 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2001 - 4:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Most of you thought I was nuts when I lashed out at expanded releases. I probably won't make a better case for myself when I'm now directing a kick against track-by-track analyses - at least the way they're executed nowadays - in CD booklets and magazine issues. You don't have to be a genius to understand that the two critical views are connected, though.
So, while trying not to regurgitate what has been said about a million times already (on the topic of FILM music vs. film MUSIC), I'll explain.
You all know that I consider the film score album a separate entity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the film. As such, I even consider track TITLES superflous...Well, not exactly, perhaps, but the only purpose of track titles is, for me, that they work as a reference when I'm talking to guys like yourselves. A purely PRACTICAL function, in other words (that's why I love Elliot Goldenthal's music-style titles, like "adagio", "lento" etc.). When I have purchased an album, I read the titles perhaps once, then never again.
No surprise, then, that I consider track-by-track analyses even MORE redundant and highly skippable. This is how they are written and why I think they don't work:
PRESENT STATE:
Track-by-track analyses in most CD booklets and magazines nowadays are unfortunately limited to a purely DESCRIPTIVE level. They describe what is going on visually in a given scene and then proceed to describe what type of music is played and with what instruments etc. This is analysis in its purest "biological" form (dissecting the pieces of something). But only rarely do they move BEYOND that, to an attempt to describe how the film works in the visual context, of how it comments on the film symbolically, of how it "captures" or "creates" etc.. The consequence for the film MUSIC fan is that the analysis merely links the music to the film in a fetischistic manner. The consequence for the FILM music fan is that it simply tells us what we already know, what we already can gather from watching the film. Either way, it becomes void and redundant.
My "solution" to this can be separated into two scenarios:
FUTURE SCENARIO 1:
Describe the tracks in MUSICAL TERMS only (the way Luscious Lazslo does it here at the board), eschewing any mention of the film itself! This I would love, but highly doubt its feasability. It's a minority approach that few will condone. Unfortunately.
FUTURE SCENARIO 2:
Elevate the analysis approach of the "present state" with ONE level, i.e. tell us how the music WORKS in a given scene, what it does to the overall narrative, what is its motivation etc.? Since this would still link the music to the film too firmly, I would probably still skip it upon purchasing an album, but this way it could at least become useful should I once decide to analyze a certain film and its music myself, and then see what someone else has written about it.
Don't misunderstand me now: There is nothing wrong with track-by-track analyses per se! Just they way they're written, or rather: the principle that dictates them ('description only').
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2001 - 5:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
André Lux
(Member)
|
Honestly Thor, our Orc friend from Sweden, I think you should get a life. You know: brush your teeth, take a shower, get out some time, know people, meet some girls (or guys if you are gay), by some more expanded scores... This kind of cool things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2001 - 6:05 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Pumpkinrot
(Member)
|
So when you go to the movies, do you keep your eyes shut to enjoy the music?Rot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEMO TO ANDRE: One of these days, you will finally learn the difference between Norwegians and Swedes. And on that day, I will weep tears of joy.MEMO TO THOR: The problem with Goldenthal-type musicological track titles is the simple fact that they are too vague and too confusing. Naming a track after its time (adagio or lento) makes it too easy to confuse that track with all the other tracks named "adagio" or "lento". This is the problem with regular orchestral music. And you end up with what you've got in Iceland, where too many people have the same name. I prefer track titles to have specific gimmicky names. I prefer the specificity & simplicity of John Williams's "One-Barrel Chase" to having to say something awkward like "the adagio from Bartok's MUSIC FOR STRINGS, PERCUSSION, & CELESTE".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 11, 2001 - 8:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
André Lux
(Member)
|
quote:
Originally posted by Luscious Lazlo:
MEMO TO ANDRE: One of these days, you will finally learn the difference between Norwegians and Swedes.
Yeah. Both me and McReady!  http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/tongue.gif"> Now, please go kiss the Orc's arse Lulu. He seems to like you too. http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/biggrin.gif">
|
|
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thor:
You all know that I consider the film score album a separate entity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the film. As such, I even consider track TITLES superflous...
