 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
great news!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I also have the re-recording/digital recreation from a few years ago, but it never sounded "right" to me)
I agree, I am not a fan of re-recordings. I want the originals. I've never understood the popularity behind re-recordings because they are different and I hear every difference while listening.
Because orchestral music is a living, breathing thing. It is supposed to be performed and re-performed, and not stuck to a "single" version, fixed onto a recording. I own about a dozen different versions of Beethoven's 9th, they all sound different, yet they all sound right. Of course, by far not every re-recording is as good as the original soundtrack recording, some are better, some are worse, but all are different. It is true, if one expects one musical performance of a piece (no matter if it is an orchestral recording, or a jazz band, or a song) to sound exactly like a completely different musical recording (done by other musicians or singers in another location at another time), you cannot possibly hope to get that, so to approach a re-recording with the mindset that it even should sound exactly like the original recording is ludicrous. Then one should indeed stay with the original soundtrack recordings. But not everyone approaches a new recording of music with the mindset that it should sound like another recording, so that is why re-recordings exist, and I'm quite happy that they do.
CONAN - THE DESTROYER, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, BRAINSTORM are just a few examples where the re-recordings packs more punch, and THE RED HOUSE by Rózsa I only even discovered because of the new recording by Intrada, as I've never even heard of the movie before this re-recording.
That said, THE THING re-recording had the problem that the orchestral parts were done with samples, do I agree, that just is not the "real" thing. I considered getting it because the Carpenter tracks sounded very good, but the orchestral samples are just not a replacement for a real orchestra.
As far as THE THING Quartet release is concerned, I already own the MCA original LP as well as the Varèse Sarabande CD, but I ordered this in the hope of improved sound. I really love that score. I also like the fact that the original cover seems to be re-used again. And liner notes by Jeff Bond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 29, 2020 - 5:42 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
hyperdanny
(Member)
|
just to clarify: I have absolutely nothing against new recordings.
If done right, they can be better than the so-called "original", either because of a better orchestral execution or because of better sound..or both.
We had so many examples, shoud be an accepted notion by now.
Plus, as it's been so rightly said by Nicolai, music is a living thing, it must breathe, and must be performed.
This conception of film music as a museum artifact is incomprehensible to me.
That said, the reason I never warmed to the re recording of The Thing, because, evenif the score is painstakingly reconstructed, the orchestral part is electronically rendered.
As a classical music lover (both live and on cd) this is immediately evident to the ear,,and just sounds wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas. Liked your thoughtful post. As far as this discussion goes, the big difference between The Thing and Beethovens 5th is that the former was composed for a movie, and fans of the movie will associate a particular recording with their experience of watching the film so that when the re-recording doesn't match up with the original they are disappointed.
Yes, I understand that, and indeed, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to be a fan of the movie or to have an attachment to a certain film recording (or any other recording). By all means, prefer the original soundtrack recording. I have some movies where I have a strong attachment to the film recording as well. So I think it is perfectly ok to prefer an original soundtrack recording for whatever reason. Not just soundtracks. Some have an attachment to the Furtwängler recording of Beethoven's 9th or to a Schnabel recording to a Beethoven Sonata... no real difference. So I understand the preference for particular recordings for whatever reasons. That's not the issue.
However...
What I want to point out is that IF you have that attachment to a particular recording, then just GO for that original recording, and don't "BLAME" a re-recording for not BEING the original recording, because it obviously is not and cannot and won't be. NO orchestral recording of any score sounds exactly like any OTHER orchestral recording of the very same score, that is a simple fact. I have never heard two different orchestral recordings of he same piece that sound exactly alike. I mean, if you want a Caruso recording, and have that attachment to a certain Caruso recording, you have to get that Caruso recording, and not a recording of the same piece sung by Pavarotti and then complain that Pavarotti doesn't sound like Caruso. They were both great singers, had great voices, and sung some of the same repertoire, but they never, ever sounded alike. And while I think you can evaluate each recording on its own terms, it is an invalid complaint to find fault that a Pavarotti recording sounds like Pavarotti and not like Caruso. Same with any other (new) recording of an (orchestral) film score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just to clarify: I have absolutely nothing against new recordings.
If done right, they can be better than the so-called "original", either because of a better orchestral execution or because of better sound..or both.
We had so many examples, shoud be an accepted notion by now.
Plus, as it's been so rightly said by Nicolai, music is a living thing, it must breathe, and must be performed.
This conception of film music as a museum artifact is incomprehensible to me.
That said, the reason I never warmed to the re recording of The Thing, because, evenif the score is painstakingly reconstructed, the orchestral part is electronically rendered.
As a classical music lover (both live and on cd) this is immediately evident to the ear,,and just sounds wrong.
Yes, absolutely agree. I have the same issue with the BSX re-recording of THE THING. The synth parts of the BSX recording are well done, really, but the synth-orchestral parts are no match for the real orchestra of the original soundtrack recording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicolai, I understand fully what you are saying. However, you are not taking into account that the original recording may not be available to go to. Until now, The Thing wasn't in print so I could only go to the BSX version. I am ecstatic to get the original version as my go to.
Yes, sure, I understand that. I was just taking issue with the generalization "I've never understood the popularity behind re-recordings because they are different and I hear every difference while listening", which states that it is a fault of a re-recording when it sounds different when that is in fact the very nature of it. People who enjoy (of course not all but some) re-recordings -- I am among them -- most certainly hear the differences as well, it is just that these differences may be appreciated. As I said, I've got dozens of different interpretations of Beethoven symphonies, and those are just the ones I bought... the notes are all the same, yet they sound considerably different. While I agree that, say, a Rózsa film music may not necessarily be as multifaceted as a Beethoven symphony, where every single one practically demands dozens of different recordings, Ben Hur is certainly good enough in my book to warrant at least two. (I enjoy the Tadlow recording very much, alongside the original soundtrack recording, which is also terrific.)
The original soundtrack recording of THE THING is my preferred version of this music too, if all I had was the BSX version, I'd be ecstatic to finally get the original recording as well.
The re-recording got the Carpenter synth cues down quite well, but it's the orchestra that's missing. They did a good job with the samples -- state of the art -- but it goes to show that even with the technical options of today you cannot replace a live orchestra with canned sounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funnily enough, this new/re-recordings thing often works with non-orchestral works too: the BSX re-recording of Blade Runner by Edgar Rothermich was quite nice in its own way, but in no way truly approximated or measured up to Vangelis' original score. It was more than simply what models of synth was used, it was something in the performance, even for what was an electronic score. Its the same music, but not the same music.
That is true. Indeed, I think the Rothermich recording of BLADE RUNNER was excellent, a very worthwhile companion piece to the original soundtrack. The opening cues, main title sequences etc. are great, this is a powerful reconstruction of a score for which virtually no "original score" (as in printed) exists. I mean, obviously, you cannot easily replace Demis Roussos, but overall, they did a great job. Is it the exact same? No, of course not, but it is a very powerful new recording of BLADE RUNNER and about as good as it can be done. I very much enjoy it on its own terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
