 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an experiment, Danny Elfman decided to put together the soundtrack album to GOOSEBUMPS along the lines of how soundtracks were once sequenced back in the days of LP's where technical limitations demanded roughly 30 minutes of score.
A byproduct of this was creating a format that focused primarily on creating the best standalone listening experience without feeling a need to recreate the film order or include excess tracks.
For this experiment, Elfman assembled the soundtrack to GOOSEBUMPS (tracks 1-17) as if it were an old-school "Album."
And because this is a modern CD that does allow for a longer running time, after the "Album" sequence finishes, there is a 10-second pause at the conclusion of the final track and then 12 additional "bonus" tracks (tracks 18-29) are included for those interested in having more material from the score.
Interested in feedback on what the members of this board think about taking this approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why one member in particular likes to push how this was the way old albums were assembled by a composer in such a special way when we know after-the-fact from people in the industry and composers in interviews that there were multiple factors (and the composer wasn't always involved), including: not just an LP limitation, but re-use fees; some albums being assembled before all the score was even recorded (this would even happend in CD days, though I'm not sure if it really happens anymore) therefore it wasn't some perfectly assembled album but what was available at the time; a number of older scores were not always wall-to-wall and didn't have 78 minutes; pick-ups and changes made after album assemblege.
We finally beat most limitations and some great advances in re-use fees (except for Canada, apparently) and we get all these older scores on CD and they sell well and yet there's still a handful of people trying to revert back (while at the same time telling us to advance to downloads).
The problem isn't always length with newer scores, it's the elephant in the room everybody makes every excuse to ignore: they don't stand up to the scores of yesteryear. (I've not heard Goosebumps, so I am not speaking about that)
"But what about such and such? Clearly you're wrong!"
Sorry, a few examples here and there out of hundreds of new scores every year does not disprove the rule, so the phrase goes.
As far as I am concerned, and the says at Intrada and La La Land Records are concerened, the days of 30 minute presentations are thankfuly gone.
Other people can experiment with them all they want, that's you're choice, but I for oen will not be buying. My days of double dipping are over; I'm not buying some 30 or so minute thing only to find out I want more and then have to buy an expanded one later. And I surely don't want to have to enjoy a score with a start and finish and then have more score dumped at the end without a good reason like bonus cues or tracks from inferior sources.
Oh, and Thor, just leave the pamplet in the door and I'll trash it later -- already heard it. 50 bazillion times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this a great approach and am very happy that the extra material is there for those who want it (like me!).
The only other comment I would have is that it'd be nice to know how to rearrange the album into chronological order as well, but most fans figure that out easily enough without it having to be in the booklet or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 7, 2015 - 10:33 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
I think this is a fantastic idea.
Yes, Mr. Boggan, many old albums were presented at their abbreviated length for non-musical reasons. But that does not make the converse true, that were it not for those imposed limitations the composer would have chosen to include every note in chronological order. I, speaking only for myself, miss the days when most scores were presented to be digested in one sitting, a musical journey that took you somewhere and didn't overstay its welcome. Sure, sometimes a favorite cue would be absent, which was a bummer. No system is perfect. But I will admit that for every complete score released these days that offers a compelling listen from start to finish, I find there are at least two that, for me, become quite a bit of a slog to sit through from beginning to end.
Whenever I'd say as much on this board, I'd typically get four or five responses disdainfully suggesting I learn to program my CD player (with the "idiot" generally implied). Well, the same applies to this release in reverse, no? You get 64 minutes of score -- a 41 minute "album experience" and 23 minutes more.
Why should a composer be obligated to present his music in a way he doesn't believe serves it well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too love this idea but only if the composer himself or herself makes the selection rather than a record company employee. Great to hear that Danny Elfman has done this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love it! Who has time to listen to 70 minute albums these days? I'd rather have 30 minutes to actual enjoy than 70 minutes to sit through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already think 'Floating Poodle' and 'Lovestruck' should be in the main body of the programme and I haven't even heard them yet!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't make any difference to me.
I'm just glad it's all still on the CD. Leaving music off would be a bad move.
I will still play the CD a few times and decide what will make MY playlist and and in what programme order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
