Jump to content
Jay

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial La-La Land MUSIC Discussion

Recommended Posts

I'll start slow then. I've not got to CD2 yet, but I can tell you this about CD1 regarding the sound quality: it's perfect! It's unbelievable what they achieved here! Forget all about the past releases, because this one tops out by far.

 

I really like MM work on other JW releases in restoring, mixing, mastering and so on (I know he wasn't involved in E.T.'s past releases), but I must say LLL did a VERY WISE choice by putting the mixing and mastering job in the hands of the original recording engineer Bruce Botnick. That guy is a genius!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I think it's the best sounding version yet too.  Also it's edited impeccably, the segue from The Rescue into The Bike Chase for example is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really isn't much difference in the sound quality with the exception of some added low ends and an ever so slight volume boost (or compression) in some sections. It sounds as crisp and vibrant as it always has.

 

Although "Adventure on Earth" went through a massive transformation.  Still sounds bright and vibrant... as always... but you can tell by looks at the waveforms how much work was put into that cue specifically.

 

-Erik-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, man. The differences are not so small as you said. Of course, it's not "night and day" different, but it does sound significantly superior to past releases, SPECIALLY the 2002 one. They managed to get rid of the hiss from the '96 release without sucking the life out of the music like they did on the 2002 release, and yet it has an improved sound over '96 release.

 

I'm getting there, Baby Jane. But I can't tell about the audiophile vinyl release from '82 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Erik Woods said:

Although "Adventure on Earth" went through a massive transformation.  Still sounds bright and vibrant... as always... but you can tell by looks at the waveforms how much work was put into that cue specifically.

 

-Erik-

 

Why are you looking at waveforms instead of just enjoying the music?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished CD1. To be honest, I can't really share any thoughts right now. This music simply knocks me out every time I give it a comprehensive listening. Tomorrow I certainly will be more up to share my thoughts, detect takes used here and there compared to previous releases, and so on. I'll just say one thing: BUY THE DAMN THING RIGHT NOW IF YOU DIDN'T YET!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Why are you looking at waveforms instead of just enjoying the music?

 

Why assume that I'm not enjoying the music?  

 

But I am an audio guy and take great interest in the restoration of film music so I threw a few tracks into Audition to have a look so I could analyze the music further.  Anything wrong with that?

 

-Erik-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phbart said:

Nah, man. The differences are not so small as you said. Of course, it's not "night and day" different, but it does sound significantly superior to past releases, SPECIALLY the 2002 one. They managed to get rid of the hiss from the '96 release without sucking the life out of the music like they did on the 2002 release, and yet it has an improved sound over '96 release.

 

I'm getting there, Baby Jane. But I can't tell about the audiophile vinyl release from '82 :(

 

 

Good to know! While the 1996 edition was hissy but then the 2002 edition removed the hiss but reduced the brightness off the brass instruments somewhat. I hope that same brightness is maintained without eliminating the high end fields of the sound stage.

 

How does the booklet fare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jay said:

It was just surprising to me it would be the first thing anyone would do upon getting this treasure.  Nevermind.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

 

Granted, I know nothing about waveforms, other than to recognize clipping, but can you really tell by looking at a wav that effort has gone in to the remastering process?

 

Nowadays, I let my ears do the judging. I've bought many a remasters in my day, and when I was younger I was struggling to hear/recognize that they sounded better than my old analog-to-digital CDs. They were supposed to sound better!! Why else remaster? Why else put out a different version, if it was worse?

 

Until I decided that the label "remastered" wasn't the key. It was listening. Whatever sounded better, sounded better, no matter the technology or marketing labels behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OneBuckFilms said:

Booklet is excellent. Jim Titus is on good form.

How are the notes? Do they focus on the film this time or is there more discussion on the score?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve glimsed them, and they focus mostly on the score, but I’ve not read them in detail.

 

They have a cue by cue breakdown, and some notes about the live to picture performances of the score.

 

They seem pretty exhaustive, so there may be some material related to the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, OneBuckFilms said:

I’ve glimsed them, and they focus mostly on the score, but I’ve not read them in detail.

 

They have a cue by cue breakdown, and some notes about the live to picture performances of the score.

 

They seem pretty exhaustive, so there may be some material related to the movie.

 

Good to know that they have dissected the music cues. How many pages does it entail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Could anyone explain why the presentation isn't chronological? Is it to be able to put the main score on one CD?

Most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 7:10 AM, bollemanneke said:

Could anyone explain why the presentation isn't chronological? Is it to be able to put the main score on one CD?

 

It IS chronological.

 

And yea, the complete score is 81 minutes as you can see in the main post, so the two shortest and most inconsequential cues had to be moved to disc two.

 

 

On 10/4/2017 at 7:33 AM, Baby Jane Hudson said:

What cues aren't on this new release?

 

None, this release is complete.  I don't think you read his post clearly enough.  Bouzereau chose many wrong takes to put on his expansions instead of the correct takes chosen for the film.  So if you care about minor performance differences JW never intended to be heard, you can use the old CDs to hear those wrong takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Any interesting anecdotes about Botanicus?

