Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 7:56 PM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

oh smurf :/

Sry, I've adjusted my post. Wasn't trying to be rude... just not happy about all this...

Anyway, got some answers now..

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 8:01 PM   
 By:   Koray Savas   (Member)

Was gonna buy this but not anymore!

 
 Posted:   Oct 7, 2013 - 8:05 PM   
 By:   mastadge   (Member)

Wasn't gonna buy this but now I think I will!

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 8:18 AM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

See, and that's why I asked... not to be disruptive to their sales or site, or to increase it either... just to find out. Both of those responses are what I wanted really: People being able to know what they're buying and make that decision.

Like the new piano added to track 2 sounded like synth to me (percussion instruments can be hard to spot though) but I knew it wasn't original to the track and I heard no added air and it's very clear. There are CERTAINLY some synth instruments added to it and there are two other tracks mixed with synthetic elements. So it was a safe guess. I was just asking for Clarification as to what it was (and why it was there) and no one would give that clarification. In fact, not one of my posts was responded to; not one question I asked was answered. No statements were made directly to me, about me, or about my posts but indirectly about my posts and in response to other questions asked.

So yea, I just wanted to know why there was suddenly this NEW piano and chime performance in the score which had never been there before and I knew that it could NOT be from the original masters. But with no response, no answer, I kept asking. I don't feel dumb for asking or for putting out my thoughts on the subject at all. In fact, I'm glad that they are saying it was Debney because that IS something special!! Why not ADVERTISE that!

Why NOT say:
"Due to incomplete masters, the maestro himself completed the track by adding a small performance of the Horner song's melody to replace the missing vocals. A truly personal touch (all of 20 years later!) to this wonderful score!"

Two sentences. Two sentences would have answered that.

I'm not saying I need to know every detail, no one does really. But when you buy a score marketed as "complete" and from the "masters," and it has film rip and synth mock ups in it, I feel that should, in the interest of disclosure, be stated!

People should be able to make an informed decision about what they're buying. If they're spending their money and trusting you with a good product, you should in turn return their trust by being up front about what is/isn't there. Seems fair to me?

And yet this uproar! lol... but that's ok. I'm glad we got some answers. :-)

 
 Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 8:38 AM   
 By:   Shaun Rutherford   (Member)

I didn't read your initial post at Intrada to know what terrible thing you said to get banned, but how could anyone say that you're wrong? The whole thing would have been avoided had they just mentioned the oddities in the recording up front. Why not just do that?

 
 Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 9:13 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

I didn't read your initial post at Intrada to know what terrible thing you said to get banned, but how could anyone say that you're wrong? The whole thing would have been avoided had they just mentioned the oddities in the recording up front. Why not just do that?

Agreed - the reaction from Intrada is very strange. The best way to handle something like this is like LLL handled the recent altered tracks on "The Matrix Reloaded." - They let people know about the alteration - here, and on their Facebook, and in the press release, and on their product ordering page. There were a handful of people who complained a little, only one who seemed to care significantly, and none of those people who ended up spending their money felt duped.

By reactions here and at Intrada, it seems like the majority of people are happy with this release, and there are about three people who are a vocal minority who are bummed out about certain things. Had Intrada placed a brief note on their album page indicating "Certain portions of the album are sourced from the best possible elements, such-and-such was unable to be located, etc," the whole situation could easily have been avoided, the release would sell gangbusters-minus-three copies instead, and at the very least, everybody who spent their money would have been happy.

I also bristle at people throwing around insults about "entitlement," so maybe I'm siding with people here more than I normally would in these circumstances wink

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 8, 2013 - 10:00 AM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

I'm pretty happy with the release mind you. I'm happy to have it in better quality than the leaks! There are always details which make you sad like the omission of "I Put a Spell On You" but I never honestly expected it to be on this. I can imagine licensing fees and reuse fees for that would be difficult.

That I understood. It was just the other issues that I had which made me feel more and more dismayed and the lack of clarity on them and when it became obvious I was being purposely ignored and these details were purposely being glazed over that I grew upset.

The irony of it is had there been a note saying that the piano was performed by Debney, I would have even been MORE interested! I would have been like "Whoa! Really?! Sad they couldn't find the vocals but wow! Debney even helped out! How cool!" perhaps to be disappointed but only with myself to blame heh

But without knowing (and the fact it's out of sync, melodically incorrect, and slightly behind the beat at the end) It just sounded thrown in there...

I'm not trying to be unfair I guess is my point.... I'm really not.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 5:29 AM   
 By:   MikeP   (Member)

I didn't read your initial post at Intrada to know what terrible thing you said to get banned, but how could anyone say that you're wrong? The whole thing would have been avoided had they just mentioned the oddities in the recording up front. Why not just do that?

