Definition of "definitive"

[Quintus 5,399]

Thor, how do you reconcile the fact that, even newer members here, resolutely disagree with you and your "everyone at JWFAN hates me narrative/fallacy"?

 

Is it possible, do you think, that perhaps you're the one who is in the wrong?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thor is fast becoming the new Alex.

[publicist 4,643]

6 minutes ago, Quintus said:

Is it possible, do you think, that perhaps you're the one who is in the wrong?

 

Did you ever in all those years detect a glimmer of irony or the slightest change of course in his agenda?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Who are all these people who want to ban poor old Thor? What did he do wrong? Like an angry mob with pitchforks and effigies.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thor is Thor, and a lot of people have a problem with that.

 

No one here hates him though 

[publicist 4,643]

Hate doesn't help. Stop having C&C discussions does.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Of course we don't.

[Quintus 5,399]

8 minutes ago, Sally Spectra said:

Who are all these people who want to ban poor old Thor? What did he do wrong? Like an angry mob with pitchforks and effigies.

 

Poor old long suffering Thor! He's the victim in all this.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ww just don't understand him!

[publicist 4,643]

Speak for yourself.

[Bilbo 3,709]

I don't think anyone hates Thor. He seems like good people. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,531]

I had no idea that Thor has DPD.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

11 hours ago, Thor said:

For me, that would be like scrolling through a movie for favourite scenes or whatever.

 

My roommate does that. It's not something I really do with movies, but it is how I tend to listen to music.

[nightscape94 965]

Sorry everyone, but CC, your most trusted source for score reviewing and philosophy, in his review of Jaws has put the last statement of this matter to rest when discussing the Intrada release:

 

"In 2015, Intrada Records sought to finally produce the most definitive release of the score, revisiting both the film and album recordings with the intent of providing a complete presentation of the work and clean up its sound quality using newer digital mastering technologies."

 

You cannot fight it.  It is futile.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Filmtracks sucks.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Always has.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

Holy shit! Three pages after one day for such a fu...ing superfluous topic!

 

Any comment, with which I wouldn't just waste my lifetime, reading it?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Welcome to JWFAN

[Brundlefly 2,385]

There are music discussion threads, that have three pages maybe after one year!

[nightscape94 965]

Again, welcome to JWFAN.

[Richard Penna 3,690]

On 9/9/2017 at 2:40 PM, Thor said:

Before all the mudslinging, I was expecting (or hoping) for more constructive counter-arguments to my view. For example, an argument I had expected was this:

 

"So Thor, if you consider the OST the 'definitive' release in each and every case, then how do you account for the technological limitations at the time -- be it LP or CD? How do you know that the composer wouldn't want a longer release for his 'definitive' presentation at the time, but was hindered because of these limitations?"

 

See....now I'm stuck debating with myself, in lack of proper debatants.

 

What's your response to that then? Lots of OSTs, particularly Varese's late 90s/early 00s albums suffered massively from their 30-minute (and later, 45-minute) runtime. No one will persuade me that the composers of the 30-minuters were happy with what they got on the album.

 

My definition of 'definitive' is simple: every piece of music heard in the film is there, with all major alternates.

 

On 9/9/2017 at 9:58 AM, Baby Jane Hudson said:

Exactly! The album is trying to tell me a musical story. I don't see people routinely only reading small excepts from books.

 

Some albums are so far out of chronological order that you're opening the script to somewhere in the last 3rd of the film and hearing the finale before you've heard the stuff from the beginning. By rearranging for a listening experience, you're losing the very musical story that was there in the first place.

 

I can occasionally see where JW goes - JP has the 2-LP model going on, for example. The Terminal on the other hand, I have no clue what JW is going for with that bizarre sequencing.

[Thor 7,504]

49 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

What's your response to that then? Lots of OSTs, particularly Varese's late 90s/early 00s albums suffered massively from their 30-minute (and later, 45-minute) runtime. No one will persuade me that the composers of the 30-minuters were happy with what they got on the album.

 

We'll only know that by asking the composers themselves, I guess. I happen to think the technological time limitation was a benefit in most cases, rather than a drawback. Forced the producers to focus their material for maximum listening pleasure. Although it's hard to put a definite timeframe on such things (since scores vary wildly in thematic complexity and content), I think 30-50 minutes is an average "ideal" running time for most scores. Corresponds well to a great many symphonies and concept albums. Obviously, there are exceptions, like STAR WARS, which, in its almost Wagnerian scope, allows for an 80-minute running time.

