 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 15, 2014 - 10:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
Indeed William, it is a most fascinating conundrum, worthy of a Holmes mystery itself! Oh, and I KNOW that the lovely Lucie was only playing what was in front of her - as were all the other musicians when they played the same note together.
I did mention in one of my first posts on this thread, way back, that - according to James Fitzpatrick's liner notes - "Some of the sketches were not too clear and in poor condition so I enlisted the brilliant orchestrator Nic Raine to handle the score restoration and orchestration." Now, I've got to be careful here in case I sound like I'm attributing blame to an innocent party, but since I don't really know what the statement implies, I'll leave it to others to infer what they may. I'd certainly hate this to degenerate into a witch-hunt now that it's all gone nice and civilized again!
But "something" happened. Some of us hear it, some of us don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I posted a scan of the conductor's score for the concerto. (Only the strings are playing at this particular moment, so none of the blank lines for the rest of the orchestra are included.)
Thanks, Jeff.
A conductor's score would also show all the correct notes in proper print. It's still all confusing, because there are parts of the Tadlow where the concerto clearly WAS used (as in one passage that replaced a 'Gabrielle' cue), so it would have to be a deliberate attempt to 'fix' all the passages where that motif appears.
One thing needs said: it's a score where there's a fair bit of repetition and it'd be easy for a transcriber to save time and energy by copying a motif without looking, then of course adapting parts around it. But 'without looking' would need to be in the mix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm making it clear I have no gripes with Tadlow, who do a brilliant job. I was going to isolate the two notes for comparison on a waveform, and listen, but it seems churlish.
Tad seem to be getting a bad rap from quarters these days. These ebbs and flows in the mob moods. I think we all know they do a great and mammoth job. Let's not add ingratitude to their obstacles.
Glitches in the zeitgeist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham hasn't been ungrateful at all. He just noticed an error, which other people then corroborated. Is he at fault for noticing the wrongly transcribed note? Are other people at fault for noticing the overly hot mastering for Conan the Barbarian? I don't think so. Most of these people have shared these things respectfully, and praised other aspects of Tadlow's work. This is hardly dumping on the label because most of their releases are praised highly with no griping. It's just that -- occasionally -- there is some room for improvement.
I for one will get every single one of their releases and I eagerly await whatever they've tackled next!
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm clarifying my OWN position and no-one else's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2014 - 9:47 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
Graham hasn't been ungrateful at all. He just noticed an error, which other people then corroborated. Is he at fault for noticing the wrongly transcribed note? Are other people at fault for noticing the overly hot mastering for Conan the Barbarian? I don't think so. Most of these people have shared these things respectfully, and praised other aspects of Tadlow's work. This is hardly dumping on the label because most of their releases are praised highly with no griping. It's just that -- occasionally -- there is some room for improvement.
This is a post close to my heart. I think it's important that our praise and gratitude not exclude mention of weaknesses--because, come on, nothing is perfect and certainly nothing prepared under such cost and time constraints. This shouldn't mean we're throwing mud in the producer's face, merely pointing out what seem to us areas where things could be better next time. (And lord knows the producer is free to disagree and go his own way--in the case of James, it's his money after all). Because otherwise, hey, it's just unalloyed hosannas, and who the hell wants that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 16, 2014 - 10:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
This is a post close to my heart. I think it's important that our praise and gratitude not exclude mention of weaknesses--because, come on, nothing is perfect and certainly nothing prepared under such cost and time constraints. This shouldn't mean we're throwing mud in the producer's face, merely pointing out what seem to us areas where things could be better next time. (And lord knows the producer is free to disagree and go his own way--in the case of James, it's his money after all). Because otherwise, hey, it's just unalloyed hosannas, and who the hell wants that?
I couldn't agree more.
The smart businessperson knows that there is just as much to be learned from criticism as there is from praise, and they are wise enough to invite both. They are the special breed that knows how to improve their product using those insights.
