A thread dedicated to one of the most fascinating and individual composers of the last 20 years.
I'll kick this off with an excellent analysis of his work by Bill Wrobel at Film Score Rundowns.
Quote :
There is “something different” about Elliot Goldenthal’s music.
There is also considerable brain and brawn in Elliot Goldenthal’s film music. His style is difficult to label because his approach is so eclectic depending on the project. Sometimes I feel he is fundamentally an independent art-house composer (perhaps Frida, say, and The Good Thief) although he can demonstrate thrilling orchestral power in scores such as Sphere and the Batman movies that I personally quite enjoyed. Overall he shows a Late Modernist temperament, musically an American Bohemian, but nevertheless grounded somewhat in the mainstream traditions (certainly at least traditional notation). His polystylism (eclecticism) is a postmodern characteristic. An excellent example of polystylism is his score for Titus (and Good Thief to a lesser extent, and even an example or two in Alien 3) with the diverse or even odd juxtaposition of genres (symphonic-classical, rock, etc.) that represents in one score the type of projects he collectively undertook over the last fifteen years or so. There is not one clear-cut musical voice, in other words, but a mixture or fusion of different styles. It is, in part, his method of organization.
Loosely speaking, his music is avant-garde but certainly not radically so--as in the case of John Cage with his aleatoric (random) music and quite non-traditional notation (although Goldenthal’s music can at select times be aleatoric in effect when he utilizes electronic music, quarter-toning, and other devices). He is experimental and freewheeling but certainly this tendency is not overblown and expanded into the infinite! He definitely takes advantage of what technology has to offer (MIDI applications, timbre sampling, synthesizer usage, etc.) but does not discard what traditions are useful for him to express his vision of musical art. Considering his rather Aquarian and futuristic approach, I am amused by imagining that in a Star Trek universe, Goldenthal would have pointed ears and naturally be a Vulcan musician!
I do not have “insider information” regarding Goldenthal’s tastes and opinions on many musical matters and techniques, but I would loosely liken his temperament to Franz Liszt’s mindset in his latter years. I think Goldenthal would respect or appreciate Liszt’s open philosophy of music (though not necessarily Liszt ’s music since he overall was a tonal Romantic). But Liszt in his last fifteen years or so tended to be a visionary, an experimentalist in his own way. He foreshadowed even Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Liszt realized that tonality as the world grew accustomed to for three or four hundred years was coming to its final chapter (in terms of dominance) with Richard Strauss and Mahler and their rather overblown giant orchestras. Atonality and serialism (Liszt applied atonality specifically in his latter works, and used all twelve notes of the row in his Faust Symphony, I believe as successive augmented triads) were soon to become the darling of academia and concert music thru at least the Seventies.
Commentary: Some musical effects you need tonality, even altered tonality, and I’m sure Goldenthal realizes this. That is why his following statement in the Sound On Sound interview of March 2003 is rather puzzling: “Well, I don’t have any differentiation in my head between tonal and atonal; I either hear melody or I hear sonority—I don’t hear atonal or tonal so much.”
This is a rather odd statement coming from a classically trained musician. The statement cannot stand on its own feet or merits, and a reader might ask, “Is he kidding? Is he fooling himself?” I believe Goldenthal was rationalizing here or was entertaining a false belief. It is, in analogy, a curious case of what I call a lack of “musical viveka” (viveka is Sanskrit, meaning discrimination between the Real and the Unreal). Musical viveka, applied in this case, would be the discrimination between Tonality and Atonality—that Goldenthal purports to lack as an aptitude. If he had no such differentiation, then logically there would be an even statistical chance of hearing tonal and atonal music in his oeuvre, but his works are overwhelmingly atonal/non-tonal in nature. Speculating here, perhaps the fundamental issue or root belief in Goldenthal’s musical philosophy (in part) is that he does not wish to be attached to tonality per se. Perhaps his statement meant that he does not wish to be bound to tonality either by strong attraction or strong repulsion, but to be poised between those polarities. It is not so much a balancing act between tonality and atonality (as perhaps was the case for Goldsmith) because Goldenthal tends to “favor” non-tonal expression and “soundscapes.” In other words, perhaps he simply wishes to be the “master” of those applications, and not be a slave to either one of them. In terms of historical perspective, tonality no longer became the “sacred bull” of music by the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century. Composers were no longer “stuck” with the tamas (Sanskrit, “inertia”) of tonality, fixed (unquestioning habit) to its demands as the primary expression. The inertia or musical tamas of tonal-maintenance was seen as a retarding effect on the free, creative spirit that wanted to explore and experiment. Of course, wanting to always be “avant-garde” can be just as much a familiar rut or routine as sticking religiously to tonality.
