 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to be in the minority as I absolutely despise re-recordings.
Wow, why would you do that? By all means, don't listen to them if you don't want to. But great music is meant to be performed and performed again and recorded and re-recorded again.
They are never exact to what is onscreen.
They are obviously not.
I pick out every difference and it annoys me. So, I am never in favor of a re-recording. I want the original. If the original is not available and the only way to hear the music is a re-recording, I would give it a listen to see if it satisfied my need for the score.
It would be silly to expect 75 different musicians in a different room at a different time playing different instruments to sound exactly alike.
If that is your criterion, indeed, stay away from re-recordings. They are never there to replace or sound like the original recording tracks, so if that is your yard stick, indeed, stay away from them.
Personally, I embrace that. That's what music is about... for me. Not the canned recording, but the music, which is there to be performed, not to be caught and boxed into one single recording (like King Haggard wrapping up all the Unicorns).
Not even two singers sound alike. Did Sinatra ever sound like Elvis? Of course not. You don't approach one to sound like the other. And you shouldn't. Cause you would always be disappointed.
Same thing with new recordings of film scores. If you approach them to sound like another already existing recording, well, yeah, you will be disappointed.
Because obviously, no two orchestras sound alike either. The Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra is supposed to sound like the London Symphony Orchestra? Hopefully not, because they should have distinguished voices.
I mean, no one is going to mistake the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra for the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra... not because one is "better" or "worse" (they are both obviously world class), but because they have a different "sound", are usually recorded in different rooms, have different instruments and a different performance tradition. And it is good that both exist.
Most classical music pieces benefit from different recordings... I mean, I have quite a few different complete sets of Beethoven Symphonies (not counting single recordings of various symphonies), and I appreciate them all... would be a loss if they all sounded alike (I would not want to pin my appreciation of a Beethoven Symphony at a single recording).
Now, true, John Williams is not Beethoven, and a dozen recordings of JAWS might be overkill... but two? That's great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The one outlier that isn't a traditionally produced re-recording.
Hence my knowing emojis!
I personally wouldn't mind it if more re-recordings were done to picture, like a traditional film score recording is done.
If Goldsmith's rejected score to Babe is ever given a premiere recording, I hope they consider conducting it to picture since it never received that treatment in the first place. On the other hand, Goldsmith famously scored a longer cut of the film (when it was still called "Babe, the Gallant Pig") so it's possible that wouldn't work for all of his cues, not having some of the footage he scored available.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly every cue Williams re-recorded for the old MCA JAWS LP, were better than their film versions. The rest are on par or neither here nor there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some rerecordings have used a click already -- William Stromberg commented on using it from time to time for specific cues (though generally avoiding it).
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J
Also, Bernstein's redo of Cape Fear
That's not a rerecording though. That's a new score based on the old one.
Very true. Quite an exciting re-working of the old score into the new score though. I like Bernstein's take on it a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't the original album of WHERE EAGLES DARE so close to the film that no-one twigged it was actually a re-recording?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(And I love it!)
