license to kill is a somewhat new concept for him. To stray from the music a little, I think that as Bond develops his character, his cynicism will become more defined in his humour, as we saw in previous Bond characters.

Back to David Arnold, his ability to compose unique Bond scores that incorporate previously used elements is a defining element of the series. We have come to associate the different motifs he's developed from his previous Bond films and the films of John Barry with Bond. If one way to take away all these characteristic motifs, the films wouldn't feel like Bond films.

Ultimately, David Arnold should continue to score the Bond films at least for the remainder of Daniel Craig's time as Bond. The last two films have proven what a great combination Arnold and Craig have made, and so for the sake of continuity, if nothing else, Arnold should to continue to do as he does so well- compose for Bond!

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I think the next Bond composer should have a background in Jazz, and I mean REAL Jazz since that is where the true Bond sound orginated. A student of the greats like Charlie "Bird" Parker. Of course you would also need classic rock like Elvis or Big Bopper as well as classical composers like Mozart or Bach.

I'd agree with jazz and classical composers, but rock is in my opinion completely out of place for a British gentleman like James Bond.

Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 15 January 2010 - 06:29 PM.

[The Shark]

YES! David Arnold is one of my favourite composers.

Oh dear.

His work on the Bond films has really raised them to a new level, specially, I feel,

Yes, if by "raised" you mean lower the Bond scores to depths they've never seen before.

with the last two films which were his best overall scores.

I still prefer TND to his dreadful score for CR, but QOS was all right.

These last two films have made a transition back to the style of The World Is Not Enough, musically.

You think that's a good thing?

It's more organic, unlike Die Another Day

Comparing a soundtrack favourable in contrast to Die Another Day, is the equivalent of saying "it's not a terrible, techno-filled, mess of a soundtrack."

that used a lot of electronic music and even popular music (Green Day's London Calling).

The very fact that you thought Green Day's wrote and performed London Calling causes me to question your judgement.

This approach I found refreshing and it fit very well with Daniel Craig as the new bond character, who is a much more organic Bond in a sense of the word

Then why is techno and synth beats present in nearly every track? Why not no synth beats at all?

- more hands on, a bit rough around the edges- which you'd expect of Bond who has just been promoted to 00 status, and so this license to kill is a somewhat new concept for him.

He's a hardened ex-SAS, ex-Navy Comander, ex-Black Ops agent. I'm sure he's killed before.

Back to David Arnold, his ability to compose unique Bond scores that incorporate previously used elements is a defining element of the series.

Like what? Clichéd, banal WAH WAH brass phrases? So what you're saying, in a sort of round-about way, is that Arnold badly parodies John Barry, while adding his own incompressible mess?

We have come to associate the different motifs he's developed from his previous Bond films

You've said, that's the fundamental problem. Arnold is an unwanted left-over from the Brosnan era, where the films with Daniel Craig should be moving on. All of his Bond soundtracks sound the same, there's little variation, when on the other hand, I could easily tell you which Barry soundtrack I was listening to if you played me a track.

If one way to take away all these characteristic motifs, the films wouldn't feel like Bond films.

There's more to a Bond soundtrack than characteristic motifs. GE and LALD still sound like Bond films, despite their unorthodox soundtracks, DAD, TWINE and CR don't. They sound like generic Hollywood action scores, or sub-par Bond parodies.

Ultimately, David Arnold should continue to score the Bond films at least for the remainder of Daniel Craig's time as Bond. The last two films have proven what a great combination Arnold and Craig have made,

The last two films have proven what a great Bond Craig is, but without a well composed soundtrack, his films will never reach the echelons of OHMSS, TLD, FRWL, TB, and GF.

Arnold needs to go.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

The last two films have proven what a great Bond Craig is, but without a well composed soundtrack, his films will never reach the echelons of OHMSS, TLD, FRWL, TB, and GF.

Arnold needs to go.

Shark, you are the man.
Not only do I share your opinion, you just mentioned my top 5 Bond films to prove a point. GREAT JOB !

[Blakshade007]

Just an observation I've made of late:
There is such a thing called forum courtesy and it'd be nice if some of you (and you know who you are) adhere to it.

