352 replies to this topic

[The Shark]

I would love to see somebody take over and produce a Bond score geniunely comparable to John Barry's classic scores from the Connery era. But is there anyone out there capable of it? Barry's scores were listenable whether one had seen the film or not - I have several CDs of his which include cues from films I've never seen. Too many film composers currently produce scores which are functional rather than listenable.

Yes, isn't this the problem. Isn't true film scoring with music a dying art. Sometimes I think it is. There is a thread on here about a lack of good directors making films today, but for me much more of a problem lies with film composing. If Hitchcock was alive or David Lean who would they choose to score their films from the current crop of working composers?

Probably someone like John Adams or Michael Nyman from the world of classical, or possibly Barry Adamson from the world of jazz composition (A personal favourite). They are mostly the only ones left with any rigorous classical training.

[Guy Haines]

I would love to see somebody take over and produce a Bond score geniunely comparable to John Barry's classic scores from the Connery era. But is there anyone out there capable of it? Barry's scores were listenable whether one had seen the film or not - I have several CDs of his which include cues from films I've never seen. Too many film composers currently produce scores which are functional rather than listenable.

Yes, isn't this the problem. Isn't true film scoring with music a dying art. Sometimes I think it is. There is a thread on here about a lack of good directors making films today, but for me much more of a problem lies with film composing. If Hitchcock was alive or David Lean who would they choose to score their films from the current crop of working composers?

Probably someone like John Adams or Michael Nyman from the world of classical, or possibly Barry Adamson from the world of jazz composition (A personal favourite). They are mostly the only ones left with any rigorous classical training.

But does a film composer need rigorous classical training to produce a listenable film score? I can think of one whose training consisted of a period studying choral work in his home city, private listening to the work of foreign - especially Russian - composers and other film scores, time spent as a musician in the armed forces, then signing up to a correspondence course on composition and arrangement, and then a stint as the leader of a rock and roll combo. He didn't do too badly. Five Oscars and eleven Bond movie scores. You know his name.

[captnash2]

arnold still channels the barry style best while briniging his own style to table.
would love for barry do one more score sometime.

[The Shark]

I would love to see somebody take over and produce a Bond score geniunely comparable to John Barry's classic scores from the Connery era. But is there anyone out there capable of it? Barry's scores were listenable whether one had seen the film or not - I have several CDs of his which include cues from films I've never seen. Too many film composers currently produce scores which are functional rather than listenable.

Yes, isn't this the problem. Isn't true film scoring with music a dying art. Sometimes I think it is. There is a thread on here about a lack of good directors making films today, but for me much more of a problem lies with film composing. If Hitchcock was alive or David Lean who would they choose to score their films from the current crop of working composers?

Probably someone like John Adams or Michael Nyman from the world of classical, or possibly Barry Adamson from the world of jazz composition (A personal favourite). They are mostly the only ones left with any rigorous classical training.

But does a film composer need rigorous classical training to produce a listenable film score?

Certainly, particularly if one wants a GREAT Bond score.

I can think of one whose training consisted of a period studying choral work in his home city, private listening to the work of foreign - especially Russian - composers and other film scores, time spent as a musician in the armed forces, then signing up to a correspondence course on composition and arrangement, and then a stint as the leader of a rock and roll combo. He didn't do too badly. Five Oscars and eleven Bond movie scores. You know his name.

Barry's training at York was more thorough than just choral work. He also heavily studied music theory, harmony, orchestration and counterpoint.

That is the necessary training I'm referring to.

I can imagine Nicholas Dodd received an equivalent to that, and maybe more. But not Arnold.

arnold still channels the barry style best while briniging his own style to table.
would love for barry do one more score sometime.

I don't want Arnold's "own" style brought to the table.

It's ****ing horrible.

And I don't see much Barry in his scores either.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I can think of one whose training consisted of a period studying choral work in his home city, private listening to the work of foreign - especially Russian - composers and other film scores, time spent as a musician in the armed forces, then signing up to a correspondence course on composition and arrangement, and then a stint as the leader of a rock and roll combo. He didn't do too badly. Five Oscars and eleven Bond movie scores. You know his name.

Barry's training at York was more thorough than just choral work. He also heavily studied music theory, harmony, orchestration and counter point.

That is the necessary training I'm referring to.

I can imagine Nicholas Dodd received an equivalent to that, and maybe more. But not Arnold.

