 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 15, 2002 - 3:05 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
Well then, why not invite a few of us along next time? I hear Moscow's much more copasetic these days, certainly more so than my pre-Gorbaschev visit of 15+ years ago.
Not to be too much of a gadfly, especially since I concur with the tenor and crux of your essay, but one of the built-in drawbacks to a revival of a play is that it's a risky situation for an actor stepping into a role that is so well identified with someone else. Comparisons are inevitable and the revivalist usually suffers--rightly or wrongly. Chalk it up to human nature or something. In the film music scenario, I tend to be more forgiving if the composer or a trusted surrogate is involved {The Ghost & Mrs. Muir, e.g.} but not always. Call it the film music orthodoxic curse but such is the state for an admitted purist like moi.
And yet that purism is relative, for sure, as I own a few rerecordings that are highly treasured, The Best Years Of Our Lives and your Moby Dick among them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whew! John, you ought to write a book!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 15, 2002 - 9:51 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
John Morgan
(Member)
|
Not to be too much of a gadfly, especially since I concur with the tenor and crux of your essay, but one of the built-in drawbacks to a revival of a play is that it's a risky situation for an actor stepping into a role that is so well identified with someone else. Comparisons are inevitable and the revivalist usually suffers--rightly or wrongly. Chalk it up to human nature or something. In the film music scenario, I tend to be more forgiving if the composer or a trusted surrogate is involved {The Ghost & Mrs. Muir, e.g.} but not always. Call it the film music orthodoxic curse but such is the state for an admitted purist like moi.
And yet that purism is relative, for sure, as I own a few rerecordings that are highly treasured, The Best Years Of Our Lives and your Moby Dick among them.
Well, even the best film music has not had the multiple recordings of the best classical music.
I dare say opera buffs may be in the same general category as film music buffs. They latch onto a performance and won't let go!
Yes, I look at music, even film music, as music that should be replayed and enjoyed. As you bring up a stage play, I think that is an appropriate comparison.
A great play can have many variations by way of actors and production.
Actually our recordings have generally been compared favorably to the original performances. I have no qualms on reviews for our work over the years, but I am our harshest critic and as I have yet to hear a perfect performance of any orchestral piece of music whether done by us or others. There are a hundred right ways and a hundred wrong ways to perform and record music.
Although I say our core audience is film music buffs, by that I mean the vocal and passionate nuts out there, of which I am one, If it wasn't for the classical market, our series would not survive. I dare say from all the people who read this message board, we probably have 100 or 150 people that have Marco Polo recordings or even know what we do. We need to sell 6000 units to break even on an average production. I bet we have sales of a couple of thousand at most to strict film music fans....the rest, thank God, is made up of classical crossover. Since Marco Polo is a classical label, it helps us get to this international audience.
So what I am saying, we need to please people on a pure musical level and not just impersonate the original recording.
Our conductor Bill Stromberg is a real conductor and not a Rich Little type who mimics others. He brings out qualities in the music that just aren't present in the original recordings. A score recorded in the thirties or forties one simply doesn't hear all the detail and orchestral niceties that are in the music.
Also, this is my favorite couple of decades of film music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you listen closely to many original soundtrack recordings done by the best film music orchestras in the world (those belonging to the Hollywood studois), you will hear many errors caused by many factors, but the most common was "TIME." There simply wasn't enough time to go back and do it right every time because original soundtrack recordings are so often rushed. So, while you might love to hear the original tracks to music composed by Goldsmith, Herrmann, Rozsa, Korngold, Waxman, etc., despite the skills of the conductor, composer, orchestrator, and musicians, what you're hearing might be highly enjoyable, but perfect it is not. I have known composers who couldn't stand to listen to some of their cues after all these years because they still painfully remember the mistakes made by the orchestra when they were first recorded.
Hmmm, that's a point of course.
But, those original recordings ARE the FIRST recordings... And while they may not be perfect in performance or otherwise, they still are the first recordings of a certain score.
Again I take the example of Damien Omen II. Loved the album version for years. Still love it altough I find the score version to speak to me even more than the rerecording, altough it's performance isn't as good as the album's performance.
