Jump to content

Schindler's List - 2CD 25th Anniversary Edition from La-La Land Records (2018)


Recommended Posts

My first few tries with the OST on Spotify failed partly due to weird and offputting wowing or warping during Immolation, that I do not know whether is on the original OST master or not - it's not present on the LLL set for sure, that one sounds great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 781
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A rare picture from the Boston scoring sessions back in summer 1993:    

Schindler's List was recorded onto analog tape that is perfectly vaulted at Universal with no issues.  Those original tapes were not pulled to assemble this release; they've probably been sitting in t

I'm sorry but that's just not true.  Other than source music, everything's here.

1 hour ago, Holko said:

My first few tries with the OST on Spotify failed partly due to weird and offputting wowing or warping during Immolation, that I do not know whether is on the original OST master or not - it's not present on the LLL set for sure, that one sounds great.

Probably a bad digital "master", happens a lot. Probably low bitrate..

Link to post
Share on other sites

My impression was, that they were happy with how it sounded, and didn’t want to mess with it.

 

The soundtrack as it was recorded can also be considered a timeless piece of art, a unique window into its time to when it was created (and what is was created for) not to be messed with lightly.

 

Having the original re-releases keeps the authenticity, I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Is there anything wrong with the sound of the Gold Disc, which masters were used here?

 

Nope, nothing wrong with it at all. It would be nice if the new tracks were mastered the same though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I'd say he just had to use less than desirable sources for this release, probably ancient digital masters from the sessions themselves.

 

No doubt modern scans of the analogue tapes would've sounded superior but the budget was quite tight on this release, or so they said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious.

 

Sounds dubious to me that “budget reasons” would be behind a blunder like this. That is no reason to put out a sub-par release.

 

Furthermore, I doubt that “ancient digital masters” would be the better explanation - it’s probably a worse one - no one would record music in such a way.

 

Curious. And disappointing.

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

I'd say he just had to use less than desirable sources for this release, probably ancient digital masters from the sessions themselves.

 

No doubt modern scans of the analogue tapes would've sounded superior but the budget was quite tight on this release, or so they said. 

Why on earth would they have a tight budget for THIS release? If money was an issue, I mean... Saving Private Ryan...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

Y'all just need to stop whining and wait for the 35th anniversary rerelease. I guarantee you they'll find previously undiscovered sources, and Schindler's List will sound better than ever!

 

And including the source music!

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

AOL?

 

Several of the OST tracks used for the LLL set were taken from promotional AOL files WB had (https://www.aol.com/) back when Azkaban was out. 

56 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

That nobody needed SPR if it meant a decent SL.

Who decides who should have SPR or SL? Shouldn't that be on an individual basis? I didn't have either score on CD before this so they were sets I would buy.

 

 

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

If it was I wouldnt be asking for clarification.

 

But that doesnt make any sense.

 

Releasing SPR doesnt mean there was no budget for SL. 

Assuming you're right about this, it makes everything even more idiotic. Why would one have a limited budget for a release of this magnitude? There are dozens of releases that could survive with a tight budget, not this one. That's just my view, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people have complained that CD2 sounds different in terms of mastering - this could be part of the problem.

 

Probably, this is a mess up somewhere in the manufacturing process, maybe while delivering the files to the CD plant? It doesn’t really matter. Shameful is what it is, no matter the excuse.

 

But I am sure it’s not intentional. It seems that the whole team is dedicated to delivering the best product possible, which makes the whole thing more sad.

 

This is not what they sold us, and this not what we bought. If the files do exist in lossless quality (of course they do!), then replacement discs should be offered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, do the leaked recording sessions have the same frequency cutoffs in their spectograms?

 

As for the tighter budget on the Schindler's List expansion (and hopefully I'm not putting words in Mike's mouth here) but I'm certain that information came from MM himself, in an interview or podcast around the time of the Potter release.

 

Williams was satisfied with the existing audio quality so no modern scans were done of the analogue masters for this score (exact same situation as SPR). CD1 is a bit-for-bit repress of the existing album master, CD2 is comprised of tracks taken directly from Shawn Murphy's digital masters made in 1993.

 

Thinking about it further, I'd guess the frequency cutoff is unrelated to Shawn's digital masters and could be a problem introduced somewhere in Mike's workflow. A little weird considering something very similar happened to Azkaban, but that was actually an issue with what WB supplied him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rough cut said:

Probably, this is a mess up somewhere in the manufacturing process, maybe while delivering the files to the CD plant? It doesn’t really matter. 