Agreed - the reaction from Intrada is very strange. The best way to handle something like this is like LLL handled the recent altered tracks on "The Matrix Reloaded." - They let people know about the alteration - here, and on their Facebook, and in the press release, and on their product ordering page. There were a handful of people who complained a little, only one who seemed to care significantly, and none of those people who ended up spending their money felt duped.

By reactions here and at Intrada, it seems like the majority of people are happy with this release, and there are about three people who are a vocal minority who are bummed out about certain things. Had Intrada placed a brief note on their album page indicating "Certain portions of the album are sourced from the best possible elements, such-and-such was unable to be located, etc," the whole situation could easily have been avoided, the release would sell gangbusters-minus-three copies instead, and at the very least, everybody who spent their money would have been happy.

I also bristle at people throwing around insults about "entitlement," so maybe I'm siding with people here more than I normally would in these circumstances wink



No. big grin The situation with LLL and Matrix Reloaded is different. There were tracks they couldn't license and that's that. In this case... if all the above is true ... if Intrada had said "well, we couldn't locate this or that so what happened is ... " they'd have been burned at the stake. Burned alive, boiled in oil, etc... razz This is true.

The very same complaints would have surfaced. No doubt. In fact there may have been even more complaints, who knows? Me, I'm still waiting on my copy. Usually my Intrada packages arrive 3 days after shipping, this one is running late.

Plus, I mean comparing a b**t to an official release, with no idea - NO IDEA - of what really happened during album production is silly. Debney could say in June the album is in the works, but that could just mean is a contract is signed. Who knows when, where and how any elements were provided or found after looking high and low ?

Ah well... I'm still looking forward to my copy

 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 7:10 AM   
 By:   Shaun Rutherford   (Member)



No. big grin The situation with LLL and Matrix Reloaded is different. There were tracks they couldn't license and that's that. In this case... if all the above is true ... if Intrada had said "well, we couldn't locate this or that so what happened is ... " they'd have been burned at the stake. Burned alive, boiled in oil, etc... razz This is true.

The very same complaints would have surfaced. No doubt. In fact there may have been even more complaints, who knows? Me, I'm still waiting on my copy. Usually my Intrada packages arrive 3 days after shipping, this one is running late.



You really think it would have been worse if they had been up front about the compromised tracks and the poorly-synced re-recording, instead of acting out against customers when they discovered it for themselves?

I've been a fan of Intrada since the early 90's, and have been thrilled with so many of their releases since the start of this whole limited edition game, despite some of their more recent production headscratchers. But this Hocus Pocus thing has to be one of their weirdest issues. All of this could have been avoided so easily, as that other guy suggested. That's what the press release is for!

I mean, this is a landmark score, people. This is John Debney's Hocus Pocus. We've entered an era in which even temp-heavy scores get the special edition treatment. Get it right, you know?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 9, 2013 - 10:16 AM   
 By:   jwb   (Member)

I didn't read your initial post at Intrada to know what terrible thing you said to get banned, but how could anyone say that you're wrong? The whole thing would have been avoided had they just mentioned the oddities in the recording up front. Why not just do that?

Agreed - the reaction from Intrada is very strange. The best way to handle something like this is like LLL handled the recent altered tracks on "The Matrix Reloaded." - They let people know about the alteration - here, and on their Facebook, and in the press release, and on their product ordering page. There were a handful of people who complained a little, only one who seemed to care significantly, and none of those people who ended up spending their money felt duped.

By reactions here and at Intrada, it seems like the majority of people are happy with this release, and there are about three people who are a vocal minority who are bummed out about certain things. Had Intrada placed a brief note on their album page indicating "Certain portions of the album are sourced from the best possible elements, such-and-such was unable to be located, etc," the whole situation could easily have been avoided, the release would sell gangbusters-minus-three copies instead, and at the very least, everybody who spent their money would have been happy.

I also bristle at people throwing around insults about "entitlement," so maybe I'm siding with people here more than I normally would in these circumstances wink



No. big grin The situation with LLL and Matrix Reloaded is different. There were tracks they couldn't license and that's that. In this case... if all the above is true ... if Intrada had said "well, we couldn't locate this or that so what happened is ... " they'd have been burned at the stake. Burned alive, boiled in oil, etc... razz This is true.

The very same complaints would have surfaced. No doubt. In fact there may have been even more complaints, who knows? Me, I'm still waiting on my copy. Usually my Intrada packages arrive 3 days after shipping, this one is running late.

Plus, I mean comparing a b**t to an official release, with no idea - NO IDEA - of what really happened during album production is silly. Debney could say in June the album is in the works, but that could just mean is a contract is signed. Who knows when, where and how any elements were provided or found after looking high and low ?

