 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 5, 2013 - 5:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
Hi, Onya.
I'm getting confused, too. Maybe we aren't talking about the same thing after all.
But to answer, yes, as far as I know the manuscripts used standard western music notation.
OK, so let's completely forget that I brought jazz into the conversation. Sorry to confuse things.
My question is, if I understand what you're saying - and correct me if I don't - you're discussing the differences that transpired between North's original interpretations of 2001 and Streetcar and Goldsmith's later recordings. I'm assuming the same written scores were used. I am asking if the stylistic differences you reference owe more to the conductors and recording techniques than the approaches of the players. In other words, did orchestral playing styles change between the 1950s/60s and 1990s/2000s, or do you think the differences in sound owe more to changes in conducting and recording techniques?
I too recognize differences in orchestral sounds between these decades; I just always thought they owed more to the conductor, recording technology, the rooms, and the mic placement. Are there differences in the actual playing also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 6, 2013 - 4:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ToneRow
(Member)
|
I too recognize differences in orchestral sounds between these decades; I just always thought they owed more to the conductor, recording technology, the rooms, and the mic placement. Are there differences in the actual playing also?
Yeah, with me there are differences in the musician performances.
Alfred Newman once wrote that the trombone heard within NEVADA SMITH was the extention of Dick Nash's soul! 
I don't know the names of the musicians who had performed in 1950 (or '51) in Warner's studio sessions for A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE.
For sake of argument, let's say principal trombone in North's STREETCAR was indeed Richard Nash.
The conductor was Ray Heindorf.
Another factor: the zeitgeist of the times. This is a non-musical (or extra-musical) element. Bear in mind that the Hays Code (censorship) was still in effect in 1951.
In order to communicate the sex rears its ugly head atmosphere of Tennessee Williams, the original recording sessions come across (to me anyway) as sordid, sassy, sleazy ... you get the notion.
The 1995 re-recording conducted by Jerry Goldsmith doesn't capture this aspect (for me, anyway). By the 1990s, a big band orchestra was no longer a current mode of expression;
the sound had to be re-created. More nostalgia comes in within the Varese re-recording, but not the bad-ass sexy trait. It's almost as if North's music was played 'safe' for grandma's night out at the concert.
Not so the Ray Heindorf tracks.
Who's responsible?
Not sure. I am not musician. However, given that Heindorf was a studio department person, I'd venture to say that the 'sordid' quality was achieved more by Mr. Nash's playing (or whoever it was who was playing) than the conductor alone.
Well ... that's my rambling 2 cents for tonight, Onya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 6, 2013 - 6:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
OnyaBirri
(Member)
|
OK, well that completely makes sense about how a jazz player from that era might have tackled a solo part in a different idiomatic style than jazz player today might play the same part.
How do you feel about different interpretations of film music composed in a more traditional, shall we say, "symphonic" style? Do you hear differences through the decades? I do, but I can't always put my finger on what I'm hearing. For example, the Heindorf recording of Rozsa's "Spellbound," the one from the late 1950s on Warner Brothers, sounds so much more lush and sumptuous to me than the recent re-recording. I'm guessing that the conductor, hall, mics, and recording all play a role, but the quality of the players is also a factor. I also wonder if different approaches to sectional playing go in and out of vogue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