Everyone has different opinions and forums are all about sharing them, but what is not ok is when people give their opinion by insulting everything and everyone. If you want to give your opinion, do so in a way that is respectful to the opinions of others, rather than mowing down everyone else's comments.

If you don't like a certain composer, that's ok, but just because you don't like him, it doesn't mean he's a bad composer. I'd like to see some of you compose a score for a 2 hour blockbuster movie. Until you've done that and have gained international recognition for it, you have no right to claim a particular composer lacks talent.

I just thought that I should make that clear, as I was appalled by the lack of general courtesy in this forum. So, if users could please be more aware of the way in which they phrase their replies, this forum can be made more friendly to use.
Thank you.

[The Shark]

Just an observation I've made of late:
There is such a thing called forum courtesy and it'd be nice if some of you (and you know who you are) adhere to it.

Everyone has different opinions and forums are all about sharing them, but what is not ok is when people give their opinion by insulting everything and everyone. If you want to give your opinion, do so in a way that is respectful to the opinions of others, rather than mowing down everyone else's comments.

If you don't like a certain composer, that's ok, but just because you don't like him, it doesn't mean he's a bad composer. I'd like to see some of you compose a score for a 2 hour blockbuster movie. Until you've done that and have gained international recognition for it, you have no right to claim a particular composer lacks talent.

I just thought that I should make that clear, as I was appalled by the lack of general courtesy in this forum. So, if users could please be more aware of the way in which they phrase their replies, this forum can be made more friendly to use.
Thank you.

All right, all right, I'll be more courteous and considerate. My comments were intended to be partly tongue-in-cheek, though unforuately that's lost on the internet. Cb.n isn't a rude, inconsiderate or ill-mannered environment, neither is this thread, that was a just one off-comment.

I disagree with the argument that one has to have also produced a score for a blockbuster action film. That kind of comment is similar to saying "you can't say this food is bad or any way criticise it, because you're not an internationally recognised chef, awarded with 3+ Michelin stars, or a chef at all". The same absurd argument could be used for criticising film.

I'm a young composer myself, and despite the fact that I haven't scored for a larger budget film yet, I think I could do a better job that what David Arnold has done, that is called self-confidence.

Kind regards, and no offence intended.

[JimmyBond]

I have my share of "tiffs" with Shark, but nothing he said in his post was in any way nasty. He was debating your points, and he did it in what I thought was a very respectable way.

I think the only bit that may have been out of line was calling you out on believing Green Day sang London Calling. But to be honest if he hadnt made mention of it I was going to call you on it.

Edit: Well, that's what happens when you take forever to reply. Still, my post stands, I don't think Shark was in any way trying to undermine your post by insulting you or being inconsiderate.

[Blakshade007]

Thank you for clearing that up. I was just taken a back that you should go through and discredit every line a wrote.

Saying London Calling was by Green Day was a mistake. I'm obviously not familiar with Green Day's music or who wrote London Calling, but the artist was nevertheless irrelevant to my point.

I disagree with the argument that one has to have also produced a score for a blockbuster action film. That kind of comment is similar to saying "you can't say this food is bad or any way criticise it, because you're not an internationally recognised chef, awarded with 3+ Michelin stars, or a chef at all". The same absurd argument could be used for criticising film.

You might not like the music of an internationally acclaimed composer, or the food of a 3+ Michelin star chef, but it doesn't mean they are bad or untalented. You can criticise it according to your own tastes, but to make sweeping statements that discredit their reputation is not fair. They've worked for years to get to the standard they are at and although it may be acquired taste for some, their work is still extremely good.

I'm a young composer myself, and despite the fact that I haven't scored for a larger budget film yet, I think I could do a better job that what David Arnold has done, that is called self-confidence.

As a bit of a composer myself when I get the time, I believe we should be inspired by Arnold's ability to manipulate and develop themes. His use of texture and pitch layered in a piece is not someone one can get right at the flick of a hat or whatever that saying is.

You say that Arnold's music is like any other big Hollywood film, but without his music the Bond films would not have had so much appeal to me. His music fits with Craig as Bond, and it is the music that can make or break a film for me. With Arnold and Bond, it made it.

