 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 22, 2014 - 3:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
johnbijl
(Member)
|
Now that I'm the proud owner of a lossless deluxe version of the score to Interstellar, I'd love to join in on the discussion of the music it self.
Two points to make, though.
1. I haven't seen the film yet! And I'm a wee bit afraid of it being spoiled. Will see it this week and read up on the thread.
2. I haven't had the time to hear the score too. But perhaps you'll allow me to make this point upfront.
A couple of weeks ago I listened Zimmer's entire Batman-trilogy. I liked the first two as scores, the third one came across as.. sloppy. Too me, it didn't anything to enhance the film it self. The score didn't make Batman more heroic, Bane more intimidating or the strange plot more intense. The music was just there.
Point is, I like the *album* to The Dark Knight Rises the best of 'm all. But. Listening to the third Batman is more like listening to a non-film album. Like listening to Vangelis or Kitaro. Lately, Zimmer's scores manifest themselves more as elaborate concept albums than as regular film score-releases. The idea is of course enhanced by Zimmer's approach to produce his albums more as suites than as C&C-releases.
The result is that the album called The Dark Knight Rises made me enjoy it on it's own merits, not caring about the film by the same name or having it attached mentally to it. Almost like you can enjoy Rózsa's New England Concerto without relating to Lydia and Time Out of Mind.
I am looking foreword to enjoying a album of great music, and not a film score per se.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep calling him Phil Glass? Are you talking about a guy you know from work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Often composers like Zimmer like to talk about that they compose 7.1 minimum (typical for that kind of high-tech-tool-composers, having secondary parameters seemingly complicated but actual primary parameters very very simple), or we have such scores as in Gravity using multiple channels.
But IMO there was not a score so far which really made effective use of the possibilities.
There is no score in which it makes a difference.
The stunt-like 7.1 mixes which are released don't really need that, they also work in stereo.
And what has been done in electronic avantgarde since the 1950ties to today is far superior to everything
Hollywood composers have been done in that aspect.
I guess the big issue with complex music mixes is that when it comes to the actual film mix, there is a tendency to push music into particular channels in the end, regardless of their use of multiple channels. Effects and ambiences can run free around the the mix, but music and voices are more likely to be pinned down to certain areas. (There are always those who will go outside the box - e.g. Walter Murch - but I think it's fair to say there's a certain standardisation here.)
There's the odd film that breaks ranks on this. GRAVITY for example, to achieve immersive drama without violating its rule about sound effects, needed music to be more intentionally designed for multiple channels. (Similarly that film is much freer in the use of voice panning than most feature sound mixes.) From the one viewing I had, INTERSTELLAR felt more typical in its positioning of music within the mix, even though there was a volume issue at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep calling him Phil Glass? Are you talking about a guy you know from work?
indeed I know him personally, Mr Rutherford. Did not know you might feel offended,
because he is often refered to as Phil Glass.
First I've ever heard of it! Don't get why you'd enter into an academic discussion about music, and then consistently fail to call a composer by his given name. Never have I seen someone, for instance, talk about "Alex" Desplat's influence on prestige films in this decade, nor have I heard anyone mention "Mikey" Giacchino when bandying his name about in reference to Star Wars. It's bizarrely disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But that was his professional name at the time. I just thought it was a bizarre choice to make, nicknaming composers while trying to have an intellectual discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a Glass half Phil guy, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 23, 2014 - 2:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
Why do you keep calling him Phil Glass? Are you talking about a guy you know from work?
indeed I know him personally, Mr Rutherford. Did not know you might feel offended,
because he is often refered to as Phil Glass.
First I've ever heard of it! Don't get why you'd enter into an academic discussion about music, and then consistently fail to call a composer by his given name. Never have I seen someone, for instance, talk about "Alex" Desplat's influence on prestige films in this decade, nor have I heard anyone mention "Mikey" Giacchino when bandying his name about in reference to Star Wars. It's bizarrely disrespectful.
I sorry, I must have forgotten:
In case you, Shaun Rutherford never heard of something, it does not exist.
Must have slipped my mind.
You fail to see your own ignorance and disrespect in the anonymous space of this board.
But thanks anyway for your attitude. Rock on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