 

Very unlikely since it doesn't affect all the tracks + in the last track, some parts are lossy, some are lossless. IMO MIke just used a problematic source for some parts of the previously unreleased music.

4 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Out of interest, do the leaked recording sessions have the same frequency cutoffs in their spectograms?

Did the sessions leak in lossless btw?

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

Very unlikely since it doesn't affect all the tracks + in the last track, some parts are lossy, some are lossless. IMO MIke just used a problematic source for some parts of the previously unreleased music.

 

Well, somebody, f-ed up somewhere in the process, because I highly doubt that MM (as a producer) or LLL (as a label) would greenlight a product that is as low-fi as this.

 

I doubt that it could be done without a disclaimer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arpy said:

Can anyone actually hear the cut-off? It was like with Azkaban with the cues taken from AOL - No one would've noticed it unless they looked at the spectrograms!

It's not noticeable, to me at least.

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

Apart from the obvious difference in sound between both discs, the abscence of source music really bothers me as well. I just don't buy the whole 'the album is too important to change' thing.

 

You don't think Williams feels protective of this particular album? Why would Mike lie about that? Why would he implicate Williams if there was something else going on?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I mean. I mean that, whether Williams likes it or not, the source music was part of the movie and the movie's soundtrack expansion should reflect the completeness we're used to these days. This is not a standalone album, it's music that resulted from a movie and no one is going to think that including the source music somehow trivialises the subject or whatever. I bet you anything that in five/ten years, or when Williams is no longer with us, no one will give a damn about those reservations anymore. It's just yet another way to make it better in the future. That's what bothers me. We're expected to be happy knowing full well that this is far from complete.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jay said:

No one's forcing you to buy this.  The people who did work on it after Spielberg asked for something to happen did the best they could with the limitations stipulated by the composer.  I think the second disc sounds great and flows nicely as a mini-album of its own, personally.


I am sure one day in the future after Williams, and maybe after Spielberg, has passed, a new comprehensive edition where the original session tapes are pulled and all source music is included could be possible, but that simply wasn't possible to do here.  It was either do nothing, or do what they did.  And I am glad they did what they did.

 

Agreed! The simple fact is if that if Williams or Spielberg veto something about these releases, then LLL, Mike etc simply have to respect that.

 

Oneday there might be a release that's more to Bolleke's liking 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like the secomd disc very much, as a shorter and less heavy mini-album. The source, from small samples, is nice, but none of it Williams, and I don't feel they're very relevant for the score as it is. Could clash thematically either - at the expense of being tasteless for hyperbole, "Party like the Nazi Party" á la "Music from Amity Town Beach" would just be wrong.

 

Some info on the apparent imperfectness of the sources would be welcome, though it's not audible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an issues with the release audio-wise, although I don't have a great sound system.  I would like to someday see a definitive release with the music chronologically on disc one with source music and alternates on disc two.  

 

I totally get why they released it the way they did for the 25th anniversary.  This is not your typical film / score release and obviously has more "reverence" than say, Hook or Indiana Jones, for example.  JW/SS very easily could have said "Just re-release the OST" and be done with it!  I'm thankful for the additional material we did get on disc two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fine with the selection of bonus tracks for SL. I am probably missing the waltz more from Dracula then, but that’s a discussion for another thread.

 

But the omission of bonus material is currently not the big problem that has surfaced regarding this release, sound quality is.

 

So far, I’ve only listened to CD2 once. I didn’t do it in conjunction with any material from CD1, so I had no point of reference, I just listened to it as a “mini LP” as suggested and I listened more for the flow/experience than focusing on sound quality (in other words, having a smoke and messing about with my phone).

 

It’s hard to tell if you notice the difference (lack of fidelity) when you’ve got nothing to compare it to, for example, different (re-) masters of the same albums.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stefancos said:

 

Agreed! The simple fact is if that if Williams or Spielberg veto something about these releases, then LLL, Mike etc simply have to respect that.

 

Oneday there might be a release that's more to Bolleke's liking 

But that's only because they are obsessed with JW approving every breath they take. If Spielberg wanted something to happen, shouldn't that be enough to do it properly once and for all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

You know what will happen if they don't take Williams' wishes into account?

 

It simply doesn't get released.

 

Why would Spielberg sign off on something knowing Williams doesn't approve? Why would Universal?

 

 

As I understood it, Williams approving things was just a sign of respect from the labels and not a legal requirement at all. Didn't the studio own everything? But whatever the arrangements are, it won't change my mind. I didn't see anyone exclude James Horner's 'sketch' from Titanic simply because the man didn't like it at the time of the movie's release.

Link to post
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...