If a new composer should take on the Bond project, it should be after Daniel Craig has finished his tour of duty. Then they can make a clean start with a new lead actor and a new composer. Until then, I think Arnold should stay to maintain a continuity between the Craig movies. In the films of previous Bonds to have the same composer was not so important, but considering the close correlation between plots in these latest films, Arnold is an important part of continuing the story, even if we don't see Quantum and Mr White reappear until a later Craig film.

Btw, what kind of stuff have you composed for, Shark? I'd be interested to hear some of your music sometime. What program/s do you compose with?

[The Shark]

You might not like the music of an internationally acclaimed composer, or the food of a 3+ Michelin star chef, but it doesn't mean they are bad or untalented. You can criticise it according to your own tastes, but to make sweeping statements that discredit their reputation is not fair. They've worked for years to get to the standard they are at and although it may be acquired taste for some, their work is still extremely good.

I never said the Arnold is a bad composer. In fact a lot of his stuff is quite good, and effective on-screen. However that seems to be swamped by poor to average mess, particularly in his action cues.

I wouldn't say "extremely" good, I'd say good, commercially successful, but inappropriate for Bond. I think Barry set such a high standard for Bond film scores, to the extent where it is important that the successive composer continues a comparable legacy of great soundtracks.

As a bit of a composer myself when I get the time, I believe we should be inspired by Arnold's ability to manipulate and develop themes.

I think we should be inspired by Barry's ability to do that, and Arnold's occasional influence from that.

His use of texture and pitch layered in a piece is not someone one can get right at the flick of a hat or whatever that saying is.

A lot of the time I don't think he does get it right, mainly due to him composing his pieces entirely on digital sequencers and synthesisers, as opposed to sticking to a piano and manuscript paper. This shows heavily on his output on the Bond scores. What's even worse is that he doesn't orchestrate or conduct his own work, further diluting his creative power over the soundtrack.

You say that Arnold's music is like any other big Hollywood film, but without his music the Bond films would not have had so much appeal to me. His music fits with Craig as Bond, and it is the music that can make or break a film for me. With Arnold and Bond, it made it.

It's relatively functional, and rarely downright terrible, but Bond music should require more than that.

If a new composer should take on the Bond project, it should be after Daniel Craig has finished his tour of duty.

I disagree, as I've said before "when I watch Daniel Craig as Bond I'm hearing Brosnan."

Daniel Craig deserves a new composer to fit with his style. Having David Arnold and P&W remain when Brosnan left was a mistake in my opinion, and never gave Daniel Craig the opportunity to have a new sound to match his new take on Bond.

Even though the last two scores are somewhat of an improvement over the Brosnan-era music, they still contain too much inappropriate electronics, and too similar and derivative of the previous Arnold soundtracks.

Until then, I think Arnold should stay to maintain a continuity between the Craig movies.

I don't think it's the right kind of continuity Craig's films need. After all, Paul Haggis was dropped for Peter Morgan, so anything's possible in the end. I think Craig's next films need a different sound, since CR and QOS were almost a double-bill focusing on James Bond's early career as a double-o.

Btw, what kind of stuff have you composed for, Shark?

I mainly write concert pieces, though I've written and conducted some stuff for some low-budget student films,

I'd be interested to hear some of your music sometime.

I'd be happy to show that sometime.

What program/s do you compose with?

Pen, score sheet, and up-right piano. I tried Finale a while back, but I couldn't think properly.

[Blakshade007]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on David Arnold then lol!!

I never said the Arnold is a bad composer. In fact a lot of his stuff is quite good, and effective on-screen. However that seems to be swamped by poor to average mess, particularly in his action cues.

By mess, are you referring to the through-composed-oriented style of his action scenes, such as 'Going Down/The Bunker' from TWINE and 'Stairwell Fight' from CR?

It may not be grounded in a definitive melody such as Harry Gregson-WIlliams' music for Wolverine, but I think that's what makes it so unique compared to other blockbuster film soundtracks- Arnold's ability to make us feel we are listen to a Bond score without constantly repeating the main theme throughout.

