Jump to content

Justin Hurwitz's FIRST MAN (2018)


antovolk

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

So looking forward to hearing Hurwitz’s score.  There’s only like three of us here who loved La La Land, but I’m one of them!  This will be the first traditional film score from someone who’s already won the Oscar, so I’m also just curious.

If you want to call theremin traditional :P I'm betting this is like Interstellar where Zimmer went out there with the organ, between that and the whole IMAX aspect of it Chazelle really owes a debt to Nolan with this film

 

if those comments are to go by the score is the one thing people at the test screenings didn't like as much because it was so out there. If true, it's kinda the perfect way for Chazelle/Hurwitz to incorporate jazz into this lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just meant traditional in terms of not being a musical or incorporating some onscreen musical element like in Whiplash.  The comments make it sound very interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally a thread!

This is one of my most aniticipated score of 2018 ( well, after Solo and this, is there anything left, honestly?) (EDIT: welp, my bad, there still two JNHs on the horizon.)

 

His la la land tunes are splendid, and his Oscar win is one of the more deserving ones.

 

Really cant wait to hear this out-of-his-comfort-zone score.

 

Let us now revisit Planetarium now that this thread is opened:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mrbellamy said:

The "Someone in the Crowd" reprise is my favorite in the epilogue, that still sticks out to me as a perfect joyous moment in film music 

 

 

^^

True af!

 

I remembered when the tune was first played in the first trailer, againts those quotes, "musical masterpiece", goosebump. 

 

The someone in the crowd counter tune is also one of my most favourite tune of the score. It is  simple, yet glorious!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Back Lot Music will be releasing the score - 

 

DjSI-v2W4AEE6eZ.jpg:orig

 

Also, 4-minute preview (extended clip from film + short sizzle) is screening in North American IMAXes with Mission Impossible. No score in that snippet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disliked LALALAND (both film and score), but I thought WHIPLASH was excellent. So I don't really know what to expect for this; just that it's an interesting premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated La La Land but I want to see this because Neil Armstrong was a hero of mine growing up. I was fortunate to meet him. I hope the film is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very much looking forward to this score. His three existing scores are all fantastic.

 

First Man will be the first score conducted by Justin Hurwitz himself!

 

He gave a talk (not available online) where he explained he had spent the past year or so studying conducting. On La La Land, the conductor also functioned as a music consultant to give any technical comments on Hurwitz’s orchestrations in case of mistakes. Interestingly, the studio heavily pushed Hurwitz to use one of their orchestrators on La La Land but thankfully did not succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SUH said:

He gave a talk (not available online) where he explained he had spent the past year or so studying conducting. On La La Land, the conductor also functioned as a music consultant to give any technical comments on Hurwitz’s orchestrations in case of mistakes. Interestingly, the studio heavily pushed Hurwitz to use one of their orchestrators on La La Land but thankfully did not succeed.

 

Well if First Man has anything like the orchestrations we got in La La Land then I think I'll pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is, why DOESN'T everyone hate LA LA LAND?

 

I asked myself this question about one thousand times while I was watching it, from the moment that lady in the car opened her mouth but especially from the moment I saw those "dancers" moving their limbs as if they just stepped off the spinning teacups, and even more so when Hurwitz decided to use a flat 7 in the most bizarre and counter-logical location you could probably come up with, along with so many glaring "mistakes" in the music which make you wonder how it ever got greenlighted. I am maybe more annoyed by this than usual because I don't get why the film received such high praise when all I see in it is something that's just "meh".

 

Anyway, I won't say more, don't want to derail this thread further...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Loert said:

The real question is, why DOESN'T everyone hate LA LA LAND?

 

I asked myself this question about one thousand times while I was watching it, from the moment that lady in the car opened her mouth but especially from the moment I saw those "dancers" moving their limbs as if they just stepped off the spinning teacups, and even more so when Hurwitz decided to use a flat 7 in the most bizarre and counter-logical location you could probably come up with, along with so many glaring "mistakes" in the music which make you wonder how it ever got greenlighted. I am maybe more annoyed by this than usual because I don't get why the film received such high praise when all I see in it is something that's just "meh".

 

Anyway, I won't say more, don't want to derail this thread further...

 

4 minutes ago, TGP said:

Feel like pointing out some of those mistakes?

