 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rozsa's Sinbad and Theif of Bagdad would be super.
Though I am pretty satisfied with the Varese re-recording of Bagdad, mainly cause it doesn't have that rather annoying solo vocal stuff on the Bernstein recording.
Not annoying for me at all. In fact since the FMC box came out I'm listening almost exclusively to the Bernstein version (my most often played FMC disc) -- my only regret is for the absence of the "Procesion" cue.
Several years ago the Rózsa Society issued a members-only recording that was an amalgam of the Rózsa-conducted CD and the Bernstein-conducted LP, resulting in the most complete version of the score, recorded in relatively modern stereo, at about 51 minutes.
As soon as I received FSM's release of the Bernstein Film Music Collection set, I replaced the LP transfers of THIEF with the improved sound from the FSM disc. This composite is pretty satisfying, even if the singer of Abu's Song, from the Bernstein Cd, leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor Arch, he is obviously such a naieve and rather sad individual. He takes Thor to task for disagreeing with him (big deal!)- who quite simply says that such a release is not so important for him;
Your comprehension of what you read is quite poor. I think Thor is very intelligent and his film music studies have obviously been quite thorough in certain areas, so it astounds me when he mentions not being familiar with an important or truly great score such as MYSTERIOUS ISLAND. Others I seem to recall him mentioning in such a manner have been THE BIG COUNTRY, HOW THE WEST WAS WON, and THE THIRD MAN (though I could be mistaken on these specific titles). He has also pointed out several times his lack of interest or knowledge in most of the great Golden Age composers, particularly Max Steiner. For someone who touts his college studies and theses on the subject of film music, I find this odd. And that was my point.
Do you get it?
later, I agree with Thor and the obviously dim individual lashes out with an attack which has no relevance to anything. Apart, that is, from his own prejudices and pathetic ideas as to what is good and what is not. Based, obviously on a complete lack of any sort of musical sensibility.
I think my rebuttal to your very childish post was absolutely on target. So much so that you failed to respond to the specifics of what I said, and concentrated instead on ignorant generalizations and misconceptions about me personally. Very weak of you, but very amusing.
Perhaps he is about 15 years old, and should know better; perhaps he is older than this, but has the mind of a 15 year old; goodness knows. He is still the sort that is making so many reluctant to post on this forum due to the cretinous attitude of so many of its regulars. It really is a shame, and Lukas should have the power to bar such obvious troublemakers.
Wow. Good luck with your next mental health evaluation. (And perhaps it would be in your best interest to be more 'reluctant' to post if all you can manage is what you've posted so far.)
In an attempt to keep this thread on track, I'll add that I'm also looking forward to the Morgan/Stromberg FAHRENHEIT 451. However, didn't a re-record of it of it come out not to long ago? If so, was it any good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 8, 2007 - 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I think Thor is very intelligent and his film music studies have obviously been quite thorough in certain areas, so it astounds me when he mentions not being familiar with an important or truly great score such as MYSTERIOUS ISLAND.
Really? Well, it's not like I have seen every film in the entire history of Cinema and I actually see a lot of stuff that is NOT from Hollywood as well. There are many, MANY classics that I have not yet seen, although they're on my "too-see list". I recently saw THE THIRD MAN, for example.
MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is not really a revered classic in the same league and old monster/alien "exploitation" films with cheesy effects have never really been my thing in the first place. But I hope to see this one some day as well. All in due time.
He has also pointed out several times his lack of interest or knowledge in most of the great Golden Age composers, particularly Max Steiner. For someone who touts his college studies and theses on the subject of film music, I find this odd. And that was my point.
I have NO idea what you're on about here, Arch. I have GREAT interest in Golden Age Cinema and many of its composers. You're not a true film buff if you're not, IMO. I even have several Steiner CD's (he's the "godfather" of Hollywood film music, after all). I just don't like his mickey-mousing style as a listening experience, nor his insistence on incorporating other tunes in his scores all the time.
NP: "Falling Awake" (Gary Jules)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I even have several Steiner CD's (he's the "godfather" of Hollywood film music, after all). I just don't like his mickey-mousing style as a listening experience, nor his insistence on incorporating other tunes in his scores all the time.
)
Tell me about it! Unlistenable #@#$*&
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many, MANY classics that I have not yet seen, although they're on my "too-see list". I recently saw THE THIRD MAN, for example. MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is not really a revered classic in the same league and old monster/alien "exploitation" films with cheesy effects have never really been my thing in the first place.
