 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 13, 2015 - 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
You imply that you only know the Shostakovich extract in "Battle of the Bulge" because I've mentioned it before. Good memory. But if you were familiar with the 5th symphony, you'd have recognised it for yourself - and not only in "Battle", but in "Princess Mononoke", "Escape to Victory" and "Clear and Present Danger" - just to name three off the top of my head.
I'm not familiar with his 5th, TG. The only Russian composers I like are Alexander Tcherepnin and Vyacheslav Artyomov, and to a lesser extent Reinhold Gliere.
But I wasn't referring specifically to DS, either.
Let me revise my word 'bombast' and replace it with 'crescendo'.
A loud crescendo accompanying sound effects and dialogue in the film would probably be considered 'over the top' by TG whilst a loud crescendo within anyone's symphonies (not just Russian ones) is acceptable to TG.
Is this so?
[hence you liking Cinderella Liberty better than Superman]
I quite like Tcherepnin - I'd say he's more Tishchenko than Shostakovich.
But, Zard old boy, you keep putting words into my mouth... It isn't anything to do with bombast, or crescendo. It's to do with quality. To me, I find the symphonies, concertos and other music by the concert hall composers I mentioned above to be better than the film music of the golden age. There - I've said it. "Better" of course is subjective. Someone once put two youtube videos together (I think it was the furious strings thread) - one was the well-known scherzo from Shostakovich's 10th symphony, and one was from a symphonic score by a renowned silver age composer. It was the worst thing that could have been done for the latter - what might otherwise have appeared thrilling and musically significant was made to sound thin and meagre stuff in comparison with the Shostakovich. Again, my opinion.
TG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, Zard old boy, you keep putting words into my mouth... It isn't anything to do with bombast, or crescendo. It's to do with quality. To me, I find the symphonies, concertos and other music by the concert hall composers I mentioned above to be better than the film music of the golden age. There - I've said it. "Better" of course is subjective. Someone once put two youtube videos together (I think it was the furious strings thread) - one was the well-known scherzo from Shostakovich's 10th symphony, and one was from a symphonic score by a renowned silver age composer. It was the worst thing that could have been done for the latter - what might otherwise have appeared thrilling and musically significant was made to sound thin and meagre stuff in comparison with the Shostakovich. Again, my opinion.
TG
There - TG said it!
Perhaps TG can also describe his criteria by which he determines musical quality (in his own words, so that I won't be putting any more words into his mouth  )?
At which threshold(s) does a piece of music traverse to elevate from poor quality onto mediocre quality and onto good quality?
Having deemed a musical work as 'good', what may then prevent said 'good' music from attaining excellence?
There seems to be a shared notion between MusicMad & TallGuy that British film music prior to 1960 is simply not 'good' - as if humans had a common yardstick by which to judge a piece of music as 'good' and a sieve to sift away music that is not so 'good'.
[also, let's attempt to limit the discussion to composers who worked within the British film industry]
What, pray tell, makes music 'bad' (or worse than that which you consider as good)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - but music which is not memorable is likely ranked (with one's mind, at least) as a lesser item than the music which one does consider as memorable.
My questions ask how do your minds evaluate a piece of music so that you can rank some music as favourites whilst other music gets categorized with lesser significance.
Can you describe which aspects of music trigger (in your mind) favorable responses from you?
What criteria do you have by which you classify music in your collection as 'masterpiece', 'very good', 'moderately good', 'mediocre', etc.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually avoid commenting on the Frankel/Shosty rip in 'Battle of the Bulge', but it's worth pointing out that the passage in question is thematically quite distinct, and that the use of brass in major chords with horn backing and high hysteric string ostinato is going to turn out like that anyhow. The first four chords sound the same, but Frankel develops a very sound hymn from that, where Shos is only aiming at a plateau to ratchet up a climax from. Victory cliches need to ascend, don't they? Four is not a big number.
I'd imagine the 5th was an inspiration, but as a soundbed choice, not as a lift. The Prelude thrives on a wonderful synthesis of Germanic/Teutonic Wagnerian and American hoe-down, almost rock figures in the strings, with onomatopoeic tank-track dissonant squeaks in the woodwinds and martial snares.
I suppose Arthur Bliss wasn't prolific enough in film to fit this thread's parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2015 - 1:49 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Graham Watt
(Member)
|
Dear Mr McCrum,
Nicely explained. Not too technical and not too Neanderthal. Now, since you are/ were here, could ye get yer arse over to the Previn thread where I asked you a simple question which you have chosen to ignore (or didn't see, probably.)
Dear ZardozGrills,
I usually like your burgers, but I don't expect the bleedin' Spanish Inquisition with every helping. I said at the outset that the thread looked a bit like baiting, and it seems to have turned out that way after all. It might be an idea, if you really want to know why people (don't) like what they (don't) like, to start a new thread asking just that, in which we can all participate in broader terms, instead of two people explaining themselves within the parameters of pre-'60s Brit cinema. I think there's a book out there called something like that ("Why Do We Like What We Like?") - I remember Thor mentioned it in a meta-topic.
Thanking you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2015 - 5:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
I'd imagine the 5th was an inspiration, but as a soundbed choice, not as a lift.
I doubt Frankel left any notes about this, and as far as I can work out there's little chance on quizzing him on it now. However, there's a fine line between inspiration and lift, and your other description - "rip" - appears to incline to and in fact beyond the latter.
There's no mistaking it. It's an entire passage, tweaked around a bit. For another example of this, refer to Conti's Escape to Victory. For an example of what I'd call inspiration, refer to Mansell's "Ironclad" track from Sahara, and compare it with the allegro from the 8th symphony.
But then there's a very fine line between inspiration and temp track, as well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