I'd like to know about that flat 7!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you asked for it.

 

I could write an entire dissertation on the problems I have with the music in "Another Day of Sun", let alone the soundtrack as a whole (though to be fair, "Another Day of Sun" is one of the more problematic tracks). But I'll just stick to what I mean by the flat 7...

 

The very first riff you hear is this (0:54 in this video):

image.png

 

You then hear a variation of this later on at 3:04, with a different bass:

 

image.png

 

Now, my entire gripe with this idea lies in the second bar, and especially in the second (i.e. bottom) variation we hear.

 

I'll start with the second variation, because I think it'll be easiest. Look at the bottom (i.e. "thumb") note of the right hand in measure one and measure two. In measure one, it's the Ab, which is the same as the bass note. Now what about measure two? It starts with Ab in the right hand...and then moves to Bb, to match what the bass is playing TO BEGIN WITH, but what's more, the Bb falls on an extremely weak beat. So, what is happening, is that you are SUPPOSED to hear the bass clearly shift from Ab to Bb between the bars, and you are supposed to CLEARLY hear the harmony shift from Ab major to Bb major. But what we get is actually: Ab -> Bb with a flat 7, but then seemingly at random, the bottom note of the right hand shifts to a Bb, the TONIC, so that by the end of the measure you're thinking "Wait a minute, was what I just heard a Bb chord, a Bb7, or what?" Because the RH is completely indecisive. It's as if the pianist thought to himself: "I can't decide whether I want the bottom note to be Ab or Bb, so I'll do play an Ab then a Bb and see what happens". This isn't how composing works, people!

 

What SHOULD have taken place in that excerpt is that the first note of measure two in the RH should have been a Bb, in order to achieve more symmetry. "But, Loert," I hear you say, "that would just be boring". Well, I agree it is more conventional than what ended up there, but if it is too boring then the idea should be scrapped!

 

Now, the first variation is better, because in the second variation, a glaring mistake was that the bottom note of the RH lagged behind the bass by changing to a Bb from an Ab in the middle of the bar. In the first variation, the harmony is actually different (F in the bass in measure one implies Fm7 instead of Ab), and we really shouldn't have the first note of measure 2 in the RH to be a Bb, because that would not work contrapuntally (parallel octaves). But, as with the second excerpt, the RH in measure two is indecisive, not being able to decide whether to play an Ab or a Bb as a bottom note. Actually, it wouldn't be so much of a problem if the Bb weren't syncopated, and I think this is key to understanding the problem here. If the Bb were on a strong beat, then you would be more able to get away with a change from Ab to Bb in the same measure in the RH. But since the Bb is syncopated (a 16th before a strong beat), we subconsciously don't attach great significance to it. However, it IS an important note, because it is the first instance of the tonic in the RH!!! So we have a flat 7 which comes in on the strongest beat of the bar (first beat), and we have a tonic which comes in...on the 7th 16th note. Because of this I can't help but feel this is exceptionally messy.

 

In summary, what I would do is change the first Ab in the RH of measure two, to a Bb, in both cases. For variation #2, there is no excuse IMO. For variation #1, the excuse is that you end up with parallel octaves. But I think, all things considered, it would sound better, because then you don't have the tonic coming in on the...7th 16th note of the bar. Besides, this is jazz/pop so who cares about parallel octaves.

 

Of course, another thing one could do is to alter the LH (bass) to support the given RH better. But I do not have the time to go into that, nor have I thought deeply enough to write about it. Enough is enough! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loert said:

 

by the end of the measure you're thinking "Wait a minute, was what I just heard a Bb chord, a Bb7, or what?" Because the RH is completely indecisive. It's as if the pianist thought to himself: "I can't decide whether I want the bottom note to be Ab or Bb, so I'll do play an Ab then a Bb and see what happens". This isn't how composing works, people!

 

 

I did indeed ask, and while your analytical take is beyond reproach, I mainly asked to see if you'd say something like this.  If you've no need for a lecture from an aging and somewhat jaded musician based on his experiences with and around other musicians, particularly orchestrators, who themselves have visibly devolved from professional music lovers into dreary husks focused on nitpickerry and 'behind the back' composer gossip, by all means ignore this.  Actually it won't be a lecture, I think I can be succinct - don't let your brain kill your fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TGP said:

 

I did indeed ask, and while your analytical take is beyond reproach, I mainly asked to see if you'd say something like this.  If you've no need for a lecture from an aging and somewhat jaded musician based on his experiences with and around other musicians, particularly orchestrators, who themselves have visibly devolved from professional music lovers into dreary husks focused on nitpickerry and 'behind the back' composer gossip, by all means ignore this.  Actually it won't be a lecture, I think I can be succinct - don't let your brain kill your fun.

