Harry Potter 7CD Collection - SAMPLES and clips discussion

[Datameister 2,034]

The questions of chronology and completeness are pretty interesting to me. My preference is to have all the material recorded (one take or mixture of takes per cue, including any alternates that were recorded). I'm fine with cues that are overlapped/segued as the composer intended for the film, and I'm fine with cues presented out of order as long as they don't overlap noticeably. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, I'd love to have everything cleanly separated - not because that's the version I would listen to most often, but because that gives me more flexibility in terms of how I want to listen to the score. I do like to hear clean openings/endings simply because I find them interesting, and then it's easy enough for me to put cues together if I want them that way. But again, hey, as long as nothing is overlapped in ways that go against the intentions for the film, I'm pretty happy. And that certainly seems to be the approach that's happening these days with these releases. Hopefully it has continued with the Potter set.

 

And for those who say the only valid way to enjoy music is in an assembly that's different from the film...okay, cool, that's awesome that you prefer to listen to it that way, but I'm still gonna enjoy what I enjoy, just like you're going to enjoy what you're going to enjoy. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

[TSMefford 1,509]

11 minutes ago, Datameister said:

The questions of chronology and completeness are pretty interesting to me. My preference is to have all the material recorded (one take or mixture of takes per cue, including any alternates that were recorded). I'm fine with cues that are overlapped/segued as the composer intended for the film, and I'm fine with cues presented out of order as long as they don't overlap noticeably. Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world, I'd love to have everything cleanly separated - not because that's the version I would listen to most often, but because that gives me more flexibility in terms of how I want to listen to the score. I do like to hear clean openings/endings simply because I find them interesting, and then it's easy enough for me to put cues together if I want them that way. But again, hey, as long as nothing is overlapped in ways that go against the intentions for the film, I'm pretty happy. And that certainly seems to be the approach that's happening these days with these releases. Hopefully it has continued with the Potter set.

 

And for those who say the only valid way to enjoy music is in an assembly that's different from the film...okay, cool, that's awesome that you prefer to listen to it that way, but I'm still gonna enjoy what I enjoy, just like you're going to enjoy what you're going to enjoy. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

 

Yes. This. As long as I am able to make it how I want it easily, then I’m fine.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I asked this before, and I'll ask it again, with every intention of just understanding your points of view: do y'all enjoy "assembling" these releases yourselves, making your own album presentations?

[Josh500 1,615]

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

And for those who say the only valid way to enjoy music is in an assembly that's different from the film...

 

And who is saying that? 

 

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

okay, cool, that's awesome that you prefer to listen to it that way, but I'm still gonna enjoy what I enjoy, just like you're going to enjoy what you're going to enjoy.

 

Absolutely nobody would object to that, I'm sure.

 

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

Sorry if that's a problem for you.

 

And sorry if the way the music is presented on the album by the composer (or MM) is a problem for you.

 

36 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

I asked this before, and I'll ask it again, with every intention of just understanding your points of view: do y'all enjoy "assembling" these releases yourselves, making your own album presentations?

 

Some of us apparently do. And that's fine, as long as they derive pleasure from it.

 

Not me, though. I never have assembled an album myself (other than shuffling the tracks around in my own playlist). Never had the time to bother with it, for one thing, and never really saw the point, for another.

[King Mark 3,624]

9 hours ago, Once said:

If every cue has a clean start and ending I don’t care about the order.

 Yeah that was my point . If they had presented  the cues split up and reversed the order then who cares. Why did they have to join THOSE cues when the rest of the c.d is full of  short 1 minute cues anyways..

 

Having done fan edits over the years, nothing sounds worse than  splitting up cues that are crossfaded together  without a final note  fade out. Fake fadeouts sound like shit and splitting them anyways is the # 1 thing that sounds bad in fan edits.

 

JUST for that I want the SW prequels even though 95% of the music is released in some form

[TSMefford 1,509]

51 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

I asked this before, and I'll ask it again, with every intention of just understanding your points of view: do y'all enjoy "assembling" these releases yourselves, making your own album presentations?

 

Yes. Some of us do. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

3 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

 

Yes. Some of us do. 

 

Is it like a creative hobby for you?

[King Mark 3,624]

yeah I did this too

 

I reworked Ce3K extensively  .And I  couldn't have done it myself. I followed a complicated guide on this forum

[TSMefford 1,509]

4 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

Is it like a creative hobby for you?

