 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 19, 2013 - 5:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ToneRow
(Member)
|
The ones that are a bugger to find are the two Madernas you linked to. Won't give up hope.
Appears to me that the early (1950s) works of Bruno Maderna were published by Edizione Suvini Zerboni, which, by my understanding, are now part of SugarMusic S.p.A..
SugarMusic is also the successor to, and current holder of, the prior C.A.M. archives, too; for the past 2 years the Sugar logo has appeared on Italian soundtracks by labels like Digitmovies, GDM, Legend, etc.
Perhaps one contacts Sugar when inquiring about Maderna's Composizione n.2 manuscript, for example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of Rosenman's jagged rhythmic work definitely owes to Schönberg (for some reason, his piano works in particular evoke Rosenman's sensibility to me - especially his "Suite for Piano," Op. 25.) You can also hear certain orchestration ideas in Roger Sessions' "Divertimento for Orchestra" (particularly the "Perpetuum Mobile" movement, with its Xylophone doubling on accented repeated notes) that paved the way for elements of "Fantastic." Of course, none of this really answers your initial question.
Thread resurrection/reminder - one of my earliest threads here @ FSM was about Leonard Rosenman's instructors (Sessions & Dallapiccola).
http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=66112&forumID=1&archive=0
...at the time, only one member responded. 
Not sure how I missed that thread the first time around! In any event, I went through a huge Sessions kick in my undergraduate days, and even had a brief correspondence with Milton Babbitt (originally to see if he knew if any recordings of Sessions' opera "Montezuma" existed) relating to him.
A professor of mine once mentioned how odd and wonderful it was that Sessions and Dallapiccola were such good friends, since their music (though it did share a few similarities here and there) is rather different in modes of expression, and indeed, in application of technique. Very different voices - I guess you could argue that by the mid/late-60s, Rosenman had inculcated both men's teachings well within, and he could be seen as the fusion of the two men's sensibilities (of course, this radically understates the importance, presence, and intelligence of Leonard's own unerring musical instincts and voice, but it might not make for a bad departure point).
The Radio France recording of "Ulysse" is the one I own, I confess that I'm so busy working on music, or listening to all of the new albums (and old ones I'm picking up or replacing) that come out every week or two, that I've not had as much time to revisit old favorites in the way I used to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
I've re-bought many reissued CDs in the last couple of years that are said to offer "improved sound" over my previous versions. Most often, I find that the sound would be better described as "different" rather than "better".
The newer ones are almost invariably smoother, with a warmer ambience and added volume/fullness. Initially they sound improved, with the older versions colder and thinner.
But eventually, I started to note that when I played the old versions again for the first time in a while after getting used to the newer versions, they sounded crisper and more detailed, with a less "processed" sound. Instead of the wash of stereo ambience in the new ones, the more distinct channel separation and texture in the old ones had its own appeal. Sometimes, the older sounded like a veil was lifted compared to the more blended aura of the newer.
For every one I've found to offer improved, glossier, smoother sound, there's another where I've ended up preferring the old, more sharply focused version.
My opinion at present is that the new versions generally have a similar, lusher feel that seems to be some kind of "flavor-of-the-year" enhancement, but the previous releases sometimes get reinstated into my collection as first-choices after I've had repeated listens to both over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that this is one of the greatest film scores ever written. One of the top two or three dozen best film scores ever written, easily. I consider it one of Rosenman's top 3 scores he ever wrote (the other two are Beneath the Planet of the Apes and East of Eden, both of which I would also include among the two or three dozen best film scores ever written).
It is a shame that this score isn't much more talked about/celebrated.
Here is some 'talk' that doesn't celebrate Lenny's motivic cells:
http://www.movie-wave.net/titles/fantastic_voyage.html
James Southall says no thanks to this Voyage ... from hell!
[one of the greatest film scores ever written ... receives a 1 star review! How do you like them anti-bodies, Aenae?]
"Voyage from hell
A review by JAMES SOUTHALL
The Vivaldi of film composers, Leonard Rosenman has managed to write essentially the same piece of music so many times that I've now lost count. Fantastic Voyage could easily be any of his other scores and I'd honestly never be able to tell the difference. It's certainly not due to any lack of talent on his part, so one wonders why his creative muse is so incredibly low. Unfortunately, his music is such an acquired taste that it is difficult for less adventurous listeners to adapt to any of it. This release of Fantastic Voyage does at least allow us the joy of reading self-penned liner notes ("Beethoven's Ninth? Pah! You should hear Robocop 2!") - and as usual, they're the highlight of a Rosenman album for me. Here, we get "In order to make this complex music unified, I wrote a short thematic motif that was constantly developed and varied in rhythm, harmony and counterpoint. All were revolutionary for a 1966 film." Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm sure I remember music that featured at least one of rhythm, harmony and counterpoint (and sometimes two or, if by an especially proficient composer, three) in films before 1966.
When Fantastic Voyage was announced by Film Score Monthly as the third entry in their Silver Age Classics series, it seemed that every man and his dog jumped for joy at the prospect of receiving this "classic" score. As with so many so-called classics that have been in demand for years or decades, I was as underwhelmed as can be on first hearing it.
Rosenman's completely cold and calculated compositions are devoid of any real melody and while it is difficult not to be impressed on a technical level, it is also difficult to like it. To be honest, I loathe this album just about as much as most people seem to like it, and no matter how many times I've put it on and tried to find something to like (and, believe me, it's a fair number), so far I've failed. Thanks, but no thanks."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, zardoz, why did you post someone's negative review when the fan here was asking for more appreciation for the score? Or is this your explanation for the lack of appreciation - it's because it's not good?
I love FV, too. It's my favorite Rosenman.
I posted that review because we can learn more about one's personality via one's dislikes than by simply echoing prior platitudes (like "it's great").
Witness how the FV score (not unlike the output of others such as Tiomkin, Nascimbene, Jarre, Zimmer, etc.) can be so polarizing within the soundtrack collective. One 'camp' proclaims FV as one of the best film scores in history ... whilst an opposing 'camp' issues a Zimmer-like dismissal: 'piece of sh!t'
We're all here because we love to listen ... but what we love to listen to is staggeringly variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
