Harry Potter 7CD Collection - MUSIC discussion

[crumbs 14,306]

20 minutes ago, Incanus said:

I think it is down to the perspective in any given scene. Williams first take was light and jumpy which didn't really to my mind convey the fear and panic of being chased by a werewolf which the film version does with its more visceral take on the moment. The first version is more of whimsy of "oh crap we just realized that we goaded a werewolf to come after us. Let's skip away as quick as we can." The second version is "The big effing werewolf is coming for us and is going cut us into shreds! Panic! Help! It's coming! It's right on our tail! Run!"

 

Exactly. Two valid approaches but ultimately the more visceral choice wins out given the context of the scene and its placement in the narrative. It makes the following sequence, as Harry and Hermione hide in the forest, that much more suspenseful because it's clear this is a creature we should be terrified of. The lighter approach doesn't convey the same immediate terror.

 

Two newies:

 

 

[Arpy 4,145]

In my mind, the pizzicato version underscored Pettigrew's transformation and escape, I never thought it would go with the Werewolf chase!

[crumbs 14,306]

2 minutes ago, Arpy said:

In my mind, the pizzicato version underscored Pettigrew's transformation and escape, I never thought it would go with the Werewolf chase!

 

Exactly what I thought too. I think Williams planted that seed in my head with his OST assembly, adjoining these two exact cues (rather cleverly, I might add).

[Josh500 1,615]

38 minutes ago, Incanus said:

I think it is down to the perspective in any given scene. Williams first take was light and jumpy which didn't really to my mind convey the fear and panic of being chased by a werewolf which the film version does with its more visceral take on the moment. The first version is more of whimsy of "oh crap we just realized that we goaded a werewolf to come after us. Let's skip away as quick as we can." The second version is "The big effing werewolf is coming for us and is going cut us into shreds! Panic! Help! It's coming! It's right on our tail! Run!"

 

I don't quite agree. Both cues express the same thing, really, only in somewhat different ways. I still think what I posted earlier is correct. It was a balancing act. This cue is all about fear and panic, while simultaneously it needs to convey the eerie silence of the night and the hush-hush aspect of it, because Harry and Hermione don't want to draw attention to themselves as they try to get away. They're running away, but they're also sneaking and slinking away. So here JW couldn't just come in with the orchestra and do a full-out action cue like "The Jungle Chase" or "Incident as Islar Nubar"! It needed to be more quiet and subtle than that.

 

I understand what you're saying, but while spotting this scene, no way anybody--and least of all John Williams--can fail to grasp the meaning of it, the underlying panic, the fear, the sheer terror! 

 

I think JW partly compensated this distinctive lack of intensity of this cue by giving a sudden loud and unexpected burst of the orchestra (a burst of relief, really), once the immediate danger is past... the moment right after Buckbeak makes his appearance and drives the werewolf away, right before the glissando ("Buckbeak Saves the Day"). This moment expresses the aftershock, as it were, when the danger is past and our heroes, as well as the viewers, can breathe normally again, while the heart is still pounding. (Hermione: "That was so scary!")

 

But in any case, I really love both versions. The film version is a compromise and more of a traditional action cue, while the pizzicato version is the same thing, only more hushed and muted and fantastically surreal, as it were.

[Gurkensalat 340]

18 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

It's karma's payback for listening to bootlegs.

 

You mean, it is better to stay uninformed, so you would gladly accept compromised quality as „superior sound“ (as many are raving here about the severely dynamically compressed mastering of the box)?? i dońt think so.  

 

@Jay, I dońt want to nag too much about this, but if you could perhaps shed light on the matter, why it was decided to hamper the dynamic range so much, I would be grateful. I mean, I know that some compression is often deemed necessary, but I think in this case it has been turned on far too much. Was a box like this really made for customers with no interest in quality hi-fi playback? I am really puzzled. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

38 minutes ago, Gurkensalat said:

You mean, it is better to stay uninformed, so you would gladly accept compromised quality as „superior sound“ (as many are raving here about the severely dynamically compressed mastering of the box)?? i dońt think so.  

 

When the composer doesn't get paid for the bootlegs you're listening to, you're in fact stealing from him.

[Mr. Who 919]

7 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

When the composer doesn't get paid for the bootlegs you're listening to, you're in fact stealing from him.

I guess you have a moral point, but the amount of money that a composer makes from CD sales is next to nothing.

[crumbs 14,306]

2 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

When the composer doesn't get paid, you're in fact stealing from him.

 

In fairness, we cannot purchase what the composer doesn't officially release. A situation, mercifully, being resolved by Mike and the labels at an impressive pace.

 

Ironically, the availability of these unofficial releases (session leaks, promos, etc.) has surely contributed towards Williams endorsing MM producing such comprehensive official releases, to render the unsanctioned ones valueless.