 

Sure. But yeah it’s just hobby. I won’t lose my mind if I never get a clean opening or closing of a cue. But I always prefer it if I can get it. If not, hey, I’ll take whatever is offered.

 

For example: I could’ve (and still do) lived without the clean ending of Finale and the clean opening of the Credits from Force Awakens. That happens to be available, but I don’t listen to it often. I find it interesting to have though. 

 

I just have a love for music editing and this gives me an opportunity for that. I do it all, chronological, film edits, etc. My playlists are sometime quite the mess.

 

Its all good fun. And, of course, I can create whatever listening experience I want. Either way there is nothing wrong with how Mike ends up having done it. Just personal preference 

[Datameister 2,034]

35 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

And who is saying that?

 

A few relevant quotes from you and others:

 

Quote

If anything, my opinion is, the composer should have all the freedom to decide the order in which to present their score (within reason). If some people don't like that, why, they should just rewatch the movie!

 

Quote

You are supposed to listen to an album. It is about the music, not about... whatever some of you think it is all about.

 

Quote

[John Williams] has a mixed track record, for sure, but still, he obviously can watch a movie scene ten times and still knows that you can't just present a 150 minute score without editorializing the content at least in some way.

 

I admit, I'm perhaps a little sensitized to it because there've been other conversations that have gone that way over the years, too. But still, the message here is that I (and others like me) am wrong to want what I want. My only response to that can be...okay, sorry? Imma do me.

 

And again...to be clear...I'm guessing this Potter set is assembled to cater both to folks who want a pleasant listen right out of the box (like you) and to folks who want to be able to customize the assembly if we want (like me), so no complaints here.

[TSMefford 1,509]

Look. We all listen to the music here. We all love the music. Regardless of in what order we listen to (and prefer) it.

 

I switch back and forth on that depending on what mood I’m in. Am I in a purely enjoyment listening mood or am I in the analytical listening mood?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

2 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

Look. We all listen to the music here. We all love the music. Regardless of in what order we listen to (and prefer) it.

 

Yeah, but I listen to it in a better way than you. *takes drag of cigarette*

[TSMefford 1,509]

Just now, Nick Parker said:

 

Yeah, but I listen to it in a better way than you. *takes drag if cigarette*

 

Lol.

 

You know, sometimes I just want to listen to the music and sometimes I want to hear how the music develops throughout the film (which it needs to be in film order for), but there is no one way. 

 

Im glad that there are people who are purely for the listening experience. It’s certainly the easier option. XD. Some of these film edits are stupidly complicated to put together (not necessarily in Potter)

[Josh500 1,615]

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

I admit, I'm perhaps a little sensitized to it because there've been other conversations that have gone that way over the years, too. But still, the message here is that I (and others like me) am wrong to want what I want. My only response to that can be...okay, sorry? Imma do me.

 

And again...to be clear...I'm guessing this Potter set is assembled to cater both to folks who want a pleasant listen right out of the box (like you) and to folks who want to be able to customize the assembly if we want (like me), so no complaints here.

 

Again, look, I don't have any problem with folks enjoying music in their own way (i.e. assembling their own "tailor-made" album). Why would I? Why would anybody?

 

Likewise, I don't have any problem with the composer presenting us their work in the way they see fit. It's their creation after all, they should by all means have some freedom in that area...

 

Again, I myself have no problem with either, like you insinuated. It's just that sometimes--the way I understand it--the former (like yourself) have a problem with the latter (the composer or MM). I was simply addressing that. 

 

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

And again...to be clear...I'm guessing this Potter set is assembled to cater both to folks who want a pleasant listen right out of the box (like you) and to folks who want to be able to customize the assembly if we want (like me), so no complaints here.

 

Indeed! 

 

We're both old-time JWfan members. These subjects come up from time to time. That's just the nature of this group. Yeah, I say, let's all enjoy this wonderful set, which looks to be (more or less) perfect anyway.

 

[King Mark 3,624]

I''ll leave this set exactly the way it is

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

You guys constantly criticize OSTs, but I am a true believer that a lot of thought goes into their creation. I frequently opt for the album as it's the way the composer intended it to be experienced apart from the film and I tend to agree with them in many cases.

 

Certain cues simply don't work when you detach them from the film. This is the case with many short tracks on these expanded releases or film versions that were edited to make more sense musically on album, such as the ending of Incident at Isla Nublar.

 

With Potter, you're dealing with so much music it's basically overwhelming. I'm not sure I could salvage a listening experience to my liking from it.