Thor - You have a completely distorted view of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND if you think it is an "exploitation" film with cheesy effects. Ray Harryhausen's stop motion effects are highly regarded by cineastes and critics as are Bernard Hermann's scores for the four Harryhausen films he scored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not like I have seen every film in the entire history of Cinema and I actually see a lot of stuff that is NOT from Hollywood as well.
As all of us do who are truly into film. You seem to think Americans only watch 'Hollywood' movies. It's that silly Euro-elitist attitude of yours that really gets on my nerves.
Oh, and if it weren't for 'Hollywood' movies (STAR WARS in particular), do you think you'd be interested in film and film music? I seriously doubt it.
MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is not really a revered classic in the same league and old monster/alien "exploitation" films with cheesy effects have never really been my thing in the first place.
Someone else has already put you in your place on this incredibly ignorant statement. (It would probably be best if you didn't profer an opinion about any films made before 1977 until you learn more about them.)
I have GREAT interest in Golden Age Cinema and many of its composers.
Judging by many of your previous posts on this subject, I think you're just paying lip service here. It's something someone says so that he'll come across as an objective viewer/listener. Your heart lies firmly in the last 30 years of film and that's easy for anyone to see. That's not necessarily a bad thing -- unless you're trying to promote yourself as a true 'film historian.'
I even have several Steiner CD's (he's the "godfather" of Hollywood film music, after all). I just don't like his mickey-mousing style as a listening experience, nor his insistence on incorporating other tunes in his scores all the time.
Your knowledge of Steiner is extremely limited. He doesn't incorporate other tunes 'all the time.' However, when he does (such as with 'Gary Owen' in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON), it's almost always so brilliantly done that the tune becomes something much greater than it ever was to begin with.
As for his so-called 'mickey-mousing,' you need to learn the difference between matching action while creating a cohesive piece of music and simply 'matching action.' If your interest in the Golden Age is as 'GREAT' as you claim, you will learn this in time.
In the meantime, I strongly suggest you seek out a DVD of MYSTERIOUS ISLAND. Simply put, it's one of the most perfect music scores for its subject matter ever written. The diverse-yet-cohesive brilliance of it should make a believer of you.
And as I've said many times before, the giant bird sequence is one of the finest fusions of music and image ever created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can take that polemic of yours and stuff it, Arch. Completely destructive way of "debating", so I have no interest in continuing any discussion with you in this thread. To me, you've never been anything other than an annoying internet "troll", so it's probably the best for everyone if I don't fall into your trap of arrogant personal attacks.
How childish - I think Thor realises he has lost the argument. If anyone is being an annoying internet "troll" it is Thor. He came onto this thread, promoting the new Tribute Film Classics recording, simply to say that he wasn't interested in it. How pointless is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and I'm sure MYSTERIOUS ISLAND was state-of-the-art when it came out. Still, it's a minor footnote in film history (unless you're an F/X buff) that is mostly remembered for the technical finesse and arguably the music.
Tell that to people like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Dennis Murren, Phil Tippett, and many others who have gone on to become some of our finest filmmakers and special effects artist all because they were influenced by this man and film you call a “minor footnote”. Do you believe we would have films like Star Wars, Close Encounters, and so many more, had this “minor footnote” not come along in film history????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 9, 2007 - 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Tell that to people like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Dennis Murren, Phil Tippett, and many others who have gone on to become some of our finest filmmakers and special effects artist all because they were influenced by this man and film you call a “minor footnote”. Do you believe we would have films like Star Wars, Close Encounters, and so many more, had this “minor footnote” not come along in film history????
Sure, since those films are about more than just the special effects. But I'm not underestimating the importance of Harryhausen or his influence here, I'm trying to say that MYSTERIOUS ISLAND is not a film referred to in most film history books. AS A FILM, it IS a minor footnote that - unless you're talking about the music or effects - may be casually referred to or included alongside other monster or sci fi movies of the time.
But....perhaps MAJOR footnote is a better word than minor footnote. I'll grant you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the "argument" is concerned, the truly pointless thing is trying to get a constructive debate with someone who resorts to personal attacks and cheap shots. Maybe that's your thing, but it's certainly not mine.
The worst thing I said to you was that statement about MYSTERIOUS ISLAND was ignorant, which it is. Pointing out someone's lack of knowledge is hardly a personal attack.
And I certainly believe that your original post that started all of this was intended to denigrate Herrmann's work. You do this sort of non-constructive post a lot, particularly with Goldsmith scores.
It gets tiresome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
), but I just can't help pointing out how incredibly ignorant this statement is. Did you know Mysterious Island was a Ray Harryhausen picture? Do you know who Ray Harryhausen is? If so, are you going to stand by your assertion that the work of Ray Harryhausen (here in his prime) is "cheesy"?