 

Well, how else am I supposed to analyze what I dislike about a piece without being analytical??? Am I supposed to settle with "I dunno, just doesn't sound right" or "Those notes sound a bit funny to me" or "Just feels a bit unpolished"? If I paid and asked a composition teacher what he thought of my work, and he just told me that it "Sounds a bit wrong" without explaining further, I would obviously want my money back.

 

Look, I am not an analytical listener at all. Music for me is all about just lying back and going on a journey. The last thing I want to think about is whether the piece is Mixolydian or Hexolydian, whether it's in triple or quintuple time...especially during the listening session. When I listen to a piece of music these are never questions that pop into my head - partly why I don't bother is that I feel like to grasp the essence of music by focusing on such questions is a monumentous, impossible task. Better to just let it flow through you.

 

However, as somebody who is also highly interested in composition, I take it almost as a duty to identify what I like in music and don't like in music, so that I know what to steal and what to avoid. Again, I'm not overly analytical about this either - however, if I'm communicating a musical concept to somebody, how can I not resort to the language of music theory? There's a reason why it exists, so that people can discuss what might 'work' in music and what might not 'work', and why composers might have chosen to do this rather than this. (I'm sure you know this already.)

 

So, when I first watched the opening scene of LLL, I did not actually think stuff like "Wait a minute, was what I just heard a Bb chord , a Bb 7, or what?" I just got a general feeling that something was a bit iffy, that the music could be better. When I listened to it again, I picked up on a few other things. And only now when I was writing the post did I really think analytically about what I took to be one of the flaws in the piece.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel you man, but even that general feeling that something was a bit iffy is what I'm talking about.  I do it too sometimes but at a certain point if what is being heard isn't complete shit my brain turns that off and says, look, I know this isn't total amateur hour so let's just hear what this person has to say and not think about how to tweak every little thing.  So I'm not only not analyzing what might be amiss on the spot, I'm tuning it out in the first place and just hearing what's given - this is what they wrote and it's not my job to tinker.  I get why you want to get to the root of what doesn't work for you and that's commendable.  Not gonna tell you you're reacting wrong, but man it is a slippery slope and I see people go down it a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot be accused of being a musical savant but too found LLL's approach lackluster in every sense imaginable - though i counter Loert's analysis in that my displeasure started idiomatically, furthered melodically, and finally - in that order - in some clumsy decisions in the technical department. I really wanted to like it, but alas. 

 

As for the 'First Man', i would be all for an expansive romantic treatment see below instead of that Messiaen.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2018 at 2:11 PM, SUH said:

Very much looking forward to this score. His three existing scores are all fantastic.

 

First Man will be the first score conducted by Justin Hurwitz himself!

 

He gave a talk (not available online) where he explained he had spent the past year or so studying conducting. On La La Land, the conductor also functioned as a music consultant to give any technical comments on Hurwitz’s orchestrations in case of mistakes. Interestingly, the studio heavily pushed Hurwitz to use one of their orchestrators on La La Land but thankfully did not succeed.

 

 

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE BACK!?!?!  WHY'D YOU LEAVE!?!??!

 

On 7/29/2018 at 2:24 PM, TGP said:

Why'd you delete all your old posts?

 

Yea, that too!

You have a lot to answer to, mister! :stick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, antovolk said:

Hurwitz is recording the score this week. Seems all the theremin stuff from test screenings was temps

 

 

 

He was conducting the score in May also!

 

Hurwitz cancelled an event in London due to 'work commitments', and confirmed he had been recording the First Man score that week.

 

I will be interested to see how different this score sounds to his previous works - particularly the more ambient/thriller writing from the Whiplash underscore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SUH said:

 

He was conducting the score in May also!

 

Hurwitz cancelled an event in London due to 'work commitments', and confirmed he had been recording the First Man score that week.