[King Mark 3,624]

I've never re-listened to an OST once expanded scores are out.

 

I gave up halfway thought the Star Wars De-Masters

 

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I'm sure you did.

[Mr. Who 919]

Except for Azkaban, I haven’t listened to a HP ost for years, always the complete scores.

[scallenger 480]

This isn't really a criticism as much as it is an inquiry in a way for people here, but: do you ever sometimes wish concert versions of tracks could be included, if there was room for them in a set? I know they aren't recorded with the film, so most see them as something arbitrary to include (especially when some are re-arranged by Williams years later). Granted it would always depend on availability on if there IS a recording available, and maybe fees of usage are another factor as to why they are not present since it would of course be credited to a different orchestra and possibly conductor, etc. But, for example, Prisoner of Azkaban's "Double Trouble" and "Window To The Past" concert versions are wonderfully done variations created by Williams. Sometimes these concert versions even feel like they expand upon the material and let it flow even more freely than when it had been set to the confines of the films. To me it is kind of no different than like having the E.T. Adventure music included; it expanded upon the score even further using its themes, and therefore feels vital to the presentation for some (like myself).

 

Of course, all of us can muster up various files of these concert versions and just slap them at the end of the released presentations; but I'm just wondering if anyone wishes they would sometimes be included to make them truly be the end-all be-all CD releases of the scores?

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

The PoA concert arrangements were written after the score was recorded and haven’t - to my knowledge - ever been recorded by JW himself. I can’t imagine it would meet his approval to have, say, the Prague recording of Double Trouble on a set like this. No disrespect to the musicians but they are very clearly not a top-tier recording orchestra compared to the LSO and its satellite ensembles. It really wouldn’t sit right to have those very flawed performances alongside these pristine recordings. 

 

Now what we really need is for Williams to record an album with all of these concert suites! Everything post 2003, and no Star Wars main titles or Raiders Marches are allowed!

[bollemanneke 3,334]

Aha! Methinks I just found my window to the past alternates! The OST track is called A Window To The Past and has a runtime of 3:54, but the track on this glorious set is called Window to the Past and has a runtime of 3:58. Hope is restored.

[scallenger 480]

Couldn't those 4 extra seconds just be extra silence?

[crumbs 14,287]

24 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Aha! Methinks I just found my window to the past alternates! The OST track is called A Window To The Past and has a runtime of 3:54, but the track on this glorious set is called Window to the Past and has a runtime of 3:58. Hope is restored.

 

Sorry to break it to you but all the OST tracks on the LLL set are 3-4 seconds longer than their OST equivalent.

 

Any track on the LLL set with the same track title as an OST track has identical content (with a few extra seconds of silence, seemingly).

 

[publicist 4,643]

3 hours ago, Datameister said:

I admit, I'm perhaps a little sensitized to it because there've been other conversations that have gone that way over the years, too. But still, the message here is that I (and others like me) am wrong to want what I want. My only response to that can be...okay, sorry? Imma do me.

 

And again...to be clear...I'm guessing this Potter set is assembled to cater both to folks who want a pleasant listen right out of the box (like you) and to folks who want to be able to customize the assembly if we want (like me), so no complaints here.

 

You get what you get on these cd's and that's that. So it's just a bit of pretty inconsequential rambling going on here, no need to be overly dramatic about it. To have both viewpoints balances an imho very unhealthy, obsessing way of hovering over this (and other) music transferred from one medium to another (i have not heard this set, so i have no idea how well it works in this instance).

 

I usually don't chime in on discussions like this, but the sheer amount of desperation over such minor things is half amusing, half embarrassing to me as part of this board: the same people hardly ever are able to come up with something inspiring, or analytically interesting, about either music or movie they so desperately cling to, so i can safely say what drives me up the wall is just a personality mismatch - OCD fans just are my natural target.

 

[crumbs 14,287]

... or perhaps people just enjoy hearing all the music composed by their favourite artist for a film they like, including abandoned early versions of cues (which provide valuable insight into his writing process), and don't feel compelled to justify their viewpoint to other people?

[publicist 4,643]

Jeez, it's not called DISCUSSION BOARD so you can come here and collect likes, pal. Deal with it.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

I suggest we all ignore each other to avoid any possible discussion.

[crumbs 14,287]

3 minutes ago, publicist said:

Jeez, it's not called DISCUSSION BOARD so you can come here and collect likes, pal. Deal with it.

 

What the hell is your issue? You put forth an opinion, I put forth a reply.