A lot of the time I don't think he does get it right, mainly due to him composing his pieces entirely on digital sequencers and synthesisers, as opposed to sticking to a piano and manuscript paper. This shows heavily on his output on the Bond scores. What's even worse is that he doesn't orchestrate or conduct his own work, further diluting his creative power over the soundtrack.

If you've watched interviews with Arnold, you'd have seen that the sequencer/synthesiser you are talking about is in fact a keyboard.

Many composers don't do absolutely everything from writing the music to orchestrating to composing. Hans Zimmer works with several other composers to write the transitions between his scenes. Composing doens't have to be a solo job. Zimmer values the contributions of others as it brings different ideas he may not have come up with.

When I composed an exam piece for a small orchestra I didn't conduct it. Conducting is a talent, like playing an instrument. Not everyone has that talent and others (like me) prefer to play the music in the orchestra, as Arnold also does.

Pen, score sheet, and up-right piano. I tried Finale a while back, but I couldn't think properly.

Have you tried Sibelius? I tend to use it as it's closest to pen and paper, but with the advantage of playback and some other compositional tools.

[Harmsway]

Many composers don't do absolutely everything from writing the music to orchestrating to composing. Hans Zimmer works with several other composers to write the transitions between his scenes. Composing doens't have to be a solo job. Zimmer values the contributions of others as it brings different ideas he may not have come up with.

Yes, but Zimmer is a glorified hack, and serves as an emblem of everything wrong with contemporary film composition.

[mister-white]

Just wondering, with Sam Mendes being the "unofficial" director of Bond 23, what are the chances that David Arnold might be replaced by Thomas Newman, who has seemed to have scored all of his "studio films"?

[Harmsway]

Just wondering, with Sam Mendes being the "unofficial" director of Bond 23, what are the chances that David Arnold might be replaced by Thomas Newman, who has seemed to have scored all of his "studio films"?

I'd say the chances are pretty good (which makes me happy; I'd much rather have Newman than Arnold).

[The Shark]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on David Arnold then lol!!

I never said the Arnold is a bad composer. In fact a lot of his stuff is quite good, and effective on-screen. However that seems to be swamped by poor to average mess, particularly in his action cues.

By mess, are you referring to the through-composed-oriented style of his action scenes, such as 'Going Down/The Bunker' from TWINE and 'Stairwell Fight' from CR?

They're professional sounding all right, and those tracks (I'd include others such as Target Terminated, Miami International - the second half, Fall of a House in Venice, and the majority of his work for TWINE and DAD, along with some cues in TND) are still harmonically, melodically and rhythmically simplistic (I'm comparing to Barry here, and the greats of yesteryear, not current composers), too reliant on string and brass ostinatos, electronics, Bond clichés (i.e. wailing brass) that Barry only used sparingly, annoying crescendos every 20 or so seconds to underscore some intense action on screen (i.e. Bond falling, an explosion etc...).

I find nearly all of Arnold's action to be very un-listenable on their own, and don't do much for the scene in the context of the film, apart from tell us exactly what we already know on screen.

It may not be grounded in a definitive melody such as Harry Gregson-WIlliams' music for Wolverine, but I think that's what makes it so unique compared to other blockbuster film soundtracks- Arnold's ability to make us feel we are listen to a Bond score without constantly repeating the main theme throughout.

I'd say he's more interesting than most blockbuster composers around today, but that's not saying much, considering the terrible state film composition is in now.

A lot of the time I don't think he does get it right, mainly due to him composing his pieces entirely on digital sequencers and synthesisers, as opposed to sticking to a piano and manuscript paper. This shows heavily on his output on the Bond scores. What's even worse is that he doesn't orchestrate or conduct his own work, further diluting his creative power over the soundtrack.

If you've watched interviews with Arnold, you'd have seen that the sequencer/synthesiser you are talking about is in fact a keyboard.

In my book, a keyboard is synonymous with a synthesiser, just different words for the same thing. It appears to be hooked up to some sequencer, records all of the different parts on the keyboard, and overlays them on the computer program.

Many composers don't do absolutely everything from writing the music to orchestrating to composing. Hans Zimmer works with several other composers to write the transitions between his scenes. Composing doens't have to be a solo job. Zimmer values the contributions of others as it brings different ideas he may not have come up with.