 

I will be interested to see how different this score sounds to his previous works - particularly the more ambient/thriller writing from the Whiplash underscore.

 

Huh, so I guess the question is whether he was just splitting time and just recording additional cues, or re-did the score following the test screenings (apparently most people at that first screening didn't like it)....

 

And yeah, he was due to conduct the La La Land Live to Projection performances here that week, I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/29/2018 at 11:46 AM, TGP said:

Prepare for disappointment.  I've heard there's a killer dance number when they land.  Gosling really cuts a rug.

 

Doesn't he kick some serious Soviet ass on the moon too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for those videos @SUH!

Still, I'm with @Loert on this one.  The modified version sounds better to me.  It almost feels like the song hits a wrong note in the film version.

But, those are my ears.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw a ‘first look’ of this before Mission: Impossible - Fallout. Showed a clip of the launch. It’s incredibly claustrophobic. They did a great job with the camerawork and sound design to put you in that rocket ship. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SUH said:

Fundamentally, if it sounds good then thats all that matters. And I think the critical and commercial success of the score speaks for itself. Though of course ‘sounding good’ is always going to be subjective. It is an interesting notion that there exists music that is problematic, or inherently against how composing works, but I don’t think these exist in any objective sense.

 

 

I find these claims absurd. You are claiming what is supposed to happen based on your own understanding of harmony and musical taste. These may be the choices you would have made while composing, but they are not rules that SHOULD or CLEARLY have been followed by any means.

.

It does depend on what you mean by "good", and in my post I was trying to put forward my vision of what it was that I found in the music that I considered "not good". I don't believe there is a Theory of Everything for musical aesthetics, but I don't see any harm in being blunt and specific about my feelings (apart from riling up certain fans of La La Land for no reason, which may be a good enough reason not to have brought this all up in the first place). We may never get to the roots of what it is that makes music "good", without resorting to It sounds good because I like it. But I think it is at least worth a try (and here I think I fundamentally disagree with TGP).

 

I'm glad that LA LA LAND gained critical and commercial success, but it does leave me perplexed, and slightly saddened, as I believe that the music in the film could have been so much better. Comparing WEST SIDE STORY and LA LA LAND side by side, for instance, I can't help but notice a huge gap in quality between them (in terms of music, only).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The note Loert suggests does seem to better fit the contour of the rhythm.  

It is like Hurwitz was trying to be jazzy for the sake of being jazzy, without having the proper harmonic foundation for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

You expect every successful musical to be as good as probably the highest peak of the entire form?  Geez.

 

I just made one comparison, I could say the same thing about The Wizard of Oz, Snow White, On the Town, Fiddler on the Roof, The Lion King, Les Miserables...

 

18 minutes ago, Steve McQueen said:

The note Loert suggests does seem to better fit the contour of the rhythm.  

 

To be fair I don't think my suggestion for variation 1 cuts it. The original is OK enough. It's variation 2 (with the flute and timps) which is simply egregious, and hints at an unusual lack of care for musical contour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Loert said:

and here I think I fundamentally disagree with TGP).

 

I don't think so, else I'd not have taken part in so many such discussions here over the years.  I just saw in your wording something that rang a bell, though to be fair I'm sure you're far from suffering the kind of musical atrophy I had in mind.  Some people who pore over scores for hours and hours at a time either as copyists or orchestrators or what have you and simply burn out, that's where I've seen it.  They reach a point where they are all too quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater because it's been reduced to rote science for them rather than art.  Just a cautionary tale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The matter seems closed and settled in this thread, but plunking through @Loert's "problem" bars, I really don't see the issue, with all due respect. In no possible realm of my mind am I freaking out, "What!? Is this a Bb7, or a Bb? What did I just hear!?", and I don't even consider it a matter of, "Well, it's fine for what's he going for, I guess". One danger I think that can befall musicians--I say this more as a generality--is they can discuss music under the guise of relativity while still managing a certain level of condescension or superiority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

In no possible realm of my mind am I freaking out, "What!? Is this a Bb7, or a Bb? What did I just hear!?"...

 

That's not really the angle I'm coming from. But anyway, I don't want to go over this again.

No condescension was intended with my posts. I just communicated what my instincts told me. Though perhaps I could have used less colourful language.

 

I sincerely hope that FIRST MAN is a success. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.