I agree about Barry, and I don't know enough to state if classical training is an inherent characteristic in order for the composer to write a listenable film score comprising of music (not the usual noises and crescendo's, but a standout distinctive recognisable work with a 'themeatic' structure). I'm sure it helps, but for whatever reason I think decent composers are increasingly rare. Its almost as if cinema today doesn't seem to recognise or perhaps even demand a solid musical score. Then again maybe the films made currently just don't require the kind of great scores of the past. Who knows.

[The Shark]

I can think of one whose training consisted of a period studying choral work in his home city, private listening to the work of foreign - especially Russian - composers and other film scores, time spent as a musician in the armed forces, then signing up to a correspondence course on composition and arrangement, and then a stint as the leader of a rock and roll combo. He didn't do too badly. Five Oscars and eleven Bond movie scores. You know his name.

Barry's training at York was more thorough than just choral work. He also heavily studied music theory, harmony, orchestration and counter point.

That is the necessary training I'm referring to.

I can imagine Nicholas Dodd received an equivalent to that, and maybe more. But not Arnold.

I agree about Barry, and I don't know enough to state if classical training is an inherent characteristic in order for the composer to write a listenable film score comprising of music (not the usual noises and crescendo's, but standout distinctive recognisable scores with a 'themeatic' structure). I'm sure it helps, but for whatever reason I think decent composers are increasingly rare. Its almost as if cinema today doesn't seem to recognise or perhaps even demand a solid musical score. Then again maybe the films made currently just don't require the kind of great scores of the past. Who knows.

I think it's one of the most important factors, that helps to expand one's innate talent.

[Guy Haines]

I can think of one whose training consisted of a period studying choral work in his home city, private listening to the work of foreign - especially Russian - composers and other film scores, time spent as a musician in the armed forces, then signing up to a correspondence course on composition and arrangement, and then a stint as the leader of a rock and roll combo. He didn't do too badly. Five Oscars and eleven Bond movie scores. You know his name.

Barry's training at York was more thorough than just choral work. He also heavily studied music theory, harmony, orchestration and counter point.

That is the necessary training I'm referring to.

I can imagine Nicholas Dodd received an equivalent to that, and maybe more. But not Arnold.

I agree about Barry, and I don't know enough to state if classical training is an inherent characteristic in order for the composer to write a listenable film score comprising of music (not the usual noises and crescendo's, but standout distinctive recognisable scores with a 'themeatic' structure). I'm sure it helps, but for whatever reason I think decent composers are increasingly rare. Its almost as if cinema today doesn't seem to recognise or perhaps even demand a solid musical score. Then again maybe the films made currently just don't require the kind of great scores of the past. Who knows.

I think it's one of the most important factors, that helps to expand one's innate talent.

Point taken about Barry's musical background, although I recall reading comments he made about himself years ago in which he referred to various Russian influences and described his own musical training as "unconventional". That is what I had in mind when I added my previous post.

Regarding soundtracks in general, isn't another problem the fact that many movies are promoted not by the actual music score but through the release of albums of "music from or inspired by" the film. In other words, a compilation album of various songs, some featured in the film, but many not, with maybe a token bit of the actual score, if you are lucky. It is a trend I loathe - even though I have to concede that Barry himself produced one of the first and most famous albums of this kind in "Midnight Cowboy".

Where is the incentive for a composer to produce something listenable separately from the film when it may not even make the so-called "original soundtrack album"?

[JimmyBond]

Where is the incentive for a composer to produce something listenable separately from the film when it may not even make the so-called "original soundtrack album"?

That's kind of depressing to imagine that composers worry more about stuff that will appear on the soundtrack than actually composing something that will work beautifully in the film.

In any event, it doesnt appear that Arnold is too worried about what will show up on the soundtrack album, since his music really doesn't work unless it's accompanied by visuals. Something you can't say about Barry's work. Sure at one time I championed Arnold and felt he was a breath of fresh air (I originally disliked Serra's GE work). However as time goes on I feel his "Barry-lite" stuff just doesn't cut it anymore.

I think at this point anyone would bring more to the table than he does.

[The Shark]

Where is the incentive for a composer to produce something listenable separately from the film when it may not even make the so-called "original soundtrack album"?

That's kind of depressing to imagine that composers worry more about stuff that will appear on the soundtrack than actually composing something that will work beautifully in the film.
s.

I would say modern composers along with Arnold, produce utilitarian music that will work mostly on a purely functional level in the film.



"DAVID ARNOLD: The odd thing about writing a film score is that once it is done, you have no control on whatever happens to it. You just leave it behind and you have to carry on; if I was to thread, whine and weep over the fate of every note that I write I'd be dead by now! You always hope that you get a release and that people will want to hear it but out of the context of the film, I don't think it's that important to be honest; it's written to go with the film, that's what it is."