 

Ultimately, duration and quantity of music are less important than selection and re-structuring.

 

Quote

Some albums are so far out of chronological order that you're opening the script to somewhere in the last 3rd of the film and hearing the finale before you've heard the stuff from the beginning. By rearranging for a listening experience, you're losing the very musical story that was there in the first place.

 

Well, I don't really care about the film or "the musical story that was there in the first place". I care about the new musical story that is built on the raw material from the film, molded into something that can stand on its own.

 

I see that this eventually turned to the age-old C&C vs. A&A debate. Inevitable, I guess, although I found the use of "definitive" more interesting in this particular case.

 

But thank you for the constructive post, Richard Penna.

[Richard Penna 3,690]

But why are you letting your listening experience be so moulded by the pretty arbitrary limitation of the label's budget that quarter? You can't possibly put that down to a deliberate, creative album assembly if the composer genuinely wanted more music on there.

 

By the way - I had the French half of the Outlander (remember that debate?) season 2 album on for the drive to work today, and I'm playing the Scottish half now. The idea that this album is 'quantity over quality' is hysterically laughable. I can think of another couple of cues I'd have added to this actually.

[Thor 7,504]

14 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

But why are you letting your listening experience be so moulded by the pretty arbitrary limitation of the label's budget that quarter? You can't possibly put that down to a deliberate, creative album assembly if the composer genuinely wanted more music on there.

 

All artists work within frames -- technological, financial, you name it. I happen to think it can be a benefit in many cases. Necessity is the mother of invention. Again, it has to do with re-presenting the material, not just presenting it. Most -- if not all -- of the composers I've talked to on this issue prefer 're-arranged for listening'.

 

Whether they have been forced to work within limited timeframes, or not, I will always consider the definitive release the one that made them THINK about re-contextualizing the material. There's a lot of creative force in that. The releases where this thought process has not been present, i.e. when it's been a matter of just transferring all of the music in the film's order, I do not consider definitive.

 

14 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

By the way - I had the French half of the Outlander (remember that debate?) season 2 album on for the drive to work today, and I'm playing the Scottish half now. The idea that this album is 'quantity over quality' is hysterically laughable. I can think of another couple of cues I'd have added to this actually.

 

 

Funny you should say that. I'm playing that EXACT album right now! What a coincidence. Unlike you, I think the Scottish half drags. But I love the French part. I'd personally weed this album down some 20 minutes or so.

[Richard Penna 3,690]

I just think that an artificial limitation is such a bad way of enforcing a listening experience. You're removing options for the composer for non-creative reasons.

[Thor 7,504]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think it allows possibility, not necessarily restriction.

 

But again -- the important thing is that there has been some creative thought process in the re-structuring. That goes for both 'limited' frames as well as more free frames. Once that is in place, the "available canvas" (i.e. the quantity of music) plays less of an important role.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

5 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

What's your response to that then? Lots of OSTs, particularly Varese's late 90s/early 00s albums suffered massively from their 30-minute (and later, 45-minute) runtime. No one will persuade me that the composers of the 30-minuters were happy with what they got on the album.

 

My definition of 'definitive' is simple: every piece of music heard in the film is there, with all major alternates.

 

 

Some albums are so far out of chronological order that you're opening the script to somewhere in the last 3rd of the film and hearing the finale before you've heard the stuff from the beginning. By rearranging for a listening experience, you're losing the very musical story that was there in the first place.

 

I can occasionally see where JW goes - JP has the 2-LP model going on, for example. The Terminal on the other hand, I have no clue what JW is going for with that bizarre sequencing.

 

5 hours ago, Thor said:

 

We'll only know that by asking the composers themselves, I guess. I happen to think the technological time limitation was a benefit in most cases, rather than a drawback. Forced the producers to focus their material for maximum listening pleasure. Although it's hard to put a definite timeframe on such things (since scores vary wildly in thematic complexity and content), I think 30-50 minutes is an average "ideal" running time for most scores. Corresponds well to a great many symphonies and concept albums. Obviously, there are exceptions, like STAR WARS, which, in its almost Wagnerian scope, allows for an 80-minute running time.

 

Ultimately, duration and quantity of music are less important than selection and re-structuring.