And how about Poltergeist? Goldsmith himself supposedly wasn't that happy when the complete score was released on Rhino because of it's performance!! And I do not understand why... just hear it, so beautifull and perfect (to me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 15, 2002 - 2:22 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
estgrey
(Member)
|
Speaking as one of those people who comes to film music from a firm background as a classical music fan, I think there are two crucial elements in presenting film scores (admitting that there are always some problems with generalizations of this sort). The first is to realize that film music (at least what I consider film music) has its roots in classical music – mostly in the late-romantic and post-romantic eras – but relies on an unusual need for immediacy and a degree of emotional content that depends even more heavily on the performance. (Merely hitting the right notes isn't enough.) The second is that each score should have something of its own character. There is a certain recognizable "Hollywood" sound, and Newman's scores often carry hallmarks which sound like Newman (and Rozsa like Rozsa, and Herrmann like Herrmann, etc.), but they don't sound all that much like each other, even when there is an intentional attempt at imitation (or homage). Too often, the Silva re-recordings all start to sound alike, no matter how diverse the selection. It is what I call the "101-Strings" effect, which should be eschewed at all costs.
The secret to fulfilling both needs, I think, is to remember that the music was written (or at least adapted) for a particular film. That film was created by various different people, and the music had to make some concessions to the demands imposed on it by the product it accompanied. The best composers and musicians were those who could adapt to these external demands without sacrificing the music, and perhaps even to use those influences to the benefit of the music. (This is what I was touching on when I commented that actually playing the score to the timings and images of the film, at least in the same cut as it was first recorded, might be part of what is missing in many modern re-recordings. I fully understand that actually re-doing it in just that way is impractical, perhaps even undesirable, especially since the final edit may have little resemblance to the version used during the recording sessions. It should be enough to take note of it – no pun intended – and incorporate that as informing the new performance.) One does not need to slavishly reproduce this sound, but should capture the spirit of it. If we have already heard the music as it was presented in the film, our expectations are already set and if a performance deviates too much it may lead to disappointment. In the absence of the actual visuals, it may even need to make some additional adjustments to hit the same emotional cues. Concert suites of the same music are further separated from the film and may take greater liberties, but should still take care to avoid that "101-Strings" effect.
I expect Thor to disagree with my points, but in his usual gracious way. Ah, isn't it refreshing to have an actual discussion, with balanced views and positions which are subject to evaluation rather than absolute dogma . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 16, 2002 - 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
***The first is to realize that film music (at least what I consider film music) has its roots in classical music – mostly in the late-romantic and post-romantic eras – but relies on an unusual need for immediacy and a degree of emotional content that depends even more heavily on the performance.****
This is a good point. Film music is not classical music save the complexities. But I do think its SPECIFIC (or what you more eloquently call "immediate") "sound" is captured not so much in the original soundtrack as in the score sheets themselves. The composer has hopefully included all types of timing marks and instrumental prominence in correlation with the visuals already at this point. As such, I think evaluative judgements of film music rerecordings should be made just as with any evaluations of CLASSICAL rerecordings, of which an ORIGINAL performance rarely exists as a point-of-departure. As you say, performances are hampered (and aided) by so many variable factors that the outcome may have equally variable results. From this, I do not think the first performance should be given prominence simply because it is the first. The first may have as many flaws as the fifth, due to various reasons (technology, skill, time constraints etc.).
****The second is that each score should have something of its own character.****
Yes, of course. This demands all the more from the people involved in the production. But I don't tie the "character" so much to an epoch or "film" scenario as I do the respective composers' style.
****Too often, the Silva re-recordings all start to sound alike, no matter how diverse the selection. It is what I call the "101-Strings" effect, which should be eschewed at all costs.****
I think the "washed out" sound of some Silva rerecordings has more to do with flawed interpretation of the original score sheets and the composer's musical intentions therein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 16, 2002 - 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
estgrey
(Member)
|
Musical notation has always been a less than ideal form of recording a composer’s intentions in a durable but non-audible form. It works for the basics, but there are lots of things which it doesn’t cover as well as one might like, and historically this limitation has caused composers much frustration. One of the chief problems is tempo. Such phrases as “slowly but not too slowly” are vague, relative to some intangible measure, and open to interpretation. Beethoven attempted to alleviate this weakness by placing metronome markings on the page, markings which have themselves been the subject of much debate. (And Beethoven’s own metronome has been of additional interest precisely because of these markings.) If there were recordings of Beethoven conducting a performance of his own music, I am confident that musicians and conductors would be seeking them out and using them to inform their own performances of his music. (On the other hand, there are apparently a few wax cylinders of Brahms rather badly playing some of his piano music, so dubiously that it is virtually unrecognizable. And there are piano rolls recorded from performances by Rachmaninov, Scott Joplin and Gershwin, but these are only partly useful since it was the practice of the day to mechanically augment these rolls.)