[JimmyBond]

I had a feeling Arnold wrote music that way, that quote just reaffirms my beliefs. I can still take any piece of Bond music from Barry and enjoy listening to it on it's own. Sure I'll listen to Arnold's music on it's own, but that's usually before I see the film and like to imagine how it fits into the movie.

[Guy Haines]

I had a feeling Arnold wrote music that way, that quote just reaffirms my beliefs. I can still take any piece of Bond music from Barry and enjoy listening to it on it's own. Sure I'll listen to Arnold's music on it's own, but that's usually before I see the film and like to imagine how it fits into the movie.

I can take any piece of John Barry's music - Bond or otherwise - and enjoy listening to it away from the film it came from. And, oddly enough, I have listened to the albums "The Beyondness Of Things" and "Eternal Echoes" and tried to imagine which films certain cues might have provided the background for.

[littlenellie]

I find the ' academic' argument completely without foundation. These arguments are usually made by composers who have had 'training' but cant understand why theyre not working and others less 'qualified' are. I accept that not being trained can make a difference to how someones work is delivered.but its certainly no guarantee that its going to be any good just because you have been trained.
There's nothing more boring to me than listening to academic music. I would rather hear 4 notes played or composed with passion than some technical exercise in harmony and counterpoint.But thats just me.doesnt make it good or bad.

Knowing how to do something doesnt make you any good at doing it.

Being able to do something in an unorthodox way doesnt make the result any worse either.
You can like or dislike Arnolds work.....there are plenty of people who will make the case for both sides so we can discount that as arguable fact,as its purely opinion.
But whatever methods he uses, he delivers film scores that people seem to like and he keeps getting hired and generally those films do well.
You may not hear the spirit of Barrys Bond in his music but I do, so where does that leave that thread of argument? answer....nowhere . So, all Im saying is.you can say you dont like it,but you cant say its not good because there is no quantifying of that.
Arnold for B23 please.............

[The Shark]

I find the ' academic' argument completely without foundation. These arguments are usually made by composers who have had 'training' but cant understand why theyre not working and others less 'qualified' are.

I am working, and the crux of my argument isn't fuelled by jealously of Mr. Arnold's success.

I accept that not being trained can make a difference to how someones work is delivered.but its certainly no guarantee that its going to be any good just because you have been trained.

I'm not talking about anything being 'guaranteed' or made for certain, I'm talking purely about averages. I'm merely say that there's a trend, and that we've agreed on. Yes, even someone fully trained could produce absolute dribble. Nothings fool-proof.

There's nothing more boring to me than listening to academic music.

I'm not asking for that. If you think I'm asking for a rudimentary exercise on motive development then you've got me all wrong.

I would rather hear 4 notes played or composed with passion than some technical exercise in harmony and counterpoint.But thats just me.doesnt make it good or bad.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Knowing how to do something doesnt make you any good at doing it.

No, not in pure isolation. Training is needed to crystallise that knowledge, along with a drive, passion and innate talent.

Being able to do something in an unorthodox way doesnt make the result any worse either.

That is one reasons why I loved Serra's Goldeneye, and dislike most of Arnold's Bond scores.

You can like or dislike Arnolds work.....there are plenty of people who will make the case for both sides so we can discount that as arguable fact,as its purely opinion.

Isn't that just an intellectual cop-out? Of course, our arguments our just strongly held opinions - that's self evident. But, why can't we debate through references, examples, observations, conclusions and agreement?

It makes these kind of threads much more interesting.

[The Shark]

[quantumofsolace]

He started off just okay but has gotten better with each soundtrack. With Casino he became very good and then with Quantum he was excellent. His last 2 scores are memorable in their own right but they also enhanced the film itself. I would very much like him to stay.

[WhatMeWorry?]

Yes I want David Arnold to continue scoring Bond films.

But only if he incorporates the Bond Theme a little more often than he did in CR and QoS.

[The Shark]

Why settle for mediocrity when you could have something so much better?

[Blakshade007]

Yes I want David Arnold to continue scoring Bond films.

But only if he incorporates the Bond Theme a little more often than he did in CR and QoS.

There was a reason why David Arnold used the Bond theme as little as he did in CR and QoS. People seem to forget that MGM has rebooted the series with Daniel Craig's coming on board. CR and QoS are not like any of the other Bond films that do not necessarily have a specific place in the timeline of Bond's career as a spy. CR explored Bond as he first got his 007 status, and QoS follows on from this.