 

In your own words, "it's a DISCUSSION BOARD, deal with it!"

[publicist 4,643]

No, you questioned the validity of doing so, which is a hell of a difference. 

[crumbs 14,287]

1 minute ago, publicist said:

No, you questioned the validity of doing so, which is a hell of a difference.  

 

Not even remotely. I put forth a calm, alternative explanation to your simplistic "analysis" of what motivates other fans who are interested in hearing all the variants of music Williams wrote for a score. Meanwhile, you threw out statements like this:

 

19 minutes ago, publicist said:

the sheer amount of desperation over such minor things is half amusing, half embarrassing to me

 

20 minutes ago, publicist said:

the same people hardly ever are able to come up with something inspiring, or analytically interesting, about either music or movie they so desperately cling to

 

[publicist 4,643]

Whatever. You are just not a worthy foe. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

[crumbs 14,287]

😂

 

"Whatever." The sign of reasoned debate, that is!

[Luke Skywalker 1,791]

It is curious that Mike spent years convincing williams to allow c&c releases and in the end it have been Williams who has convinced him on the contrary.....

 

If that's being the case from now on, then I would prefer the ceotk-e.t. way of things. Relegating the unmixed cues and or the short cues that may be not included in the main program  to the bonus cd section... 

[TownerFan 4,983]

I completely trust Mike's decisions when it comes to these things. I won't get mad because he preferred not to be slave to the film order. These things are just details, especially in a case like this where the presentation is 99.9% chronological nonetheless. The fact he puts thought into pure musical considerations is imho a great plus.

[crumbs 14,287]

7 minutes ago, Luke Skywalker said:

It is curious that Mike spent years convincing williams to allow c&c releases and in the end it have been Williams who has convinced him on the contrary.....

 

I think it might be more a case of "pick your battles." No doubt each release Mike tackles is filled with a list of requests from Williams regarding the assembly, both cue chronology and cue inclusion. It makes perfect sense that MM is prepared to show flexibility on the chronology side if it means Williams is prepared to show flexibility on the inclusion side (so no microedits and no omission of cues/key alternates).

 

MM knows better than anyone that if he can keep this working relationship mutually agreeable, it will continue to reap rewards going forth. If he questions and refutes every request made by Williams it could ultimately result in JW becoming dismissive of their collaboration.

 

As with any working relationship, if both sides are prepared to bend then both sides stand to reap rewards. And we're hardly talking bizarre cue combinations like Incident at Isla Nublar; Mike is cleverly combining complimentary cues that work better in tandem than sandwiched between contrasting cues that clash.

[Josh500 1,615]

6 hours ago, scallenger said:

Couldn't those 4 extra seconds just be extra silence?

 

And those 4 seconds were conducted by JW too!

 

5 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

I think it might be more a case of "pick your battles." No doubt each release Mike tackles is filled with a list of requests from Williams regarding the assembly, both cue chronology and cue inclusion. It makes perfect sense that MM is prepared to show flexibility on the chronology side if it means Williams is prepared to show flexibility on the inclusion side (so no microedits and no omission of cues/key alternates).

 

MM knows better than anyone that if he can keep this working relationship mutually agreeable, it will continue to reap rewards going forth. If he questions and refutes every request made by Williams it could ultimately result in JW becoming dismissive of their collaboration.

 

As with any working relationship, if both sides are prepared to bend then both sides stand to reap rewards.

 

And that's exactly as it should be! 

 

I can't stand the folks (and I won't name names here) that are so arrogant and obnoxious as to treat JW like some third party that dared to meddle in the score's presentation. I mean WTF, seriously! Even if I personally don't like or understand some of the decisions made (which generally revolves around the question of omission and inclusion, as well as joining together of non-chronological cues), I at least respect the decision made and try to approach the result with an open mind.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

4 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

And those 4 seconds were conducted by JW too!

 

And not least composed!

[TownerFan 4,983]

5 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

I think it might be more a case of "pick your battles." No doubt each release Mike tackles is filled with a list of requests from Williams regarding the assembly, both cue chronology and cue inclusion. It makes perfect sense that MM is prepared to show flexibility on the chronology side if it means Williams is prepared to show flexibility on the inclusion side (so no microedits and no omission of cues/key alternates).