Not in particular. A short paragraph in the "Additional Music" section explaining what it is. By the way, it didn't adopt the lovely "Botanicus" nickname like we did here. :)

 

58 minutes ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

What cues aren't on this new release?

- E.T. Alone cue from this release is the correct film take, as also heard on the '96 LD iso score. The '96 and 2002 CDs has s slightly different perfomance for that cue (which I prefer).

- E.T.'s Powers cue has an additional instrument in some point not present in past releases.

- At Home cue from the '96 CD release has some slight different performances compared to this release and the 2002 (which are the correct ones).

- The second half of Sending the Signal is the correct film take, as also heard on the '96 LD iso score. The '96 and 2002 CDs has s slightly different perfomance for that cue (which I also prefer).

- Searching for E.T. is "97%" the correct film take. On this release, the bit where Mike actually finds E.T. in the river, the performance is the same as the '96 CD release, but not the same as the '96 LD iso score and 2002 release, which is the correct bit. But it's only on that small section, the rest is just fine. But I think MM did the right choice here, as this bit piece here flows better. The correct film take of that bit is on the alternate music section on CD2.

 

27 minutes ago, azahid said:

I'm more interested in the 2nd cd. I hope the OST album sounds as good as the audiophile version that was issued in Japan.

I read somewhere that "audiophile" japanese CD is the same as all versions of the OST released until now. I'll try to find where I read it and post here. But rest easy the the OST tracks on this release buries them all. :)

 

Edit: I found this on the FSM forum

" Okay, so I ran the frequency analysis on tracks 1 and 8 of both my copies the original release of E.T. (one marked ADD and one marked DDD). They are exactly the same.
Given the differences found by Gunnar, I'm convinced that we can confirm the story about the two versions of the original E.T. album. It looks like it works out the following way:

--If you have MCAD 37264 / DIDX-381 or something otherwise labelled as DDD, it is DDD.

--"If your MCAD-31073 disc has MCAD37264 on the inner ring underside of the CD it probably is also from the early 1980s digital master." I.e., it too is DDD. My copy of this disc is in storage so I cannot check the labeling but I'm hunching this is right, especially since the frequency analysis of my copy of MCAD-31073 is identical to MCAD 37264 / DIDX-381.

--If your disc is MCD 01878 / DMCL 1878, it is AAD.

If anyone else has encountered and AAD disc in the wild, post your disc numbers! It will help others pin down exactly what is on their discs!

 

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?forumID=1&pageID=2&threadID=93414&archive=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2017 at 7:34 AM, Jay said:

 

It IS chronological.

 

And yea, the complete score is 81 minutes as you can see in the main post, so the two shortest and most inconsequential cues had to be moved to disc two.

 

 

 

None, this release is complete.  I don't think you read his post clearly enough.  Bouzereau chose many wrong takes to put on his expansions instead of the correct takes chosen for the film.  So if you care about minor performance differences JW never intended to be heard, you can use the old CDs to hear those wrong takes.

 

 

Thank you. Chronological was a bad word.

 

Do we know why JW approved the Bouzereau expansion if some takes were not 100% correct? Did they only start to involve JW with expansions in recent years, or would he just not have heard the minor differences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think either one of them cared. Bouzereau didn't want to go to the trouble of "stitching" different takes, like MM does, as this is time consuming (and costly for them, I imagine) and JW doesn't even remember what takes were used and where, unless someone tells him. He just wants to see the $$$ in his bank account

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats to discuss? Its either the 1st or 2nd best score he's written per this site. Its so powerful that I personally listen and watch only with great breaks in between. I am sure when I die and go to heaven I will be given the ultimate definitive edition, God's approved version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is music appearing on this set that has been sitting in a vault unheard for 35 years, so that is certainly worth discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say that, analyzing it more carefully in the spectral view, I'm quite sure the 1/4" analog tape they used as source (as mentioned when the 4K Blu-ray set with the OST CD was announced) is most likely a dub of a digital master because there's nothing above 20kHz except tape hiss. That kind of frequency limiting is sort of typical of 80's and early 90's digital masters.

 

But don't worry. This is the best version of the '82 OST yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean?  It already has been since the tracklist was announced.  Is there something wrong on it?

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vT0E9cHkK-SqctUuLKYjNov1cm3DB7Dol3CCfQqmXPJUbNqwIrwdNTtn4FqV212S-3e_GltYaEDIUM8/pubhtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!  Yea, the TBD was just for the alternate takes, I can figure out how to describe the differences I suppose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The score sound quality is incredible and extremely well balanced and beautiful, which is even more remarkable for a score recorded 35 years go. 

 

The new material is fantastic.  "Stay With Me" is one of my favorite tracks, with a sweet rendition of the flying theme.  The ride music is short but wonderful, despite a noticeable sound quality dip as compared to the rest of the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea Stay With Me is an essential part of the score IMO.  That and the "ouch" scene insert really kick up the emotions higher than anything else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...