That's why Zimmer is one of my least favourite mainstream composers around today (though he occasionally hits the mark with soundtracks such as Gladiator and the one for the new Sherlock Holmes film). I think a composer should isolate himself for a while, in a bland environment, maybe for a couple of months, write the soundtrack himself, orchestrate and conduct it, with little external support. Otherwise the soundtrack might as well be written by a committee.

Often the main problem with this is a lack of time, tightening dead-line, and a rushed job, hence the need to outsource work on the score.

I understand that it's often a pragmatic choice, but ideally a composer should try and control as much as possible (within reason), otherwise the end result is an unhappy compromise.

When I composed an exam piece for a small orchestra I didn't conduct it. Conducting is a talent, like playing an instrument. Not everyone has that talent and others (like me) prefer to play the music in the orchestra, as Arnold also does.

I understand that, but I've seen videos of Arnold conducting, and a does a pretty good job. He should try and hone that skill, to gain some more autonomy.

Pen, score sheet, and up-right piano. I tried Finale a while back, but I couldn't think properly.

Have you tried Sibelius? I tend to use it as it's closest to pen and paper, but with the advantage of playback
and some other compositional tools.

Thanks, I'll try it. In what ways is it different to Finale?

[00Twelve]

Pen, score sheet, and up-right piano. I tried Finale a while back, but I couldn't think properly.

Had an orchestration course in college that was a giant Finale tutorial, with students playing/singing our compositions.

Using the software resulted in some funny moments, like adjusting for concert pitch. One Bach brass quintet sounded like they were playing an Ives piece because of one erroneous mouse click.

[Harmsway]

I've been trained in Sibelius, not Finale, but I recall a similar experience. One of my compositions for full band got messed up, and the dynamics markings ended up getting assigned to the wrong parts, resulting in crescendos over rests and other such nonsense.

Still, it's useful programming, and much easier than doing everything by hand. The playback feature is perhaps the best part about the whole thing, especially if you're composing for an ensemble.

[The Shark]

Still, it's useful programming, and much easier than doing everything by hand.

I understand that its intention, to make the whole process easier, but I've never found that. I mean I can quickly sketch out a page in a couple of minutes by hand, but with Finale it seems to take for ever, typing in bloody values for tuplets!

[Blakshade007]

Do a google search for sibelius and have a look at the program on their website- i think they even have a demo (but you can't save anything- although you can print scores)

I've been trained in Sibelius, not Finale, but I recall a similar experience. One of my compositions for full band got messed up, and the dynamics markings ended up getting assigned to the wrong parts, resulting in crescendos over rests and other such nonsense.

Like any document, be it word or sibelius, you have to arrange everything how you want it to look. If you just click on a few notes and insert a crescendo the chances of it overlapping other objects is large. It's then up to you to tweak it's size and position to fit how you want it.

Playback and the fact that like any digital document you can cut/copy/paste whatever wherever whenever you want is what makes sibelius such a useful program. If you didn't like a section that you'd written on paper, or decided to insert something extra in the middle of what you've already written, you'd have to rewrite out the whole score. Digitally, you can insert more bars, cut a section and leave it at the end if you want to rewrite it but still want to look at it, etc.

It really depends what you are composing for, what you feel comfortable with and perhaps whether you have an ensemble at your disposal to hear your work as you go!

[Guy Haines]

I think he should return. You need a composer who understands the musical style of the series and Arnold certainly does. In his last two Bonds he rationed the use of the original Bond theme, yet he still produced scores that belonged in a Bond film.

The musical problems for the next Bond are who writes the theme tune and who performs it. Do the producers go for a track that "belongs in a Bond film" or is downloaded by the millions and sells the movie?

It would be nice if the next theme managed both, but my guess, for all who think that "Nobody Does It Better" than "Goldfinger", is that when the title credits appear for Bond 23 you'll be listening to "Yet Another Way To Die Another Day".

If you catch my drift!

[The Shark]

I think he should return. You need a composer who understands the musical style of the series and Arnold certainly does.

Does he? I certainly wouldn't say that.

yet he still produced scores that belonged in a Bond film.

