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:   Jul 17, 2014 - 5:33 PM   
 By:   pp312   (Member)


The smart businessperson notices that in a small market negative comments hinder sales.

The smart businessperson notices that in the present economic climate, in a sector where there is next to no competition, it takes very little to knock these things on the head and say 'quits; it's not working'. Tadlow's work is in the HERE AND NOW, and is really about current film-score and orchestral sessioning. This is only a sideline, perhaps taxation relates to that, but frankly, it's something that they can stop tomorrow and won't suffer from.

Guess who'll suffer.


This has been Mr. McCrumm's take on this subject all along, so let's at least give him points for consistency.

However, there's a vast difference between criticising something in a way that suggests it isn't worth buying, and simply pointing out minor areas of weakness. The latter is unlikely to cause anyone with the slightest interest in the recording to decide not to buy it. In fact, it stimulates discussion and keeps the recording visible much longer. It ups the intrigue and curiousity factor, and also lends some air of serious discussion. A lot of fanboys shouting uninterrupted praise from the gallery not only makes for a very dull forum but will soon convince the less committed punter that said fanboys will praise anything, especially if he buys the recording and finds it disappointing. It's a question of keeping perspective. After all, we want film music to be taken seriously (well, I do). That means serious discussion, which can't happen without at least a modicum of criticism.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 18, 2014 - 2:13 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

William, with no musical training, I'm afraid that I can't follow what you're saying. And I'd never dream of anyone going to the bother of putting things through sound converters and so on in order to determine pitch differences. If your ear doesn't tell you, move on. As you say, life is too short. BUT - if you're still interested.....

Once established that we all know which exact note to listen out for (all my old YouTube links from February 8 still work, but finder4545 was perhaps more precise when he posted a few days ago "its the second note of that block which is repeated three times, at the third repetition...")

I did a nutty thing, and what I'm going to post may sound totally laughable or implausible to those with musical knowledge. Anyway, I found on Google "Virtual Keyboard", and played the two versions of the motif. This is the bit you're all going to snort and say, "But you haven't even given us the key it's played in!" and things like that. I'm prepared for that.

So on the screen comes up this big piano, with notes on it, and the C is the first note on the left (is everyone falling about yet?). So I played the sequence we all know from the numerous recordings of the Concerto, the film itself, and the Quartet release, and got this -

C - E - G - A - F (with the first four notes ascending, and the last one descending)

Then I "played" the Tadlow version and got -

C - D sharp - G - A - F (again of course following the same ascent and descent)

I don't even know how to post sound clips or anything, but if anyone's interested, you may like to follow that lead - if you haven't died of hysterics yet.)

I think I'll go ahead and press "Post Message", even at the risk of looking an eejit!


I've expanded on this in the hope that it may be a help to some, whilst causing more mirth to others. Don't forget folks - the "Virtual Keyboard" only has 18 keys, so I can't type out the whole score! The range is from C on the left to F1 on the right, and this actually helps because I don't have to tell you "up, down, up a whole octave" etc. Here's the expanded version, starting at the second ascent in the block -

C - Dsharp - G - Gsharp - Dsharp - Bb - F

Dsharp - G - Bb - C1 - Gsharp

D - Dsharp - C1 - D1 - D - Dsharp - Dsharp1

The crucial note is on that third ascent (line 2 in my 3-line illustration): The G becomes an Fsharp on the Tadlow disc.

All this will make no sense to people with real pianos and musical knowledge. You may have to go to "Virtual Keyboard" to understand their particular "baby" notation. Oh, and I couldn't do it in the correct key, because I had to start at the first C natural to get it all in. And I couldn't find a "sharp" symbol, so I wrote the word "sharp" instead.

As I said before, don't waste time doing this if you're not bothered - but for those who genuinely want to hear what three (!) of us in the FSM community are hearing, well, there you go!