[Mr. Who 919]

2 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

In fairness, we cannot purchase what the composer doesn't officially release. A situation, mercifully, being resolved by Mike and the labels at an impressive pace.

 

Ironically, the availability of these unofficial releases (session leaks, promos, etc.) has surely contributed towards Williams endorsing MM producing such comprehensive official releases, to render the unsanctioned ones valueless.

Exactly. And one can't forget the fact that the studio owns the music, not the composer (most of the time, unless it's a non film score work).

[crumbs 14,306]

27 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

I guess you have a moral point, but the amount of money that a composer makes from CD sales is next to nothing.

 

Pretty much. Williams probably made more money from residuals of Hedwig's Theme in the marketing for Fantastic Beasts than he will from LLL's Potter box.

 

His interest lies in having his music available in a form he approved, produced by someone he trusts. My gut feeling is Williams wants these expansions affordable for fans and profitable for labels so they can continue restoring his scores, thus is probably happy to take a 'marginal' cut of the profits.

 

He knows studios like Disney will fork out millions for another Star Wars score; it's those big studio scores that allow him to devote his time and resources to more personal interests, like donations to orchestras, independent recordings of concertos, etc.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

44 minutes ago, crumbs said:

In fairness, we cannot purchase what the composer doesn't officially release.

 

Oh, so it's OK to steal stuff that's not publicly available. I see! I'm glad we sorted this out! 👍

38 minutes ago, crumbs said:

His interest lies in having his music available in a form he approved, produced by someone he trusts. My gut feeling is Williams wants these expansions affordable for fans and profitable for labels so they can continue restoring his scores, thus is probably happy to take a 'marginal' cut of the profits.

 

I doubt he's taking a lower cut than what's usual with the speciality labels. If anything, his cut is probably higher because a John Williams album is almost guaranteed to sell out.

[Josh500 1,615]

It's never right to listen to bootlegs, let alone create them. Duh. I don't think this even needs to be discussed.

 

It's being done, sure, but it's still illegal, just like shoplifting. Everybody knows that's illegal too, but people still steal stuff because they (think they) can get away with it and companies and shops lose billions to shoplifters every year.

 

Anybody that claims bootlegs are not illegal just because the music is not legally available is out their mind! 

[Mr. Who 919]

20 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Oh, so it's OK to steal stuff that's not publicly available. I see! I'm glad we sorted this out! 👍

 

I doubt he's taking a lower cut than what's usual with the speciality labels. If anything, his cut is probably higher because a John Williams album is almost guaranteed to sell out.

But composers don’t make much money at all from CD sales. They get money from royalties and studio contracts.

5 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

It's never right to listen to bootlegs, let alone create them. Duh. I don't think this even needs to be discussed.

 

It's being done, sure, but it's still illegal, just like shoplifting. Everybody knows that's illegal too, but people still steal stuff because they (think they can) get away with it and companies and shops lose billions to shoplifters. 

 

Anybody that claims bootlegs are not illegal just because the music is not legally available is out their mind! 

So you think it's a problem if someone buys the blu ray of a movie, rips the audio and makes some edits using that audio?

 

Using this logic, you shouldn't listen to the Art of the Score HP3 Podcast episode either because they play "illegal stuff" which is always wrong...

[Josh500 1,615]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

 

So it is illegal for someone to buy the blu ray of a movie, rip the audio and make some edits based on that?

 

Have you ever read these warnings?

They don't show these just for fun, you know.

 

[Holko 9,516]

22 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

In fairness, we cannot purchase what the composer doesn't officially release.

 

Oh, so it's OK to steal stuff that's not publicly available. I see! I'm glad we sorted this out! 👍

 

Please tell me who the hell the victim of the crime of listening to unreleased music is. If the answer is the company that owns the unreleased music, the only people that can be blamed are themselves for not releasing it in the first place, therefore creating the situation. No loss is being created since that music is not available for revenue gain!

[Mr. Who 919]

Just now, Josh500 said:

 

Have you ever read these warnings?

They don't show these just for fun, you know.

 

I changed my post to is it wrong.

Just now, Holko said:

  

Please tell me who the hell the victim of the crime of listening to unreleased music is. If the answer is the company that owns the unreleased music, the only criminals are themselves for not releasing it in the first place, therefore creating the situation. No loss is being created since that music is not available for revenue gain!

Thank you!

[Josh500 1,615]

 

But if you bought the film, as long as you don't distribute parts of it, you should be fine. You can rip the music or whatever so long as it's for personal use. If they don't find out, that is.

[Mr. Who 919]

2 minutes ago, Josh500 said:

 

But if you bought the film, as long as you don't distribute parts of it, you should be fine. You can rip the music or whatever so long as it's you personal use. If they don't find out, that is.