Even the movie's TITLE or the composer's names are superflous to me. I wish they would just wrap all soundtrack releases in white industrial cardboard cover without any reference to the film's title, composer, or even recording year. That way, one could approach the score with a fresh mind... one would never know what's in the package until the CD is in the home stereo system, sometimes not even then. Better yet, let all records be sold like that. Just imagine, you never know if you'll get Britney Spears, Arnold Schönberg, Bob Dylan, or John Williams until it's too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2001 - 11:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
Thor, I agree with you to a certain extent, in that I've read many worthless reviews along the lines of "in the track called Sadness, the main character is feeling very sad and there is a very sad violin line which highlights his sadness."I do kind of like your Future Scenario 2, in fact this has been done to some degree in a couple of excellent books like George Burt's The Art Of Film Music, and even in some learned discussion here on the board. But I like a kind of balance too. Personally I like track titles, and also feel that, whilst I agree that divorced from the film the music is reinvented as a different entity, it doesn't have to be always the case. To give you an example, I adore The Omega Man, because the film made a big impression on me when I was young, and the score is part and parcel of the memory. It doesn't necessarily make me want to hunt down all non-soundtrack recordings done in that 70s style though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thor:
You all know that I consider the film score album a separate entity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the film....
I consider track-by-track analyses even MORE redundant and highly skippable. Track-by-track analyses in most CD booklets and magazines nowadays are unfortunately limited to a purely DESCRIPTIVE level. They describe what is going on visually in a given scene and then proceed to describe what type of music is played and with what instruments etc....The consequence for the FILM music fan is that it simply tells us what we already know, what we already can gather from watching the film.
I take a very different view. * "Nothing Whatsoever"? When the music is so good it makes me love a movie, I don't turn around and try to forget the movie as soon as I have the CD. The film remains as a part of the positive emotional experience. By linking the two, good liner notes reinforce the feeling of enjoyment. * "What We Already Know"? We're not all professors of music theory at Oxford, Thor. A good verbal description of the music I'm hearing is not redundant to me, because I don't know the language of music well enough to have put it that way myself. By providing a verbal starting point, a language map, the notes give me a running start. A highfalutin exercise in how music "comments on a film symbolically" might be nice, but it might bog down in subjective mush that tells us more about the writer than the film and score themselves. "Mere description" has the advantage of being objective. To me, really good track-by-track analyses, like THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES or the Turner Classics POLTERGEIST, will add a whole extra dimension of meaning and clarity to a film score, changing it from a largely aural-emotional experience into a cognitive-language subject that I can grasp more firmly and fully. Like a good re-recording from Varese or Silva, extensive liner notes also provide a sense of validation: the subject is worthy of our attention. We have something here, in this film score hobby, that merits more than a quick listen while scrubbing the bathtub. It has intellectual content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2001 - 4:41 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
As expected, I found little support for my views. Thanks for interesting replies, though!
Let's see.
First of all, I have to RESTATE THAT I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TRACK-BY-TRACK ANALYSES PER SE! And I LOVE to analyze how film music works in movies (although this is a subinterest of my FILM passion, not MUSIC passion) - the Cinema Club-threads should prove that, among other things).
Pumpkinrot:
>>So when you go to the movies, do you keep your eyes shut to enjoy the music?<<
Yeah, yeah.....very funny. 
No, I find the music-with-images thing interesting. But if the point is to find out whether to buy a CD or not, then yes, I would probably be better off with my eyes closed.
Luscious:
You're right about the appeal in the specificity & simplicity of gimmicky track titles (as long as they're not simple, boring descriptions a la "Dennis steals the embryo"). But I like the MOTIVATION for using classical tags to film music. It aims to disassociate the genre from its birth medium and into a something a la "visual music".
Nicolai:
But actually, what you sarcastically describe isn't as far-off as you'd think. Only trouble is we wouldn't have the great cover art of guys like Bob and Matthew Peak to brag about.
Graham:
>>The Omega Man, because the film made a big impression on me when I was young, and the score is part and parcel of the memory. It doesn't necessarily make me want to hunt down all non-soundtrack recordings done in that 70s style though.<<
You're right. Some films are hard to remove from ones memory. Nostalgia etc. But that's just another argument for elevating the analytical level of the track-by-track analyses beyond what you already know.