In the absence of such a treasure-trove, we have had a wild variety of interpretations of Beethoven, both good and bad, which may really be the issue at the heart of this debate: How much freedom should be applied in the interpretation of a film score? With Beethoven’s symphonies, there are literally hundreds of versions to select from, and the presence of so many choices in part justifies, or even requires, liberal interpretation. For film music, which is, regrettably, not represented in such a multitude of recordings, the concept of an “authentic” performance seems to warrant greater emphasis. I think sticking purely with a composer’s written notation, ignoring all of the additional insight which can be provided by considering a recorded performance with at least some involvement of that composer, would be a serious mistake. Most classical musicians would love to have such additional information. It would be interesting to know how much such information would have "fixed" the performance of classical music. (And I should perhaps point out that I mean "fixed" in the sense of "making static" rather than "corrected.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just got the new recording of lalo Schifrin's "Mannix". I have never heard the old LP, but this new recording (released on Aleph) is great.
NP. Mannix
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could not agree more, with all that has been said by John Morgan and the rest of you. First, let me say, I've truly enjoyed the recordings done by John Morgan. Since collecting and music is a personal matter, I will state my taste at the table of sumptuous listening.
'Film Music can have two criteria. Since its function is primarily to enhance a film, the most important aspect is how does the music work within the framework of the film. In this function it becomes part of FILM art.'
Working as 'FILM art,' within the film is what moves an audience and collectors. When re-recorded, differently from what was married with the visual, ('Recording to picture for a rerecording is an interesting concept, but one that simply would not work with the scores we do.') is something, I have no problem with.
'First off, my loyalty is always with the composer and his music, not with what ends up in the film.'
I do not lean, but run toward what I sat in the dark and heard. In that manner, I am a purist for what was heard on screen. I wish to re-live that moment (on cd), away from the auditorium; hence, I desire the cues as heard on screen.
This brings me to your most wonderful re-recording of King Kong. When I played it, then the original; immediately, I heard a difference. This had a great deal to do with recording techniques. Today, there is DDD and all the new technical improvements, which are beyond my comprehension.
The older 'primitive' recording, invaded my listening facilities, re-awaking emotions stirred when I first saw (listened) to Kong. I was floored. Even with 'budget and sound limitations of the period,' the original grabbed me. The re-recording, is crisp, utilizing today's technology, making a cleaner sound; yet, the older recording, with it's instruments muted, sound quality surpassed by today's standards, still stood out, like a breath of fresh air, like listening to my 50s television. Both recordings are great. Yet, my ears long for that olden sound of yesterday. I have no words, which can express hearing the scratchy old Kong tapes, against the newer (which I cherish) release.
Will conclude with something I found most refreshing, as mentioned by: estgrey and John Morgan.
'Since most of us are just "Fanboys ..."'
'I guess I am one of the biggest fanboys myself.'
I now wear the fanboy name with great pride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estgrey:
'I think we should form the LOF (League of Fanboys).'
Great!!! Where do I sign up? I think it would be Lots Of Fun ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should form the LOF (League of Fanboys).
Would that be the group who THINK they a clue about what they talking about and clearly don't?
Or
The group that isn't humor challenged and has a basic understanding about the real world of film scoring?
The loudest members are the former, sadly not the later.
IMHO of course.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on Ford, sign up!!
You want it... admit it...
;-)
NP: How's The Swarm doing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Dec 18, 2002 - 1:31 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
estgrey
(Member)
|
[In this week’s episode, we find the valiant crew of the Enterprise facing a new threat.]
Kirk: Engineering . . . Scotty, what is that awful whining noise?
Scotty: I’m not sure, Capn, but you can hear it all over the ship. We seem to be under attack.
Kirk: How are the shields?
Scotty: The anti-idiot shields are holding at 96.98765%.
Kirk: Why not 100%. Have we taken damage?
Scotty: No, Capn. It’s those cheap Dilitheum crrrrystals we picked up at Waaaaalmart. I told you they wouldn’ hoooold uuuup.
Kirk: The Federation is experiencing massive cutbacks, Scotty, we all have to do our part. Do what you can.
Scotty: Aye, Capn. Engineerin’ out.