 

Or perhaps Mike went a different route by himself because he felt changing order of some cues or assembling them differently than the film presentation was musically more satisfying. These things are not science, in the end all is up to a choice that can or can't be agreed with. I truly believe Mike showed such a great deal of care to detail that he got our complete trust when it comes to such decisions. Let's just not obsess over such minutiae, we might be missing the forest for the trees.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

11 minutes ago, crumbs said:

And we're hardly talking bizarre cue combinations like Incident at Isla Nublar

 

What's wrong about that, musically speaking?

[crumbs 14,287]

6 minutes ago, TownerFan said:

 

Or perhaps Mike went a different route by himself because he felt changing order of some cues or assembling them differently than the film presentation was musically more satisfying. These things are not science, in the end all is up to a choice that can or can't be agreed with. I truly believe Mike showed such a great deal of care to detail that he got our complete trust when it comes to such decisions. Let's just not obsess over such minutiae, we might be missing the forest for the trees. 

 

Also, that the more he collaborates with Williams, the more he's understanding how to present his initial assemblies in ways that Williams' ears won't immediately perk up and go, 'hold on a minute...' such as with the Jurassic Park expansion (which MM had to fight to retain).

 

In turn, he could well end up getting away with the inclusion of more material that Williams might otherwise request omitted.

 

5 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

What's wrong about that, musically speaking?

 

Musically speaking, nothing, the transition works fine for an OST. Does it work in a release attempting a chronological presentation of the Jurassic Park score? OF COURSE NOT. The two cues are separated by over 13 cues in the score proper!

 

Conversely, if you're talking about moving a cue up or down a few spots (For Mina being a good example) it's not such a big deal -- especially when the result improves the musical flow.

[Luke Skywalker 1,791]

All I can say is that I'm glad that the JP collection was released when Mike was still a c&c kind of guy. 😝

[Josh500 1,615]

8 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Also, that the more he collaborates with Williams, the more he's understanding how to present his initial assemblies in ways that Williams' ears won't immediately perk up and go, 'hold on a minute...' such as with the Jurassic Park C&C assembly (which he had to fight hard to retain).

 

In turn, he could well end up getting away with the inclusion of more material that Williams might otherwise request omitted.

 

I very much doubt it's like that at all. That rather sounds like MM's trying to fool and deceive JW and jockeying for advatage every step of the way... I don't like that. No.

 

It's more like JW expressing his personal wishes, and MM considering them carefully, telling him what's feasible and what's generally being requested by fans. No deception, just an open and honest conversation and discussion as to shape an album that best satisfies all parties. 

 

 

[bollemanneke 3,334]

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

 

Sorry to break it to you but all the OST tracks on the LLL set are 3-4 seconds longer than their OST equivalent.

 

Any track on the LLL set with the same track title as an OST track has identical content (with a few extra seconds of silence, seemingly).

 

Yes, but the thing is, the track names ARE different and Jay said all OST track names, if the content of these tracks was identical, had to be retained. Also, A Window to the Past has some totally superfluous content, it basically repeats part of the end credits and Woods Walk. Hardly worth including.

[MedigoScan 324]

I will throw in my hat and say I prefer the method for the 2016 JW collection over the 20th anniversary release

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

10 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

Musically speaking, nothing, the transition works fine for an OST. Does it work in a release attempting a chronological presentation of the Jurassic Park score? OF COURSE NOT. The two cues are separated by over 13 cues in the score proper!

 

I don't see why an expanded score needs to be chronological, if it improves the listening experience to combine cues.

[crumbs 14,287]

15 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

I very much doubt it's like that at all. That rather sounds like MM's trying to fool and deceive JW and jockeying for advatage every step of the way... I don't like that. No. 

 

What the actual fuck are you talking about?? This is an insanely contrived misinterpretation of my post and I DO NOT appreciate having my words twisted in such a way, nor my motivations painted in such a deceptive, false manner.

 

I made no insinuation even remotely resembling your comment and have nothing but admiration for Mike and his process (which continues to bear fruit and evolve with each new JW collaboration).

 

You really should stop and think for half a second before posting comments like this.

 

14 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

Yes, but the thing is, the track names ARE different and Jay said all OST track names, if the content of these tracks was identical, had to be retained.

 

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. Your sentence is a literal contradiction; every track in the table I posted shares track names across both releases.

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

10 minutes ago, crumbs said:

every track in the table I posted shares track names across both releases.

 

...and therefore they're identical.

[crumbs 14,287]

Correct, as I posted an hour ago:

 

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Any track on the LLL set with the same track title as an OST track has identical content (with a few extra seconds of silence, seemingly).