 
 Posted:   Jul 18, 2014 - 6:18 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

I've just actually looked on 'Virtual Keyboard' as you suggested (my old piano is tuned to 'C' as 'A' !) and you're basically saying the same thing that Jeff is, namely that the G note is played a semitone lower.

Jeff says a Gb, you say an F#, which is the same thing, depending on which key you're describing it in.

Now, if that's so, and three of you (plus your brother!) hear it, then it's probably so, I'll listen later again.


But it still leaves us with the same problem. How could the whole orchestra and all their lines replicate this? Unless 'bent' on that one note to accommodate a solo mistake. But then again, why not bend the solo to fix the thing rather than the backing? Clips on vid show that soloist and orchestra played together, (though there was close-miking I suppose and tight control options, and people listen less to the backing on these passages than to the soloist). It's unlikely that they'd do that. They're all professional folk, they know what they're about.

The gams is still afoot, I suppose, but most folk don't notice it.


Another question might be, do we KNOW the orchestra are all playing that note? The flat on violin might create a dissonance with the rest of the orchestra and create an effect you're hearing. I don't think the orchestra plays that note with the soloist come to think on it!!!!

 
 Posted:   Jul 18, 2014 - 6:22 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

Yes in Jeff's posted excerpt, the soloist is alone on melody at that point ....


Hell, it's still good, Lucie.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 18, 2014 - 7:23 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

William (and anyone else who is still following this - congratulations!) -

You can hear, if not the full orchestra, at least what I've previously described as "a fuller orchestra/ a larger string section/ with a heavier orchestration" on the Tadlow at:

Track 5 at 1:57

Track 17 at 2:44

Track 18 at 1:35

Track 19 at 3:59

I'll not even try to venture how they fixed all the counterpoint around the "new" note (if indeed there is counterpoint there), but the best illustration is the last example above, which corresponds exactly to the original soundtrack on Quartet, Track 27 at the 0:26 mark. Here the orchestra builds up to "The End", right before the final credits come in. There isn't even a solo violin there. If you haven't got the Quartet release, they used to have some of that track up as a sound clip on their site, but I don't know if it's still there.

 
 Posted:   Jul 18, 2014 - 8:23 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

If so, then it's not Lucie.

How did it happen? Still a total mystery. 'makes us all feel like plodding Lestrades.


Somebody painting breeches and figleaves on all those pictures. I dunno.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 8:34 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

You know what it sounds like to me? It's as if a musical genius who has the abilty to hear a piece of music once and then transcribe it note for note had heard the original score (once) and then, in a kind of game-show challenge way, was asked to reproduce it. Pretty amazing. It all came out dead-on, but because he's only human he made a mistake with that one note. Couldn't remember it exactly as he'd heard it. Audience is still awe-struck at his almost total recall ability.

All of my scenarios are wild -

1) A total recall genius heard it once and transcribed it, getting only one note wrong.

2) The team never actually listened to either the original score or the concerto. They based their recording entirely on the score manuscript, except that on the nine instances that note cropped up on the pentagram, somebody had rubbed it out and they had to just take a wild guess at what it was.

3) The team, despite having everything at hand, made a mistake, and nobody ever noticed throughout the whole process of reconstruction and recording.

I simply can't get my head round any of those three crazy scenarios. In a plodding Lestrade manner I ask you all - am I missing something?

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 11:27 AM   
 By:   Ford A. Thaxton   (Member)

This discussion makes about as much sense as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....


guys, does the term "Get a Life" many anything to you?

Most likely not..

Oh Well.

Ford A. Thaxton

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 1:24 PM   
 By:   PFK   (Member)

This discussion makes about as much sense as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....


guys, does the term "Get a Life" many anything to you?

Most likely not..

Oh Well.

Ford A. Thaxton




I just KNEW he would be back! smile

 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 1:42 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

The thread needs a scoresheet with clear lines of demarcation marked on it so that no ambiguity can arise concerning the correctness in the pitch of the argument.