As Bond has to earn his 007 status, so too does he have to earn the Bond theme. That is why it's use is so limited in CR and QoS. David Arnold's Bond cues aside, the actual Bond theme doesn't appear in CR until we hear it in full in the end credits. In QoS its use is scattered throughout the film, but because Bond is still proving he is he worthy of his 007 status (evident in his emotional struggle and M's consequent doubts about whether she can trust him to do his job), the Bond theme again is not as prominent as it has been in previous Bond eras.

Then again, there was a lot of debate over whether David Arnold overused the Bond theme in the Brosnan era. I think stripping it back is a good way to re-establish how to integrate it into the music in new and unique ways, rather than just playing the complete Bond theme in the middle of action cues using various instrumentation.

For me, David Arnold and Daniel Craig make the perfect Bond team. I agree completely with David Arnold when he said "I just think Daniel has done something really quite extraordinary with it considering where it was, just giving it a whole new lease of life." As Daniel Craig has made Bond extraordinary, David Arnold also made Bond extraordinary by reinventing the genre musically, while retaining an appropriate amount of continuity with the series as a whole.

It's interesting that people who post on this forum saying David Arnold is bad, he should be replaced ect. etc. fail to give an appropriate alternative composer. At this stage in the series, David Arnold is the right man for the job. Perhaps after Daniel Craig moves on to different things it will be time for a new composer. When that time comes I see potential in someone like Alexandre Desplat, who's Largo Winch score has some interesting John Barry-esque cues in them.

For the sake of continuity and the great combination Daniel Craig and David Arnold make, MGM should keep the same composer throughout Daniel Craig's episode as Bond.

[Aris007]

No, there are better composers out there for Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

Arnold has proven to be a very good Bond composer. I wouldn´t mind seeing him return. Yet, I would be interested in hearing what another composer could bring to the table in order to spice things up.

My favorite choice: Alexandre Desplat.

[The Shark]

He's not a very good composer. Mediocre at most.

For me, David Arnold and Daniel Craig make the perfect Bond team. I agree completely with David Arnold when he said "I just think Daniel has done something really quite extraordinary with it considering where it was, just giving it a whole new lease of life." As Daniel Craig has made Bond extraordinary, David Arnold also made Bond extraordinary by reinventing the genre musically, while retaining an appropriate amount of continuity with the series as a whole.

Arnold 're-invented' the genre? Where did he do that? By adding a few lifeless synth beats over inane orchestral loops, and wailing brass? What's so extraordinary about that? It's an electronic infused, re-packaged amalgamation of his INDEPENDENCE DAY/STARGATE/LAST OF THE DOGMEN, pristine, over-bloated crass Hollywood-ised sound.

Daniel Craig is an excellent actor, who deserves an excellent composer to score his Bond films. Not some art-school trained electronic junkie. Someone who doesn't telegraph scenes to his audience, who knows how to use a full orchestra without digital augmentation, and without relying on a by-proxy orchestrator and conductor.

He's a 'perfect team' with Craig in your eyes because that's all you're used to with his Bond films. There's no other alternative or to no thought in that direction, and hence the stagnation of the Bond music department. Arnold's the 'safe', default choice. He's cheap, expendable, and reliable. His Bond scores are good enough for him to stay on Bond the 'Bond family', but unremarkable and univariate enough to gain justified criticism from fans like myself. That's what's so sad. The composer is stuck in a sort of musical limbo, hogging the role from more interesting choices.

That's one of the reasons why I hate the short-sighted fan criticism that Serra's score for GOLDENEYE received back in 95-97. Here you have one of the most unique, stark, and unorthodox Bond scores in years, that perfectly corresponded grim, almost surreal atmosphere of the film. This then garners the most banal scorning from fans, annoyed that it doesn't fit their clichéd prism of Bond music, that not even Barry always conformed to ad verbatim. After this brief experimentation from the producers, unfortunately with Mr. Barry's assistance (he probably regrets it sincerely no, privately of course), they chose David Arnold, after his recent uninspired trip-hop remix album of Bond songs. And so begins the Dark Ages of Bond, and Bond music.

And that as you say, is history.

Who would I choose to compose the next Bond film?

- Myself
- David Shire
- Howard Shore
- Elliot Goldenthal
- Ennio Moricone
- Lalo Schifrin

[JimmyBond]

I've slowly become a fan of John Murphy. I think he'd be a interesting choice to take up scoring duties for the next Bond film.

[J J]

More Dave please... (!)

[The Shark]

I've slowly become a fan of John Murphy. I think he'd be a interesting choice to take up scoring duties for the next Bond film.