However, atonal music in the general public just never became a hit, perceived by most as unnatural, “strange” or just plain ugly. Strict serialism especially was never very popular. Most people just could not get used to it, found it too dissonant, disorienting. Even modal music, that does not really take the listener anywhere (no real home base there unlike tonality), was more acceptable. Malcolm Arnold used atonality at times but adhered to tonality and described it as producing what is perceived by most people as “beautiful music.” Goldenthal appears to be a so-called “Post Modern” type of composer (I prefer to label this “Late Modernist” to reflect the early 21st century) whose eclectic and curious nature tends to fuse and synthesize diverse musical styles such as rock, classical atonal and (in part) tonal music, minimalism (although Goldenthal’s approach to that style is more sophisticated), European avant-garde, jazz and so forth. This wave in music is now strong in film music, and even John Williams has delved in it far more since Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Williams, after all, is a bit of a chameleon!).
This tendency of polystylism and crossover techniques may be an interesting pastiche musically but I wonder if it can foster a mindset that can consistently create unique masterpieces of music? Herrmann had a unique voice. Steiner had a unique voice. So did Debussy after his early works, Wagner, Tchaikovsky (melodic bent), and so on. Polystylists by their own definition may not have what could be considered a “unique” recognizable voice per se. That is why I wonder, although Goldenthal is an exceptionally gifted composer full of dramatic talent, if he will historically end up being considered one of the “Greats” in film music (such as Herrmann, Steiner, Korngold, and others, even Williams and Goldsmith for that matter perhaps) or even on the list of the “Most Influential Film Composers.” Time will tell but I think not. Goldenthal was influenced by various esteemed composers such as Copland (American neoclassicist-jazzist-vernaculist who later turned to serialism when his composer’s inner springs dried up!), Corigliano, Takemitsu, Richard Strauss (Late Romantic who became neoclassicist after 1910), Stravinsky, Penderecki (a true avantgardist), Shostakovich (a neo-romantic but considered by Russians then as rather avantgardist!), and a few others (perhaps Mahler). He seems to really admire Takemitsu, and both composers like to use unusual combination of acoustic instruments, to explore “new” sounds and other timbres or soundscapes--although I find Goldenthal’s music far more inherently “dynamic,” highly charged, and “showy” (as in the “Show Business” arena in which film music, theatre and opera would apply). Goldenthal’s music in that vein seems to be more “extroverted.” He is there more an “Expressionist” than, say, an “Impressionist” (like Debussy, Hovhaness and perhaps even Takemitsu in part with his exoticist tendencies with Eastern forms).
Goldenthal has not “turned” (as Copland did) to the strict serialism/12-tone row method, and I am not aware if he delved in it briefly in any work. Goldenthal is very conscious of wanting his music to sound good, appealing and interesting—even if at times it may seem “unpopular” in so-called normal or accustomed tastes. His tastes in music are shown in the music he characteristically creates, edging towards the strange, the fantastic. Unusual music seems to hold Goldenthal’s interest more than traditionally “normal” (that includes tonal) music on a sustenance basis. I feel that he is an exceptionally smart composer, a bright head on his shoulders. The balance is whether there is sufficient “heart” or emotional connectedness that would make his music truly appealing to others on a long-term basis. Certain film composers had this popular and/or emotional knack (Herrmann, John Barry, for instance) but my research tends to confirm that all of those composers were basically tonal in expression. Perhaps the most appealing cue for many people in Alien 3 was the final cue (“You Can Still Have A Life”) that actually had a rare, strong tonal basis (for that particular score). Composers like Herrmann also tended to be faithful and “stay the course” in their unique approach to music (Herrmann’s Early Works displayed some experimentalism with atonality) usually not “watered” down by various fundamentally different stylistic approaches. Goldenthal also stated in that interview, “I don’t know if I have a musical voice.” This may indeed be true especially from a composer with an innate enjoyment of knowledge, an almost insatiable curiosity that is willing to explore and change and experiment. Such a mutable mind is quite intelligent and fun to know but the danger is being scattered with one’s energies and approaches so that one becomes a Jack of all (musical) trades but master of none. Such a person may be extremely talented yet, unless the mind is grounded, there may not be much to show for it in the long run (or not be recognized by the general public). Talent often needs to have a single-minded focus, almost laser-like, in order to consistently create something truly noteworthy. The lesson is to develop a set of priorities because you cannot expect lasting results and accomplishments if you are constantly changing your mind or approaches.
