The story about the soundtrack is interesting in itself. Jerry Goldsmith originally composed a score which Scott rejected for being too classical (it had what I believe Goldsmith called a romantic musical theme), and cut major portions of, borrowing an earlier Goldsmith soundtrack is the process (which I believe they had used as a temp track during editing). Goldsmith didn't like it at all. There is also an interview clip on YouTube where he talks about it; the way he speaks of the incident, he is obviously bitter and considers it a terrible (and inexplicable) judgement on Scott's part. The rejected portions of the score (which is available as part of the soundtrack album) are beautiful, but the film score is also obviously superior.
I've heard this too and thought it was brilliant. So James Cameron even repeated this and added constraints on the music with the second movie
James Horner thought he’d have six weeks to write
the musical score. Instead, he had three weeks,
and had to write some parts overnight. The movie
was behind schedule, not even finished being
filmed (let alone edited) when Horner arrived in
England. What’s more, the recording studio he’d
been provided with was outmoded, not equipped to
handle the synthesizers he wanted to use. Horner
called the experience a “nightmare,” and ended up
writing the climactic musical cue overnight.
Coming away with the impression that a James
Cameron film was too stressful and rushed, he
figured he’d never work with the director again.
And he didn’t ... until Cameron approached him for
Titanic. (That rushed Aliens score earned Horner
an Oscar nomination, by the way.)
It seems like there's a Machiavellian lesson there. There's a lot of great "making of" material on Aliens, which shows James Cameron being a genius on other aspects too.
This is quite a common story and one I can relate to. Some of my best work has been done under time pressure, I think in part because you don't have the luxury of second guessing anything.
Some of my worst work has been done in the same conditions though, especially with regard to "technical debt" though I suppose that doesn't apply to the processes in film making as future maintenance is much less of a concern.
Goldsmith makes the key point at the end of the interview: film scores are trying to do two things at once (1) do what the film needs and (2) stand alone.
To me, this completely clarifies his conflict with Ridley Scott. The director doesn't care at all about #2. And yes, Scott is right: no one is as close to the film as the director and editor. It's not their job to pad the composer's portfolio, although ironically it seems the composers are rewarded for this "tight coupling" that they strive to avoid.
p.s., I never saw Alien, but I liked the OP and I am a Jerry Goldsmith fan from the Star Trek scores, which I used to love listening to on CD. It seems he was happier with those collaborations because he was allowed to express the "romantic" view that he had of human space exploration.
I saw that interview and was shocked. For me, as a music major, the soundtrack of this movie was one of the most memorable and effective parts. I can't imagine anything else inspiring quite such a sense of dread and awe.
Comments
The story about the soundtrack is interesting in itself. Jerry Goldsmith originally composed a score which Scott rejected for being too classical (it had what I believe Goldsmith called a romantic musical theme), and cut major portions of, borrowing an earlier Goldsmith soundtrack is the process (which I believe they had used as a temp track during editing). Goldsmith didn't like it at all. There is also an interview clip on YouTube where he talks about it; the way he speaks of the incident, he is obviously bitter and considers it a terrible (and inexplicable) judgement on Scott's part. The rejected portions of the score (which is available as part of the soundtrack album) are beautiful, but the film score is also obviously superior.
Edit: Here's the interview. https://youtu.be/U8bv0QDLI7M?t=481
I've heard this too and thought it was brilliant. So James Cameron even repeated this and added constraints on the music with the second movie
It seems like there's a Machiavellian lesson there. There's a lot of great "making of" material on Aliens, which shows James Cameron being a genius on other aspects too.This is quite a common story and one I can relate to. Some of my best work has been done under time pressure, I think in part because you don't have the luxury of second guessing anything.
Some of my worst work has been done in the same conditions though, especially with regard to "technical debt" though I suppose that doesn't apply to the processes in film making as future maintenance is much less of a concern.
Goldsmith makes the key point at the end of the interview: film scores are trying to do two things at once (1) do what the film needs and (2) stand alone.
To me, this completely clarifies his conflict with Ridley Scott. The director doesn't care at all about #2. And yes, Scott is right: no one is as close to the film as the director and editor. It's not their job to pad the composer's portfolio, although ironically it seems the composers are rewarded for this "tight coupling" that they strive to avoid.
p.s., I never saw Alien, but I liked the OP and I am a Jerry Goldsmith fan from the Star Trek scores, which I used to love listening to on CD. It seems he was happier with those collaborations because he was allowed to express the "romantic" view that he had of human space exploration.
I saw that interview and was shocked. For me, as a music major, the soundtrack of this movie was one of the most memorable and effective parts. I can't imagine anything else inspiring quite such a sense of dread and awe.