Kirk: Spock, what do you make to this?
Spock: The scanners detect a faint trace of a ship on the starboard side, Captain.
Kirk: On screen . . . ewwwww, that’s the most disgusting ship I’ve ever seen. Uhura, can we establish contact.
Uhura: No, Captain. It is ignoring all hails. It doesn’t seem to be able to receive messages. It’s just broadcasting the same thing over and over again on all frequencies.
Kirk: What is it saying?
Uhura: The universal translator is having problems, Sir. The messages are full of gross grammatical errors. I’ll try to apply the nonsense filtering algorithms. . . . No, that eliminated almost the entire message.
Spock: Try reversing the algorithms to include only the nonsense.
Uhura: Yes, Sir, that’s working. The message is “I am great, you are nothing” and there’s a second part, “regards, Thaxtoid.”
Kirk: Spock, do we know anything about these . . . Thaxtoids?
Spock: According to our database, the Thaxtoids claim to be a uniquely advanced civilization, but are actually a very primitive entity comprised of a single individual.
Kirk: Where does it come from?
Spock: It seems to have its origins in the solar system Fanboy, mostly comprised of small moons which circle the planet Filmus. The moons are inhabited by an argumentative but generally harmless people who derive most of their pleasure from the pursuit of rare and esoteric music, something to which they have become quite addicted. The distribution rights for this music are mostly held by the Ferrengi, who only release it in small doses, and charge the Fanboys outrageous amounts of credit to feed their habit. If it were not for a few independent suppliers (and some smugglers), the Fanboys would have to forgo food and other necessities.
Kirk: What . . . about . . . this . . . Thaxtoid?
Spock: The Thaxtoid decided at some point to leave its people and become a Ferrengi, but even the Ferrengi considered it too odious and shunned its advances.
Kirk: Too odious for the Ferrengi? What . . . about . . . the Borg?
Spock: The Thaxtoid is, in fact, the only creature which the Borg have refused to assimilate. They consider it to have no value of any kind, and to pose no serious threat -- therefore not worthy of assimilation.
Chekov: Tha Wussians were da first to experiment with Thaxtoids, but we abandoned da pwoject in da early 20th centuwy as too dangerous even for our scientists.
Kirk: That’s enough, Mr. Chekov. Spock, what does it want?
Spock: Just as we Vulcans have sought to purge ourselves of emotions, the Thaxtoid has sought to purge itself of all intelligent thought -- and it has succeeded to a remarkable degree. It now seeks to destroy any intelligent discourse in the universe. It also wants to be respected, even loved, but is so full of hatred and self-loathing that it cannot achieve what it most dearly yearns for.
Kirk: That must be the most pathetic creature we’ve ever encountered. Maybe we should put it out of its misery. Can we destroy it?
Spock: That would be difficult. Although the ship appears to be of considerable size, our scanners show that it contains no actual substance. There is nothing to target with our phasers.
Kirk: What about Photon torpedos?
Spock: They might temporarily disperse the Thaxtoid, but it would eventually just reform and continue on its mission. The only force which is capable of eliminating it from this quadrant is the FSM Council, which could ban it from all communication in this area. If unable to spread its message, it would quickly wither and die -- or at least go someplace else.
Kirk: Why don’t they do that?
Spock: They seem to find amusement in its antics. It seems most illogical . . .
Kirk: Bones, is there anything you can do?
McCoy: Well, Jim, I could remove your ears, but I’m just a country doctor . . .
Kirk: So . . . what . . . can . . . we . . . do . . .? That whining is . . . driving . . . me . . . and the rest of the crew . . . mad.
Spock: Although it has adopted many of the attributes of the Ferrengi, it still has numerous vestiges of its Fanboy heritage. I suggest we eject a large selection of music from our database and change course to the opposite direction. It may be distracted long enough to let us get away. We can then pull into dry dock and clean off the remaining bile.
Kirk: What music should we use?
Spock: It doesn’t matter. The Thaxtoid is utterly devoid of taste. It cannot distinguish good music from bad. I have already prepared a large package of music and am ready to launch it at your order, Captain.
Kirk: Good, Spock. Mr. Sulu, set a course, warp ten.
Sulu: Aye, Captain.
Kirk: At my signal, gentlemen . . . Engage.
[And so, our intrepid adventurers headed off in a new direction. Did they succeed in leaving the Thaxtoid behind . . . stay tuned.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
