 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2005 - 11:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
Sorry about that, Howard. My memory is slipping. I somehow thought you liked the Varese recording of MOCKINGBIRD.
In any case, there's nothing wrong with the tempi on the BIG COUNTRY CD that you've ordered. I'll eat my hat if you get disappointed (if I had a hat).
Oh and Dana, the only thing I found flawed, was manderley's analogy (comparing rerecordings to "duplication" in other arts). His VIEWPOINT on this matter isn't any more flawed than mine, though. So we agree there. 
NP: Still silence...
Thank you, Thor. How refreshing it is when intelligent people can disagree without resorting to insults. I did find manderley's analogy apt, though you did not, and I also agree completely with Howard as regards the alteration of tempi on the Varese MOCKINGBIRD rerecording. That comes from my vast appreciation of the original score, and how beautifully it reflected both the action and the underlying emotional content of the film. I also find it (or at least its closest available approximation, the Ava recording) an amazing listening experience as is, despite the number of times I've heard it. I was disappointed that Bernstein himself would record a "concertized" version which (IMO) resorted to unnecessary alterations to somehow make the music "more beautiful" or "more poignant" than it was as first recorded. A case of "gilding the lily" if ever there was one! I loved Elmer (still do), just disliked that recording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2005 - 5:08 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Oh sheesh, here we go again.... 
***The "when you transfer from one medium to another" theorem sounds interesting. I don't believe I've seen it before. Sounds a bit homespun.***
I guess it is "homespun", if by that you mean that it stems from me more than from any objective research. But it's something I've been thinking about (and refined) for many years. And it is kinda logical, though I do not claim to know the truth. I'm open to modification.
***I will concede that film and plastic are different media.***
Plastic is hardly a medium in itself. It's just a material property that is integral TO one particular medium.
*** What I missed was how it follows that one must therefore disregard the film and its score when considering the merits of a recording of music from a film!***
First, one MUST not disregard the film. One CAN, but one MUST not. For example, it could be useful to consult the film to hear how one particular orchestra at one particular time has interpreted the music - not as a guide, just as a different interpretation. Second, one must NEVER disregard the score, if by that you mean the score sheets. In my opinion, it is the SCORE SHEETS which should be the ultimate guiding force for whatever performance of the music.
***I did not find TerraEpon's argument too compelling -- is what he said your POV as well? Humming the tune in the shower is the same as a performance by the London Symphony?***
Well, he has a point that music exists only here and now, as we're hearing it. It's a fleeting artform, even though it is possible to record it for eternity. Visual artworks, on the other hand, have a strict spatial presence. As such, music is far more flexible for re-interpretation. I'm not saying that someone whistling the Psycho theme is just as valid an expression as the original score. You have to have certain qualitative measurements. But it is this selfsame flexibility that makes it possible for music to go from one medium to the other without necessarily losing its legitimacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2005 - 6:20 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
First, one MUST not disregard the film. One CAN, but one MUST not. For example, it could be useful to consult the film to hear how one particular orchestra at one particular time has interpreted the music - not as a guide, just as a different interpretation. Second, one must NEVER disregard the score, if by that you mean the score sheets. In my opinion, it is the SCORE SHEETS which should be the ultimate guiding force for whatever performance of the music.
Don't worry, Thor, I'm not planning to take this much further...I have a few days off and (to use one of Ford's faves) "too much time on my hands."
I can almost go with you on this answer. I read John Morgan's comments in the thread you referenced above, and I will accept that the score sheets would represent the purest expression of the composer's intent for the score. It seemed that your earlier argument was that "music is music," and a (re)recording of music which has its origins as a film score is still only a piece of music to be judged on its own merits, irrespective of its connection to the film. That seems inconsistent with the above comments re necessity of adherence to score sheets!
Ya got me all flummoxed, dude!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 24, 2005 - 9:57 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
***On the one hand you seem to be saying that the rerecording of film music should follow the composer's original score sheets, while on the other it seems that you're suggesting that whatever the producer and orchestrator (and/or composer) for a rerecording of music having its origin in film decide to do with the music is dandy, as long as it is pleasant to listen to and is recorded in digital sound!***
And I still don't see the inconsistency there. It is perfectly possible to remain faithful to the composer's score sheets (orchestration, rhythm etc.), yet abbreviate certain passages here and make certain thematic transitions there. There's a difference between reading the music as "sound" and re-organizing that music into a slightly different structure. The one doesn't have to come at the cost of the other.
***You seem often to support rerecordings in which the orchestration, tempi, ambience and order of the music have been altered to suit a "general public" kind of consumer.***
Not necessarily a "general public" consumer. I don't want to water out the music, you know. I'm just open to various interpretations. A lot of things happen inbetween the musical idea and the final performance. In that mammoth thread, I outlined a three-part process that the musical idea goes through. It went like this:
1) In composer's head: MUSICAL IDEA (A)
2) On paper: transformation of MUSICAL IDEA (A) into MUSICAL IDEA (B)
3) In recording studio: Transformation of MUSICAL IDEA (B) into MUSICAL IDEA (C)
So there are several levels of "disturbances" that the music goes through, which again means that there are several ways to interpret the music without it losing its integrity.
NP: BACK TO THE FUTURE suite (Silvestri)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I say something different than I'm saying here? Doesn't seem likely.