Personally, I believe I learn more when someone flat-out tells me with intelligence and respect when I've done something wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churlish to actually investigate the o.p.'s legitimate question, but apparently not churlish to dismiss his query out of hand. Got it.
Loosen up. It's summer.
None of my posts above dismiss anything Graham said out of hand. I've said from the start that I couldn't hear it, and that if it were so, it'd be strange to see how it could happen. You fellas polarise everything into opposite camps, it's your way. Take my posts as my posts, not someone else's.
Now to use Holmes's own logic, there's still a mystery. Life's too short as it is, but let's look again.
If the G is always a Gb, then it must have been notated that way throughout, especially since the whole orch does it. And how could that be? Y'see gents, a G and a Gb both occupy the same line. Kindergarten music 101. 'Every Good Boy Deserves Favours'. That means that there has to have been a specific NOTATION to get a Gb repeatedly.
It's not enough to say that the G was typo-ed wrongly. It'd be on the same line. There'd need to be a 'b' symbol. Now, the only way to avoid that would be if the line's initial key signature had a Gb, or one was inserted up the line, but that'd mean that EVERY G played, not just in that motif but EVERYWHERE would have to be flat too! That's clearly not the case or the whole piece would sound bonkers. So you'd need a 'natural' sign to keep reversing it every time the other 'G's appeared! How could that be done accidentally!
I'm no expert, but only two things seem possible with my limited knowledge. Either, the transcriber made a deliberate change and replicated it throughout, or the whole orchestra was 'manipulated' on that one note in mixing with a pitch-bender on Protools to fix a repeated mistake, quite do-able, but that would require soloist and orchestra to have been recorded separately. Well, with close-miking I suppose they sort of were. But it'd be a chore. Less noticeable though than pitch-bending the solo violin, up front. 'Doesn't seem likely.
If it were a transcriber thing, it would mean that the original sketches and conductor scores weren't really looked at. Also unlikely, the album notes say they had them.
If it were a 'cut'n'paste' thing, then it'd mean individual passages were replaced by a previous solo, and the orch played phrases to accommodate that. Unlikely and awkward.
So if you can EXPLAIN how it happened, then do so.
It should also be said, no offence to previous posters, but I haven't myself had time or real inclination to copy and paste the 'offending' note into a wave-form and compare it with other performances to see if it really IS a semitone below, because I don't naturally hear it, as others seem to. So far, three hear it here.
That's what Holmes would do. What Holmes wouldn't do is explain in detail as I have, which is a waste of time until the case is proven. It could be done, and soundfile posted here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more.
The smart businessperson knows that there is just as much to be learned from criticism as there is from praise, and they are wise enough to invite both. They are the special breed that knows how to improve their product using those insights.
Personally, I believe I learn more when someone flat-out tells me with intelligence and respect when I've done something wrong.
You don't say. Have you ever considered writing 'thought for the day' copy for business calendars? I feel there is a niche. 'Just kidding, as they say.
The smart businessperson notices that in a small market negative comments hinder sales.
The smart businessperson notices that in the present economic climate, in a sector where there is next to no competition, it takes very little to knock these things on the head and say 'quits; it's not working'. Tadlow's work is in the HERE AND NOW, and is really about current film-score and orchestral sessioning. This is only a sideline, perhaps taxation relates to that, but frankly, it's something that they can stop tomorrow and won't suffer from.
Guess who'll suffer.
The smart detective like S. Holmes also notices trends as does the smart businessperson. Intrada, fresh off their success with three more Rozsa albums recently, decided to launch a little attack on Tadlow recently. It WAS an attack, and a bit unnecessary given their own successful track-record. Magnanimity is better. The smart businessperson doesn't knock the competition OVERTLY.
The HOLLYWOOD way. Smell the trends. I never liked it. Now, without paranoia, we should put these things in the mix. We haven't the complete picture, as Holmes would always point out. That's nothing to do with Graham's motivation, I point out.