Despite some good bits here and there, on the whole I'd say the last two scores belonged in a Transporter film, Bourne film, or MTV Bond parody, as opposed to a Bond film.

[Eric Stromberg]

I'd say he's more interesting than most blockbuster composers around today, but that's not saying much, considering the terrible state film composition is in now.

I was about to contribute something similar when you beat me to it. Arnold sounds pretty good compared to the compositions I am hearing from blockbuster composers like Horner and Zimmer. The jangling nickelodeon piano in Sherlock Holmes would have been interesting at one or two points in the film but set my teeth on edge it was so overused. (Doesn't anyone appreciate subtelty anymore? Could I please discover something during a film for myself instead of having it crammed down my throat?) I also don't hear Arnold shamelessly and endlessly rewarming old film scores. I mean, it's slightly distracting to the enjoyment of Avatar when I am hearing Star Trek 6: The Apology music from 1982.

So I am tempted to stick with what we know in the fear of moving to something worse, but yes, I would also be very happy to see Bond music move forward with the rest of the series.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Maybe it would be interesting to put this into a poll with only yes and no as possible answers, it would be interesting to see how many would really like Arnold to return.

[A Kristatos]

I think he should return. You need a composer who understands the musical style of the series and Arnold certainly does.

Does he? I certainly wouldn't say that.

yet he still produced scores that belonged in a Bond film.

Despite some good bits here and there, on the whole I'd say the last two scores belonged in a Transporter film, Bourne film, or MTV Bond parody, as opposed to a Bond film.

I have been reading your posts Shark and I on the whole agree with why someone other than Arnold might not necessarily be a bad thing. However, I am also willing to go with Arnold for Bond 23 on the basis of what he did in CR and QOS.

He definitely has improved and developed a style that distances itself from his Brosnan soundtracks. The QOS soundtrack contains many great cues that take advantage of the locales in order to give the soundtrack that great regional flavor that made many of these cues so memorable. He composed a great action cue that is the best since OHMSS. And while the QOS from beginning to end is certainly not as good as the entire OHMSS soundtrack, for me to say that he finally nailed many of the QOS action scenes is quite a statement coming from someone who couldn't stand most of them.

Now is he perfect? Far from it. And I agree with others who say that he could go two ways with the next Bond 23. He can either expand and improve even more from his QOS soundtrack, or he could actually regress back to a more "Brosnan" sounding score. I have said before that having the extra time and directive given to him by Mark Forester probably gave him more time to come up with something more creative and original. Therefore, I think as long as Arnold is given this "short leash" to work with he can continue to improve his sound. But yes, Bond 23 could be a roll of the dice with him depending on the director. Therefore it probably would not necessarily be a bad thing if EON went in a different direction, but it would ultimately be a "high risk, high reward" issue with whomever they decide to bring in.

And I agree 100% with you shark about Arnold's issue with mimicing every action that occurs on screen! The fact that many of his action cues come to a screeching halt every 20 seconds may be the single most annoying technique he uses, even worse than the techno! It takes all the momentum out of a cue when he does that, the most visible example of that being "African Rundown". Here he has a cue that is gaining momentum, only to come to a screeching halt (literally and figuratively) just as the cue is taking off into something memorable! It downgraded an outstanding cue to just very good, and it is something that is both unnecessary and irritating.

Having said all that though, he has done more good than bad lately and I would be more than willing to see him back for at least one more film, if that's was EON so desires to do. There were too many memorable cues from QOS to deny him from coming back. His QOS soundtrack was by far his best Bond soundtrack (and probably his best ever), and is the best non-Barry Bond soundtrack, so based on that this may be the wrong time to go with someone else.

[tdalton]

While I think that Arnold has done a good job on the last two Bond films, I would like to see what kind of Bond film we'd get if EON put a film solely in the hands of the talent they've brought over since casting Craig in the role. By that, I mean putting the film entirely in the hands of, let's say in the case of BOND 23, Peter Morgan and Sam Mendes and a composer who could come in and put his own spin on a James Bond score. Not that I think that Purvis & Wade and Arnold have done a poor job on the last two films, far from it in fact, but it would be interesting to see what some of this Oscar caliber talent could do with a Bond film when left to their own devices.