Ah well... I'm still looking forward to my copy


What happened with MR is different than what happened with Hocus Pocus.

Look, I was one of the one's who had issue with MR. La La was honest and upfront about it and that is how it should be done and I applaud them for that. I still however have issue because they could have included the licensed tracks but chose not to over money. Well, then charge a little more for it then, IMHO. When Varese did Deluxe of The Matrix many people were upset about the music left off - so why does La La get a pass and Varese doesn't?

With Hocus Pocus Intrada simply were not upfront and honest. They presented it as the "complete" score, which it isn't. They also said the elements were from "original 48-track digital scoring session elements", which isn't true because they used film stems as well.

And then when questions get raised they call it being "entitled monsters". Honestly, I was shocked when I saw Doug and Rogers reaction. Sure, GoodMuscian had some stuff wrong in his analysis and I believe he apologized and Roger didn't like that I said we were "tricked and "treated" with Hocus Pocus, but I think we kinda were. I still recommended everyone to buy it. As Shaun said, if Intrada simply were more upfront it wouldn't have happened how it did.

Okay, I'm really done talking about this. Its tiring.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 8:27 AM   
 By:   bdm   (Member)

Was just over at Intrada to check in on the Buck Rogers release (to see if anyone there had an idea how many discs will be in this release), and popped into the HP add and noted that the description appears to have been taken down - perhaps they are rewriting it in response to the hullabaloo here. Also noted the samples don't seem to work now - though that might just be a glitch.

Still waiting for my copy to arrivefrown

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 10:00 AM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

I've been watching to see what the new description will be. And you're right about the individual samples being taken down, although there is still a "Listen to all Samples" link which works.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 1:16 PM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

They're put the original CD description back on their site (typos and all) with no changes in regard to the details I discussed.

Kinda disappointing but eh... I'm over it

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 4:25 PM   
 By:   catboy19   (Member)

So what are you all saying? Is this score not really complete? or is it?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 6:52 PM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

To quote obi-wan, it is "From a certain point of view."

I only repeat these because you ask and now that we have a little more information about the release from Intrada I can consolidate that too.

1) Track 2 "Garden of Magic" does not include Sarah Jessica Park's voice. Instead John Debney (as it turns out) recorded a Version of the melody for piano (although there is a new chime mixed in too) to replace her singing.

2) The end of track 3 and also track 28 have the same cue "Witches Lair (Part 3)" but two versions of it. Neither is the film version which is heard on the sessions leak.

3) None of the Party Source music--including "I Put a Spell On You"--is included on the set. The reasons, according to Intrada, is that they could not find the recordings. These aren't Debney anyway but would have been nice if they had been available.

4) They had 'Sarah's Theme' as the orchestral recordings but no vocal track was available (same issue as track 2). They said the only source for her singing was a stereo-mix film rip but due to sfx and the obvious dialogue in the 2nd half of the song (where she's mostly just vocalizing) they decided to simply repeat the first verse (voice and instruments) again. While not authentic, it's all they said they could do with what they had.

Hope this helps.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 7:04 PM   
 By:   catboy19   (Member)

To quote obi-wan, it is "From a certain point of view."

I only repeat these because you ask and now that we have a little more information about the release from Intrada I can consolidate that too.

1) Track 2 "Garden of Magic" does not include Sarah Jessica Park's voice. Instead John Debney (as it turns out) recorded a Version of the melody for piano (although there is a new chime mixed in too) to replace her singing.

2) The end of track 3 and also track 28 have the same cue "Witches Lair (Part 3)" but two versions of it. Neither is the film version which is heard on the sessions leak.

3) None of the Party Source music--including "I Put a Spell On You"--is included on the set. The reasons, according to Intrada, is that they could not find the recordings. These aren't Debney anyway but would have been nice if they had been available.

4) They had 'Sarah's Theme' as the orchestral recordings but no vocal track was available (same issue as track 2). They said the only source for her singing was a stereo-mix film rip but due to sfx and the obvious dialogue in the 2nd half of the song (where she's mostly just vocalizing) they decided to simply repeat the first verse (voice and instruments) again. While not authentic, it's all they said they could do with what they had.

Hope this helps.



okay it does so other then that the rest of the score is what they said it is?

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 7:29 PM   
 By:   GoodMusician86   (Member)

Yes. And in very good quality too. The choir is newly mixed so you may notice some differences in that, but yes, the rest is correct and there :-)

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2013 - 8:09 PM   
 By:   walking_dude42   (Member)

deleted

 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2013 - 1:55 PM   
 By:   bdm   (Member)

Finally got mine today, and am really enjoying this - I managed to get the songs from another source (SFX ad all) and add them in, so I am totally happy; thanks to Mr. Debney and all the fne folks at Intrada!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.