 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Filmmusicnow,
you realize you've copped out twice now on answering my question from the "film musicals" thread, but anybody who loves Skinner's score for A&CMF must be forgiven all transgressions and omissions, in my book.
There was a long thread on this topic just a few months ago, but its tone was not nearly so optimistic. Let's hope THIS is the thread that prevails!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who let you out of the pessimistic thread, David? Go back where you belong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 9, 2010 - 11:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MMM
(Member)
|
"Normally I stay away from re-recordings, but in this instance, count me in!"
Given the incredible number of truly phenomenal re-recordings that have been done over the decades, starting back in the 1950s, I'm always astounded that people make pronouncements like this as if they're proudly stating something like "I don't take drugs!" or "I am NOT a child abuser!" I liken it to somebody proclaiming something to the effect of "I hate all fruits and vegetables" or "I despise all black-and-white movies." It just seems as if you're proudly announcing the fact that you have really narrow taste, and I don't know why anyone would be proud of that.
There are great re-recordings and not-so-great ones, and great original tracks releases and horrendous ones. But just liking one kind of recording just seems incredibly limiting. You are missing some of the best film music in history because a lot of brilliant re-recordings have covered some of the absolute finest soundtrack music ever written, and much of it is simply not available and will never be available on CD. And in other cases, it is available, but the re-recordings are vastly superior to the originals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmontag451,
I assume you generally have no interest in classical music, just soundtrack music. I mean, why bother listening to Bach and Brahms and Mozart and Beethoven and all those cats when it's never anything but a re-recording, right?
PNJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2010 - 1:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MMM
(Member)
|
Posted: Mar 10, 2010 - 6:50 AM
By: Basll Wrathbone (Member)
"Normally I stay away from re-recordings, but in this instance, count me in!"
"I didn't read it that way. I only saw enthusiasm for the project from the poster."
When somebody uses the word "normally," it means that that is what they "normally" do. That means in the majority of cases, that's what they do. That means in the majority of cases, they stay away from re-recordings. That means that there is anything but "enthusiasm" for re-recordings -- only for this particular re-recording and maybe a handful of others. Therefore, the only way I or anyone else could really read his pronouncement was that the person does not "normally" (meaning, almost never), like re-recordings. Or else he wouldn't have used the word "normally." He would have used a word like "I never stay away from re-recordings," or "I seldom stay away from re-recordings," or "Rarely, I stay away from re-recordings." But he did not use any of those words or phrases. He used the word "normally." If you look that word up in the dictionary, you will see that it means "usually" or "generally" or "customarily." That means he doesn't like them. That's exactly the point my post addressed. I can't picture reading his post any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2010 - 1:27 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
When somebody uses the word "normally," it means that that is what they "normally" do. That means in the majority of cases, that's what they do. That means in the majority of cases, they stay away from re-recordings. That means that there is anything but "enthusiasm" for re-recordings -- only for this particular re-recording and maybe a handful of others. Therefore, the only way I or anyone else could really read his pronouncement was that the person does not "normally" (meaning, almost never), like re-recordings. Or else he wouldn't have used the word "normally." He would have used a word like "I never stay away from re-recordings," or "I seldom stay away from re-recordings," or "Rarely, I stay away from re-recordings." But he did not use any of those words or phrases. He used the word "normally." If you look that word up in the dictionary, you will see that it means "usually" or "generally" or "customarily." That means he doesn't like them. That's exactly the point my post addressed. I can't picture reading his post any other way.
As I read your post, I see John Cleese performing it in Monty Python. Read it again and imagine Mr. Cleese sitting there, giving it his best demented professor style. Hilarious.
Was the famous Monty Python "Argument Sketch" based on your exploits by any chance? Here it is in case you missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2010 - 1:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MMM
(Member)
|
And Preston, since you seemed to interpret that post exactly the way I did, I wanted you to know that I normally only listen to classical music live. I never listen to it on record or on CD or on the TV or on the radio. So I will go to concerts not knowing anything about the music at all, and hope beyond hope that I might like some of it. I don't even read about classical music, because that is also not the same as hearing it live. And I certainly won't talk about it. The only reason I'm writing about it right now is because I am not bringing up any particular works in my discussion. I will allow myself the ability to talk or write about classical music only when I have absolutely nothing to say and nobody knows what I'm referring to. I thnk the composers would have liked it this way.
I also love the people who only listen to stereo, because monophonic sound is just too horrible. Just wait until they lose their hearing in one of their ears and they can only hear mono. I guess they'll stop listening to music entirely at that point. Or when they get a few years older and lose their high frequency hearing over 8.000K. Since the music won't sound the way they know it SHOULD sound, they will no doubt throw out all of their recordings and never listen again. Because if you can't get it to sound EXACTLY the way you think it HAS to sound, there's no sense in listening to one note of it. Something tells me that if you went to a restaurant with some of these people, they would send everything they ordered back to the kitchen because it wasn't exactly like dear old mother used to make... I'll bet they even have their favorite McDonald's restaurant, because none of the other McDonald's freeze their meat or deep-fry their frozen French fries exactly the same way as the particular franchise they frequent...
By the way, starting next week I'm only going to listen to film music composed by people with a "p" or a "v" in their name. And I will only go to live classical concerts where the seats are either blue or grey, unless it's a leap year, in which case I won't even sit -- I'll just stand in the aisle.
And regarding my previous post, yes, John Cleese and Monty Python were very influential in my early comedy writing career. I salute you for recognizing that. I definitely called upon the "Dead Parrott sketch" in my prior response. The Flying Circus and Woody Allen were my two strongest influences, at least in my skit writing and in my articles, and looking back on my early writing now, it's embarrassing how much I ripped off Allen's writing style, and that's probably the only reason I got published at that time. I was cheaper than Allen, so the editors were happy to have second-rate Allen at 2% of the cost.
When I did stand-up I was told that my delivery sounded like it was written material, and when I wrote comedy, I was told that it came across like stand-up. I don't know how or if I solved the problem other than giving up stand-up and concentrating on writing. Maybe people just got used to my "stand-up" writing style...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 10, 2010 - 4:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
AndreaDanna
(Member)
|
Given the incredible number of truly phenomenal re-recordings that have been done over the decades, starting back in the 1950s, I'm always astounded that people make pronouncements like this as if they're proudly stating something like "I don't take drugs!" or "I am NOT a child abuser!" I liken it to somebody proclaiming something to the effect of "I hate all fruits and vegetables" or "I despise all black-and-white movies." It just seems as if you're proudly announcing the fact that you have really narrow taste, and I don't know why anyone would be proud of that.
There are great re-recordings and not-so-great ones, and great original tracks releases and horrendous ones. But just liking one kind of recording just seems incredibly limiting. You are missing some of the best film music in history because a lot of brilliant re-recordings have covered some of the absolute finest soundtrack music ever written, and much of it is simply not available and will never be available on CD. And in other cases, it is available, but the re-recordings are vastly superior to the originals.
I couldn't agree more, David. The diffuse idea that "only the author knows how to conduct his music." is a terribly limiting prejudice, that can only prevent himself from enjoying the same composer's music at its best form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmontag451,
I assume you generally have no interest in classical music, just soundtrack music. I mean, why bother listening to Bach and Brahms and Mozart and Beethoven and all those cats when it's never anything but a re-recording, right?
PNJ
What?! You mean the tapes from the recording sessions don't exist anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