 

 

Well, I don't really care about the film or "the musical story that was there in the first place". I care about the new musical story that is built on the raw material from the film, molded into something that can stand on its own.

 

I see that this eventually turned to the age-old C&C vs. A&A debate. Inevitable, I guess, although I found the use of "definitive" more interesting in this particular case.

 

But thank you for the constructive post, Richard Penna.

 

4 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

But why are you letting your listening experience be so moulded by the pretty arbitrary limitation of the label's budget that quarter? You can't possibly put that down to a deliberate, creative album assembly if the composer genuinely wanted more music on there.

 

By the way - I had the French half of the Outlander (remember that debate?) season 2 album on for the drive to work today, and I'm playing the Scottish half now. The idea that this album is 'quantity over quality' is hysterically laughable. I can think of another couple of cues I'd have added to this actually.

 

4 hours ago, Thor said:

 

All artists work within frames -- technological, financial, you name it. I happen to think it can be a benefit in many cases. Necessity is the mother of invention. Again, it has to do with re-presenting the material, not just presenting it. Most -- if not all -- of the composers I've talked to on this issue prefer 're-arranged for listening'.

 

Whether they have been forced to work within limited timeframes, or not, I will always consider the definitive release the one that made them THINK about re-contextualizing the material. There's a lot of creative force in that. The releases where this thought process has not been present, i.e. when it's been a matter of just transferring all of the music in the film's order, I do not consider definitive.

 

 

 

Funny you should say that. I'm playing that EXACT album right now! What a coincidence. Unlike you, I think the Scottish half drags. But I love the French part. I'd personally weed this album down some 20 minutes or so.

 

4 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

I just think that an artificial limitation is such a bad way of enforcing a listening experience. You're removing options for the composer for non-creative reasons.

 

3 hours ago, Thor said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think it allows possibility, not necessarily restriction.

 

But again -- the important thing is that there has been some creative thought process in the re-structuring. That goes for both 'limited' frames as well as more free frames. Once that is in place, the "available canvas" (i.e. the quantity of music) plays less of an important role.

 

So much text, so little meaning. Let's be honest, it's rather important what a man on the other side of the earth thinks of the word "definitive". I'd also spend half of the day discussing.

[Holko 9,526]

I've got another one for you. We know a lot of OST programs have to be turned in in October to come out for December because of how overstuffed the few CD production facilities are in that season. Can a selection truly be definitive (according to you) when (possibly) some of the best and most fitting music hasn't even been written yet, let alone recorded, at the time of the selection?

[Arpy 4,145]

7 hours ago, Thor said:

Ultimately, duration and quantity of music are less important than selection and re-structuring.

 

 

Well, I don't really care about the film or "the musical story that was there in the first place". I care about the new musical story that is built on the raw material from the film, molded into something that can stand on its own.

 

Aside from Williams and few other composers, the "new" musical story comes at the cost of mutilating the narrative structure, and most of the time is because of the constraints of how much a CD can hold. I think you're idolising a consequence of commodification and marketing as something that is an artform. Well, then that would be art as a by-product and necessity of a score's worth as a product and not the artwork itself. 

 

A major part of why I love film scores is their connection to the films they're written for, a connection to characters or events. That's not always the case, often I think the movies are utter shit and the scores are what I take away from the experience. To disregard the film's story however is to disregard the very purpose the musical narrative was created for. 

 

Take JNH's The Last Airbender, a brilliant score to a terrible adaptation. I still think the context is important though, because there are themes connected to certain characters that are attempting to tell a story, and probably succeeding more than the film.

 

And Thor, why be so condescending as if everyone else who has attempted to argue with you on this point hasn't had anything constructive to say? I could be full of shit, but I've tried to be cordial about the situation. It just means you haven't been convinced and I don't think any constructive criticism is likely to change your mind, no matter how rational it is.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

On the contrary, I don't see Thor's posts as condescending. But the hostile and often very wordy opposition to his preferences definitely comes across as condescending.

[Quintus 5,399]

Thor is easily just as wordy in his opposition. That applies to all subjects actually. If you're saying you've never known a wearingly condescending tone in any of the chap's general replies then I think you're oblivious to it.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I think he just likes to promote his preferences in a world that's rigidly adversarial to what they've been conditioned to believe is "inferior". To most people, they generally want everything they like to be longer, to have more of it, even at the expense of pacing and the risk of excess.