Zap:
>>* "Nothing Whatsoever"? When the music is so good it makes me love a movie, I don't turn around and try to forget the movie as soon as I have the CD. The film remains as a part of the positive emotional experience. By linking the two, good liner notes reinforce the feeling of enjoyment.<<
Well, that's your sentiment, of course. Can't argue with personal preference, although I try to separate between my FILM experience (as good as the music might have been in regard to visuals) and MUSIC experience. Note that I, too, love good LINER NOTES, though. It's the track-by-track analyses and the way they're executed in these notes that bother me.
>>* "What We Already Know"? We're not all professors of music theory at Oxford, Thor.<<
Of course not. That's why one should aim at - in scenario 1, and parts of 2, for that matter - describing the music in more or less laymen terms.
>>A good verbal description of the music I'm hearing is not redundant to me, because I don't know the language of music well enough to have put it that way myself. By providing a verbal starting point, a language map, the notes give me a running start.<<
Of course. It's not redundant (hey, my scenario 1 is ALL about verbal description of the music!). But why stop there? Why not proceed to tell me how the music works in its given context?
>>A highfalutin exercise in how music "comments on a film symbolically" might be nice, but it might bog down in subjective mush that tells us more about the writer than the film and score themselves. "Mere description" has the advantage of being objective....<<
...But also boring. You know, I actually think it IS possible to interpret something without drenching it all in subjective mish-mash. If the writer is well-read and knows what he's writing about, his interpretations of the music and of how it works/what it does is valuable and more importantly - ENLIGHTENING. It broadens an horizon or two. You read what he or she says and go "a-ha! why didn't I think of that. Of course that is what the music does" etc.
I think we mostly agree, though - we're just talking past each other.
Gunnar:
You're right. I'm certainly no musicologist myself, although I can find a certain fetischistic/envious thrill in reading musical grammar I don't understand. What I would love, though - given scenario 2 - is a track-by-track analysis a la my own Cinema Club music comments (only much better and more indepth, of course). That's neither too difficult, nor too void, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 13, 2001 - 6:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
André Lux
(Member)
|
The Orc ignored me again.
This means he is quite pissed.How amusing - just like his ludicrous theories! http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/biggrin.gif">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 24, 2004 - 6:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
Thor,
To approach soundtracks as you wish to we would have some of the blandest presentations on the face of this earth. While GNP`s releases of the ST II and ST III scores were lamentable for their fold-out booklets, the full colourful graphics within were superb. I was excited simply to look upon the liner notes. You seem to want to drain that excitement out of the things.
The freedom to name music tracks in entertaining fashion rather than in your bland clinical approach is as much a part of the musical art as the notes themselves. Its like choosing the right title for a book - something that properly encapsulates the scope and contents. This isn`t just about feasability of reference (though that too is certainly valid), its about totality of art. We don`t refer to Rembrandt`s Blue Boy as "child #363" or to the Mona Lisa as "woman #12 in repose". I appreciated Goldenthal`s naming on the Alien 3 score simply because it was unusual for such a score... and fitting. The titles fit the movements on more than just a cold musical analysis basis. Frankly it helps add some class to the movie itself (great middle, preposterous beginning, lesser ending).
You speak as if sterile dullness is somehow an elevating mark of artistic sophistication. Its not... its just dull.
Using seemingly my favourite example, when I read Anvil Of Crom, I hear those drums and that titanic brass. How can one possibly argue that that name is inappropriate?!? Morricone`s Ecstasy Of Gold?
I am glad artists individually flex their naming muscles as they currently do. The more literarily gifted come up with more interesting and memorable names. I would hope just the opposite of you Thor: that composers venture further into the artistic naming field, getting away from "Barry opens the door" and moving into "Demons Of The Mind" territory. Stuff more creative and representative of tracks. I would hate to see "Transition II: part 3" followed by "Transition II: part 3a". That is NOT creative. It`d feel like school, and I`d feel like it was time for me to get back to my *studies*. Holy boredom Thorman. I`d thank you for turning an otherwise at its face pleasureable pursuit into a chore to do, closer to work. Perhaps we could fill out a quiz in the back of the booklet after the liner notes.
Hmm, I wonder... and ponder the absurdity of this for a moment: you want film music - film scores - to have nothing to do with film. Hmm.
.
As for liner notes, I want more in-depth reasonings and commentary from those involved in the scores, letting them talk about that which they think is pertinent and/or most interesting to those who would be listening to the scores. Comments from musicians who performed it, concepts communicated by the director, hurdles in composition of 'x' piece to a scene, the conditions in which the orchestra performed, what was composed first and why, how the main themes came to the composer, etc. etc. . Movie DVD commentary ala the Alien/Aliens, The Thing, Nosferatu, etc. would be great guides. Maybe we kind of agree here; not too sure.