A bit too overproduced and electronic for my tastes. He writes some good stuff though.

More Dave please... (!)

Do you have a reason? Why not let someone else have a go, for a change? A bit of variety?

[Bucky]

i agree with what others have said where i feel that his soundtracks during the brosnan era, while better than the score serra provided for goldeneye which left me pretty cold, were alright but nothing remarkable or memorable. that changed with the craig films where i feel that the scores better fit the films and are developing with them. i would be happy to have him stay on and continue to develop the scores for the remainder of craig's tenure because i am excited to see where the goes next.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The problem with Arnold is I have this feeling Eon will cling on to him indefinitely and furthermore he will go on scoring indefinitely. They may be wise to do so as there is a lot to the maxim 'if it aint broke don't fix it'. To his credit he doesn't harm the series and his scores are a long way from disasters. However, on the flip side - and perhaps with the exception of QoS - Arnold's work just isn't satisfying or distinctive enough. Where's the subtle cues and classic action themes that set your spine alive with shivers and rouse your cinematic emotions. I feel the series could do better. It's like why have cotton when you could have silk.

[The Shark]

The problem with Arnold is I have this feeling Eon will cling on to him indefinitely and furthermore he will go on scoring indefinitely. They may be wise to do so as there is a lot to the maxim 'if it aint broke don't fix it'. To his credit he doesn't harm the series and his scores are a long way from disasters. However, on the flip side - and perhaps with the exception of QoS - Arnold's work just isn't satisfying or distinctive enough. Where's the subtle cues and classic action themes that set your spine alive with shivers and rouse your cinematic emotions. I feel the series could do better. It's like why have cotton when you could have silk.

I agree entirely, except that I would compare Arnold to a 70% polyester/30% cotton suit.

[Aris007]

Let's face it fellas! In a movie as good as Casino Royale the score was mediocre. There were one or two good moments in 25 tracks. And when I say moments I don't mean tracks, but seconds from tracks. Take Blunt Instrument for instance. The good part was the last 30 seconds. The rest of it noise. Then take Thunderball. Every track is a masterpiece. Every track is magnificent from 0:01 to the end. We need a composer that can make the best out of every story!

[JimmyBond]

I've slowly become a fan of John Murphy. I think he'd be a interesting choice to take up scoring duties for the next Bond film.

A bit too overproduced and electronic for my tastes. He writes some good stuff though.

Perhaps, but I can't stop listening to his music. And unlike Arnold's Bond scores, I actually enjoy listening to the music outside of the film. Hell I've only seen a a couple of films that Murphy composed the scores for yet I can't stop listening to music of his for films I haven't even seen! I can't see myself doing that for an Arnold score.

I said this back before Casino Royale came out, They jettisoned pretty much everything from the old series of films, I can't believe they kept Arnold around.

[gkgyver]

I think the main problem with David Arnold by now is just that he doesn't have anything to say anymore, musically. What he did have to say was milked dry by the time we got Die Another Day.

Really, the thing is that the scope of the music grew with the scope of the films. Listen to Tomorrow Never Dies for instance - it is a multimillion blockbuster score. I wouldn't call Goldfinger or YOLT or OHMSS or Octopussy that.
The music became blockbuster music, just like the movies were restructured as action blockbusters in the Brosnan era. Now with Craig, they are still largely action blockbusters, but they have an element that Arnold isn't able to cover, I think.

Arnold's work is largely serious in tone and melodramatic. Barry never, or seldomly, was. Brooding maybe, or thrilling, but never overly serious or melodramatic.

The cinematic environment just completely changed, and Arnold delivers what is expected from an action/spy movie. He may have Barry influences, but honestly, it sounds more like an evolution of Michael Kamen's score than anything else, with tendencies to abandon the Bond sound in favour of generic action music.

Bond music always was sort of a beast of its own, and Arnold slightly moved away from that. Not unintentionally on his/the producers' part I dare say.

A score very much in the tradition of John Barry would indeed be welcome, but no producer/director in his right mind would apply a score like OHMSS to a film like Quantum Of Solace (James Horner's comment about Gabriel Yared's rejected Troy score sounding like a 40 year old Hercules movie springs to mind). Not to mention that there probably is no composer working right now who could create the same magic, unless he wanted to just ape Barry.

Plus, John Barry's Bond scores were all relatively short. What directors nowadays would go for a 60 minutes score for a 100+ minutes film? Moreover, what composers today would be able to create a soundscape that leaves a distinct musical mark, as Barry was so ingenius at doing.

An excellent choice would be Elliot Goldenthal indeed. He is versatile enough.