 

But Thor's preferences seem utterly alien to their "more is always better" viewpoint, which provokes aggression from them because they now fear that their established preferences might now be threatened by an alternate preference, as if the powers that be will listen to Thor and misinterpret his lone voice as a bigger market, so they'll return to shorter releases to cater to a legion of Thors out there.

 

Of course, they don't really think that'll happen, but the irrational parts of their brains don't realise that.

 

And by the way, I see his point. If you're listening to the ToD OST and appreciating it as a concept album experience, the composer must have been satisfied with it, so why would you want more? Has anyone clamored for the Dark Side of the Moon tracks that never made it to the album?

[Quintus 5,399]

Christ, that's way too wordy for me to read.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

K.

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

I think he just likes to promote his preferences in a world that's rigidly adversarial to what they've been conditioned to believe is "inferior". To most people, they generally want everything they like to be longer, to have more of it, even at the expense of pacing and the risk of excess.

 

 

Tbh, I couldn't care less about 99% percent of soundtracks which were given the expanded/complete treatment at some point. But plenty of times I've been really disappointed by the OST omission of a favourite moment in score and wished there was a way of obtaining it. If a later re-release finally makes that happen (Eddie's death for eg), I'm of course chuffed to bits about it, so how could I be anything but 'pro expansion' if such releases are literally a means to an end? In those cases, OST presentations or anything else be damned, I don't give a jot about anything like that. I'm just absolutely delighted to finally be able to listen to a little piece of music which gives me a huge deal of personal pleasure. That's all that matters.

 

I couldn't give two shits about someone else's presentation preferences.

[Thor 7,504]

3 hours ago, Arpy said:

Aside from Williams and few other composers, the "new" musical story comes at the cost of mutilating the narrative structure, and most of the time is because of the constraints of how much a CD can hold. I think you're idolising a consequence of commodification and marketing as something that is an artform. Well, then that would be art as a by-product and necessity of a score's worth as a product and not the artwork itself. 

 

I do consider album production an artform, yes, not just a 'commodification and marketing'.

 

Quote

A major part of why I love film scores is their connection to the films they're written for, a connection to characters or events. That's not always the case, often I think the movies are utter shit and the scores are what I take away from the experience. To disregard the film's story however is to disregard the very purpose the musical narrative was created for. 

 

Quite the contrary, I see it as having respect for that very purpose. Film music belongs in a film, and I want it to stay there in its original form. However, when adapting to album, it deserves a better treatment; not just be some bastard remnant from a completely different medium that is no longer relevant. So I want it re-structured to work as independently as possible; to be its OWN thing.

 

51 minutes ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

But Thor's preferences seem utterly alien to their "more is always better" viewpoint, which provokes aggression from them because they now fear that their established preferences might now be threatened by an alternate preference, as if the powers that be will listen to Thor and misinterpret his lone voice as a bigger market, so they'll return to shorter releases to cater to a legion of Thors out there.

 

Of course, they don't really think that'll happen, but the irrational parts of their brains don't realise that.

 

I think that's a good point. I've often asked myself why some people -- when discussing this -- feel the need to resort to personal attacks etc., as if something is "threatened". It's bizarre, because it's really a very neutral topic. Either you like this type of presentation, or you like that. And then it should be a fairly straightforward discussion of why one prefers this or that. But it so rarely is.

[Arpy 4,145]

3 hours ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

I think he just likes to promote his preferences in a world that's rigidly adversarial to what they've been conditioned to believe is "inferior". To most people, they generally want everything they like to be longer, to have more of it, even at the expense of pacing and the risk of excess.

 

But Thor's preferences seem utterly alien to their "more is always better" viewpoint, which provokes aggression from them because they now fear that their established preferences might now be threatened by an alternate preference, as if the powers that be will listen to Thor and misinterpret his lone voice as a bigger market, so they'll return to shorter releases to cater to a legion of Thors out there.

 

Of course, they don't really think that'll happen, but the irrational parts of their brains don't realise that.

 

And by the way, I see his point. If you're listening to the ToD OST and appreciating it as a concept album experience, the composer must have been satisfied with it, so why would you want more? Has anyone clamored for the Dark Side of the Moon tracks that never made it to the album?

This post is so infantile, it completely misses the point and fails to refute the arguments raised in this thread for nothing more than one person's personal preference, as if it was a universally held belief. 