Actually I think most soundtrack companies do a good job of this sort of thing these days (FSM`s Logan`s Run and Tora Tora Tora).
Thor, you seem to be wanting a more artistic approach to liner notes, but a less artistic approach to theme nomenclature. Somehow the track namings interfere with your appreciations while identically creative explorations in liner notes do not. Okay.
Alright.
(shrugs shoulders)
P.S.: Your latest post mentions your desire for an indepth discussion of 'the importance of the work' and how it 'functions in the film' which you wish so earnestly to divorce from. This leads me to the next statement - stop reading and try listening. Figure out its effectiveness for yourself; do you need someone to explain this to you?!?? There is a line dividing discussion and over-analysis. Get on with enjoying the music.
Sounds to me like you want to be told *why* you should like something.
So say I.
(track order blabbery left to the thread that led me here...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 25, 2004 - 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Warlok,
Just to note that this is NOT the thread where I talk about expanded releases and my problem with them. THAT thread is, as I mentioned in the other thread, to be found here:
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.asp?threadID=1121&forumID=1
Just in case you want to debate that issue further also.
But regarding what you say on THIS topic, track-by-track analyses:
***To approach soundtracks as you wish to we would have some of the blandest presentations on the face of this earth. While GNP`s releases of the ST II and ST III scores were lamentable for their fold-out booklets, the full colourful graphics within were superb. I was excited simply to look upon the liner notes. You seem to want to drain that excitement out of the things.***
Ummm....since when did I criticize BOOKLETS and colourful graphics?
***I would hope just the opposite of you Thor: that composers venture further into the artistic naming field, getting away from "Barry opens the door" and moving into "Demons Of The Mind" territory.***
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANT ALSO!!! I don't understand how you got another impression from what I wrote above. I want the same as you. I would prefer NOT to have the simply descriptive title that relates the track to the action of the film, but rather something more GENERIC and UNIVERSAL, like "Anvil of Crom" or "Ecstasy of Gold" or "Adagio" or what-have-you.
But the track title issue is just a minor quibble, really. I don't really care about them, and only use them as reference when I'm talking to you guys. It's the track-by-track analysis that is my "bete noir", as jehannum called it.
***Hmm, I wonder... and ponder the absurdity of this for a moment: you want film music - film scores - to have nothing to do with film. Hmm.***
No. I want SOUNDTRACK ALBUMS as far away from the film as possible. But that's just me.
***As for liner notes, I want more in-depth reasonings and commentary from those involved in the scores, letting them talk about that which they think is pertinent and/or most interesting to those who would be listening to the scores.***
Yup, I'd like to see that also, although I would prefer a subjective and interpretative analysis even over that.
*** This leads me to the next statement - stop reading and try listening. Figure out its effectiveness for yourself; do you need someone to explain this to you?!?? There is a line dividing discussion and over-analysis.***
That is the kind of LAZY attitude I want to confront. Following your logic, would you claim that an interpretation of any kind of artwork is useless to you, whether it's fine arts, novels, poems or whatever?
I LOVE to read other people's interpretation of stuff. NOT because I cannot make one myself, but because it broadens my horizon, maybe discover things that I otherwise would not have discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 25, 2004 - 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
For me, one of the most emotionally charged marriages of image and music is the body-painting scene in SPARTACUS. Specifically, the bit where Marcellus, the trainer, shoves Spartacus' head to one side with the paintbrush. I would defy anyone to appreciate the impact of that piece of music without any knowledge of the visuals it dramatizes. North's technique is far too subtle to make much out of the piece as absolute music.
Oh, I certainly enjoy that piece of music on the soundtrack album without knowing anything about where it occurred in the film itself. In fact, I don't even give the movie a second thought when I listen to my SPARTACUS CD. I just think it's a great - and frequently challenging - musical odyssey, as absolute as can be.
That is not to say, though, that I wouldn't be interested in reading a liner note analysis of how the music works in the scene; an interpretation of it. But that would be part of my film interest, and only be used once I should analyze or enjoy the film, NOT as a something to read while listening to the CD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