 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 5:06 PM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

This discussion makes about as much sense as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.....




Ford, fella ....

you may have missed it, but the original debates about how many angels can dance on a pinhead (probably before your time) were VERY useful. Y'see, it was all about space-time and omnipresence, and what part of the human psyche is like the Divine, and whether logos and eros and agape and all those trnascendentalist forms of inter-relatedness were valid....

But I see I bore you ....

Suffice to say, Ford A. that it also impinges on all that sci-fi metaphysics you like so much. 'No point in wasting peoples' times with sci-fi unless there's a great allegory in it. Old Albert and the Chaos Theory guys would be right up there with all that Heisenberg stuff 'n all about where those old electrons could be and whether anything can be ALL EVERYWHERE.

Ye're playing in the Maguffins, old son. Join the big league quantum players.


Now if 'y'all will just trawl back a little, you'll perceive who the most heated debater in this thread was, and hey, is that li'l ol' you?


I always assumed they sort of paid you to act as an agent provocateur and spice up the threads.

Was I wrong, Ford, was I wrong? Tell me I wasn't wrong.





 
 Posted:   Jul 19, 2014 - 5:09 PM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

The thread needs a scoresheet with clear lines of demarcation marked on it so that no ambiguity can arise concerning the correctness in the pitch of the argument.


Well, that's sort of what Jeff did above, to as great a degree as allowed. It's more of a case of 'how on earth'? Not judgmental 'how could that be allowed?' but, actually 'how did it get that way?'

I repeat, I like Tadlow recordings, all of them. I wish we weren't on this thread.

 
 
 Posted:   Jul 20, 2014 - 5:16 AM   
 By:   Graham Watt   (Member)

The thread needs a scoresheet with clear lines of demarcation marked on it so that no ambiguity can arise concerning the correctness in the pitch of the argument.


Well, that's sort of what Jeff did above, to as great a degree as allowed. It's more of a case of 'how on earth'? Not judgmental 'how could that be allowed?' but, actually 'how did it get that way?'

I repeat, I like Tadlow recordings, all of them. I wish we weren't on this thread.


I like them too! But that aspect seems to have been forgotten because of my "how on earth?" reaction to one particular detail. Anyway, it looks as though we aren't going to get much further with this. What I will do however is try to make a summary of this thread, just to put things in perspective.

The initial post was to try to gauge people's responses to Tadlow's EL CID and SHERLOCK HOLMES, because I'd been mightily impressed with Intrada's Broughton-conducted JULIUS CAESAR and IVANHOE. Feedback was very positive, so I ordered the CID and the HOLMES.

I then posted that I liked them very much, although in my opinion they didn't quite tingle my spine the way the Intrada discs did. I gave CID a 9 out of 10, and HOLMES either an 8 or a 9. The thing that almost spoiled my enjoyment was the wrong note, which grated on my ears. And I was genuinely surprised to learn that very few people were noticing it. But it's there. Luckily for the majority, they could ignore it. But I couldn't and so began my quest, first giving examples of what the mis-played note is, and then speculating on how it occurred. So far, nobody knows, and so the case is closed for the time being, while the mystery remains.

Just a few things to remember. I did actually post my motives. It's my love of Rózsa's music which made me pursue "The Case of the Wrong Note." Tadlow had got it so right in every way. The sound is wonderful, the orchestra really top-notch, and Lucie's violin absolutely gorgeous. If it had been a sub-standard recording I would have been able to ignore one gltch amongst many. But here it's the only glitch, so it stands out. For me at least, and of course I can only speak for myself. I'm happy for those who don't hear it.

I'm going to play Tadlow's EL CID now, because it's pretty spectacular. My gratitude goes to Tadlow for undertaking these endeavours. And thanks also to all here who have read my sometimes tiresome posts and responded in a civil manner, keeping things going. For the most part it's been a fun and informative thread.

Right, I'm off. Really looking forward to the umpteenth re-spin of EL CID!

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