 

Thor's arguments have no impact on the real world, in fact for decades score releases have been largely in his favour, no?

 

Now that we have the means, through specialty labels and for the prosperity of the music itself through the legacy of C&C releases, this shift towards wanting more isn't coming "at the expense of pacing and the risk of excess" half of it  must be Williams himself and other composers aligned with these record producers ideas of wanting to impart their legacy in a way which supersedes prior releases*, presenting their music that couldn't be released before, that no one has heard before in high quality. No one can strap you to a chair next to Thor and force you to listen to the presentation in one sitting in a rigid fashion, no one is advocating for one listening preference either - some of the deluxe releases offer the album presentation too.

 

No, pacing isn't an issue if you have control over your listening experience, but it becomes a big fucking issue when the CD's over and the narrative is jumbled because the other half of the score wasn't released in the first place!

 

*definitively, once and for all, completely

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

23 minutes ago, Arpy said:

This post is so infantile, it completely misses the point and fails to refute the arguments raised in this thread for nothing more than one person's personal preference, as if it was a universally held belief. 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

You really are like an old woman aren't you.

[Arpy 4,145]

I was expecting a gif of Bette, tbh.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I just want to chime in and say I applaud Thor for not relenting to the patriarchy. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Baby Jane is also missing the point that Thor is just an irritating person who doesn't stop talking about this crap like it's interesting when it is very very boring.  The idea that I, a person who exists in the real world, would feel threatened by someone's opinion about soundtrack construction is pretty funny.  People have found him annoying for many years and he has absorbed this to mean that his opinions are somehow radical and he needs to speak truth to power.  Which just makes him more annoying.

[Thor 7,504]

53 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Thor's arguments have no impact on the real world, in fact for decades score releases have been largely in his favour, no?

 

Still are, thankfully, for most commercially oriented soundtracks. So in that respect, I am in fact in the majority.

 

Quote

 

Now that we have the means, through specialty labels and for the prosperity of the music itself through the legacy of C&C releases, this shift towards wanting more isn't coming "at the expense of pacing and the risk of excess"

 

That's in the eye of the beholder. I think it is.

 

7 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Baby Jane is also missing the point that Thor is just an irritating person who doesn't stop talking about this crap like it's interesting when it is very very boring.  The idea that I, a person who exists in the real world, would feel threatened by someone's opinion about soundtrack construction is pretty funny.  People have found him annoying for many years and he has absorbed this to mean that his opinions are somehow radical and he needs to speak truth to power.  Which just makes him more annoying.

 

This is exactly what I was referring to earlier. "Crap". "Annoying". "Irritating person". What, exactly, is it about someone having a different preference than you, that warrants such personal attacks? What's eating you, Gilbert Grape?

 

It just seems like irrational hatred that has no root in what's actually being discussed.

[Arpy 4,145]

1 minute ago, Thor said:

That's in the eye of the beholder. I think it is.

 

49 minutes ago, Arpy said:

 

No, pacing isn't an issue if you have control over your listening experience, but it becomes a big fucking issue when the CD's over and the narrative is jumbled because the other half of the score wasn't released in the first place!

 

 

[Thor 7,504]

http://celluloidtunes.no/non-website/faq.jpg

[Arpy 4,145]

I wasn't talking about arranging your own album, but the listening experience that can be modulated by the listener e.g. listening to whichever track one likes, at any point...

 

Most of the time C&C presentations are done with the composer, so what then? Williams didn't have a say in the sequencing/ inclusion of tracks/edits in the JP collection? 

 

I don't think Williams was like this the whole time Matessino was preparing the album:

[Thor 7,504]

Just now, Arpy said:

Most of the time C&C presentations are done with the composer, so what then? Williams didn't have a say in the sequencing/ inclusion of tracks/edits in the JP collection? 

 

Whose initiative was the JP collection, exactly?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

JW knows his OST is still out there for people to seek out and enjoy. He's just begrudgingly participating in all this pedantic C&C crap to appease a loud minority of strait-jackets.

[Thor 7,504]

Exactly. He signs off on them, perhaps even some supervision. But they are in no way his preferred way of presenting the music. Or is your argument now, Arpy, that Williams secretly wants C&C releases of all of his music, but he keeps giving us beautifully arranged albums to piss off people like you?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

32 minutes ago, Quintus said:

You really are like an old woman aren't you.

 

Hagsploitation!