I think Goldenthal’s basic nature, in part, shows a highly admirable childlike quality that is spontaneous and receptive, alert, aware and responsive. A childlike mind drinks up the thoughts, ideas and examples of others. This is reflected in what Goldenthal said in the aforementioned interview regarding his orchestrator of long duration, Robert Elhai: “For over 10 years, he and I have been working together, going through the scores of Strauss, Mahler, Stravinksy and Penderecki, picking out every possible idea and analyzing it. And when we get together, we seek out those kind of subtleties…” So this natural appropriating of techniques from diverse composers (Dvorak did this himself in 1892 in New York when he utilized African-American folk song music in his symphony, The New World) shows a highly curious, playful intent open to possibilities, willing to be experimental and not get “stuck” creatively (a dislike of a routine approach). But the key to lasting importance or great merit is to learn to be grounded, do one or two things (or approach or styles) really well, and do the rest for fun—now & then, for spice. In part I believe Goldenthal shows that grounded, earthy part of his nature, and an artistic career—creating beauty in the world— is an excellent move. Doing it so that it garners him some attention and limelight from the world as in “show business” (including film score work) is also excellent and would garner him a certain emotional fulfillment. He is probably the type of personality who really wants to be his own boss, in charge, running the show but also a natural executive considering the collaborative projects he is engaged in. I think he also has a fine attention to details with a critical mind aware of the flaws, what’s not working—and trying hard to make it “right.”
The issue is whether the focus is on multiple details or quantity (or perhaps polystylism) that may at times conflict with another intent in the nature to focus on quality in terms of doing one or two approaches really well. One part (the childlike nature) says, “I’m curious enough to want to do a little bit of everything;” whereas another part of the nature says, “No, you must focus like a laser on one or two areas and do those really well in order to accomplish anything really well of lasting importance.” Goldenthal obviously shows a strong ambitious drive, and pride in his work, but I think it must hurt deep down if his good work is not duly appreciated in various works. Herrmann had the same issue after he spent so much of his time and love (and his own money) on his ambitious Wuthering Heights project (and desire to be known as a famous or internationally important conductor) only to fall short in the world’s eyes. The world wanted his film scores and did not think much of his huge opera and ambitions to be a world-renowned conductor! However, most people would say that Herrmann was far more “volatile” emotionally (and mentally with his sharp criticisms!). Goldenthal appears in interviews to be rather outwardly easy-going, even-tempered, oriented towards comfort and enjoyment (“If it feels good creatively, do it!”).
At any rate, it really all depends on the root beliefs of the individual whether something really matters all that much or not. I think that if Goldenthal’s childlike, curious nature is what really matters, and that he is truly having fun with his great creatively applying many ideas and techniques and styles, then the rest (fame, fortune, popularity, many projects, “Most Influential” list, whatever) are “added things.” But to listeners I say: Don’t expect, say, John Barry Somewhere In Time type of music from this composer (!) and you won’t be disappointed. Personally I do like Goldenthal’s music by selection (certain scores, certain cues); that is, I really like his music for certain scores, but for other scores/cues I am rather put off (unlike Herrmann, Steiner and others in most cases). For instance, I felt that his Titus score was a bit too strange for me, out of place, not to my liking (of course I did not care much for the movie itself). He’s an authentic composer and speaks his artistic mind! But I do not necessarily enjoy all or even most of it. But at least you can expect the unexpected from him (probably that will be the case in Tempest)! His music is truly “something different” and he has definitely taken a different musical path (not normally or usually “standard”)!
Home 
Events 
WIN! 