If someone wants to put two notes together on a waveform, post it on a hosting site, and then link it here, feel free to do so. Holmes would do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 17, 2014 - 10:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
William, with no musical training, I'm afraid that I can't follow what you're saying. And I'd never dream of anyone going to the bother of putting things through sound converters and so on in order to determine pitch differences. If your ear doesn't tell you, move on. As you say, life is too short. BUT - if you're still interested.....
Once established that we all know which exact note to listen out for (all my old YouTube links from February 8 still work, but finder4545 was perhaps more precise when he posted a few days ago "its the second note of that block which is repeated three times, at the third repetition...")
I did a nutty thing, and what I'm going to post may sound totally laughable or implausible to those with musical knowledge. Anyway, I found on Google "Virtual Keyboard", and played the two versions of the motif. This is the bit you're all going to snort and say, "But you haven't even given us the key it's played in!" and things like that. I'm prepared for that.
So on the screen comes up this big piano, with notes on it, and the C is the first note on the left (is everyone falling about yet?). So I played the sequence we all know from the numerous recordings of the Concerto, the film itself, and the Quartet release, and got this -
C - E - G - A - F (with the first four notes ascending, and the last one descending)
Then I "played" the Tadlow version and got -
C - D sharp - G - A - F (again of course following the same ascent and descent)
I don't even know how to post sound clips or anything, but if anyone's interested, you may like to follow that lead - if you haven't died of hysterics yet.)
I think I'll go ahead and press "Post Message", even at the risk of looking an eejit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 17, 2014 - 2:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
waxmanman35
(Member)
|
If the G is always a Gb, then it must have been notated that way throughout, especially since the whole orch does it. And how could that be? Y'see gents, a G and a Gb both occupy the same line. Kindergarten music 101. 'Every Good Boy Deserves Favours'. That means that there has to have been a specific NOTATION to get a Gb repeatedly.
It's not enough to say that the G was typo-ed wrongly. It'd be on the same line. There'd need to be a 'b' symbol. Now, the only way to avoid that would be if the line's initial key signature had a Gb, or one was inserted up the line, but that'd mean that EVERY G played, not just in that motif but EVERYWHERE would have to be flat too! That's clearly not the case or the whole piece would sound bonkers. So you'd need a 'natural' sign to keep reversing it every time the other 'G's appeared! How could that be done accidentally!
I'm no expert, but only two things seem possible with my limited knowledge. Either, the transcriber made a deliberate change and replicated it throughout, or the whole orchestra was 'manipulated' on that one note in mixing with a pitch-bender on Protools to fix a repeated mistake, quite do-able, but that would require soloist and orchestra to have been recorded separately. Well, with close-miking I suppose they sort of were. But it'd be a chore. Less noticeable though than pitch-bending the solo violin, up front. 'Doesn't seem likely.
If it were a transcriber thing, it would mean that the original sketches and conductor scores weren't really looked at. Also unlikely, the album notes say they had them.
If it were a 'cut'n'paste' thing, then it'd mean individual passages were replaced by a previous solo, and the orch played phrases to accommodate that. Unlikely and awkward.
So if you can EXPLAIN how it happened, then do so.
It should also be said, no offence to previous posters, but I haven't myself had time or real inclination to copy and paste the 'offending' note into a wave-form and compare it with other performances to see if it really IS a semitone below, because I don't naturally hear it, as others seem to. So far, three hear it here.
That's what Holmes would do. What Holmes wouldn't do is explain in detail as I have, which is a waste of time until the case is proven. It could be done, and soundfile posted here.
I don't hear it either, but just to play devil's advocate, computer notation systems such as Finale have a "mirror" mode that will copy a line of music to other designated staves, adjusting for necessary transpositions and key signatures. That's how it could be done technically. I would still like to know if anyone has examined the film score to determine how it compares to the violin concerto. Perhaps the concerto was changed by Rozsa when adapted for the film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