I don't think Disney or WB will start an investigation because some fan of film music made some edits tbh...

 

But in all seriousness, did you listen to the Art of the Score HP3 podcast?

[Josh500 1,615]

You just aren't allowed to make money off of somebody else's work. Or distribute somebody else's work, even if you don't make money off of it (because there's a chance the owner or the artist may lose money because of it)!

 

It's simple really.

 

But what you do on your own computer with your own property for your own personal use, that's nobody's business or concern.

[Mr. Who 919]

The reason that bootlegs exist is that the OSTs often aren't good so it's great that companies such as LLL release these scores as they were meant to be heard officially, thus making bootlegs for said scores redundant.

[Josh500 1,615]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

The reason that bootlegs exist is that the OSTs often aren't good so it's great that companies such as LLL release these scores as they were meant to be heard officially, thus making bootlegs for said scores redundant.

 

Of course! Like I said many times, I personally never listen to bootlegs (or even the "leaked" music). I wouldn't feel comfortable and very good doing it.

 

I only listen to official releases, meaning OST albums, the expanded releases from specialty labels like LLL, and the music heard in the movies themselves, of course.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

14 minutes ago, Holko said:

Please tell me who the hell the victim of the crime of listening to unreleased music is. If the answer is the company that owns the unreleased music, the only people that can be blamed are themselves for not releasing it in the first place, therefore creating the situation. No loss is being created since that music is not available for revenue gain!

 

The greatest victims are the artists that created what you're stealing.

[Josh500 1,615]

22 minutes ago, Holko said:

No loss is being created since that music is not available for revenue gain!

 

What if the artist or the company decides to release it in the future?

 

And then they suddenly find out that there's no need to anymore, because it's been illegally distributed and anybody that would want it already owns it!?

 

Yeah, didn't think that through, did you?

[Holko 9,516]

.

[Josh500 1,615]

3 minutes ago, Holko said:

Then it's not fucking unreleased anymore, is it?

 

You don't get it, do you? 

 

Never mind, forget it. And stop cussing! 😂 

[Holko 9,516]

Didn't read that post properly.

Still I think they can mostly just blame themselves for not releasing it in the first place. Or they just have to find the right market, like say I dunno, 5000 limited copies? Preferably including things like a new superior master, unleaked bits and a wonderful packaging. Seems familiar...

[TSMefford 1,509]

I’m of the mindset, that regardless of whatever I may have had before, if an official release like this comes out, then I will immediately jump at the opportunity to support it. I’m pretty sure many of us here, regardless of what’s out there before, will still buy the official thing that is released. If it’s released then yes, I’ll buy the hell out of it. The mindset that anyone who wants it, already has it, is simply not true for everyone, especially not most here.

 

There are others of course. Ultimately, I think there’s no reason to illegally download officially released stuff. THAT is 100% morally wrong and damaging to the artist. And again, the only way I could ever feel right hearing something leaked, is if I am going to commit to purchasing it when it is. And so far, I have.

 

Also, I think there was discussion somewhere above that this set was overly compressed. I highly disagree. I was impressed by how much dynamic range there was. I’m sure the compression is equal to or less than the OST, which is also not bad.

[Arpy 4,145]

On the arguments concerning the sound quality, let me say that my hearing is fucked! I've lost the ability to discern if it's the music or my ears with the problem!

[crumbs 14,306]

 

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Oh, so it's OK to steal stuff that's not publicly available. I see! I'm glad we sorted this out! 👍 

 

Nice straw man's argument. Come on mate, you're far better than that. Leave the whole 'putting words in other people's mouths' routine to the usual suspect (the one most people have on ignore).

 

44 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

The greatest victims are the artists that created what you're stealing.

 

I agree with your sentiment but disagree with the context. The artist in question was paid to write this music for a film we paid to see. A film we've paid to own. A score we've paid to hear performed live by an orchestra. A soundtrack we've paid to listen to. And now an expanded soundtrack we've paid for as well.

 

The music in question was previously unreleased and unavailable for purchase, for no insignificant length of time either (nearly two decades for the first score, two thirds of my life!)

 

Studios have ignored our community for years simply because we're a niche market. You can't turn around and complain when people acquire unreleased materials if you're refusing to sell them (especially when the same people are more than happy to pay for them, as evidenced by this very release!)

[Josh500 1,615]

33 minutes ago, TSMefford said:

I’m of the mindset...

 

To be fair, this isn't about anybody's "mindset." The law states clearly what is legal and what is illegal...

 

Still, it's tolerated, I guess, as long as the loss isn't huge. 

 

20 minutes ago, Arpy said:

On the arguments concerning the sound quality, let me say that my hearing is fucked! I've lost the ability to discern if it's the music or my ears with the problem!

 

Why don't you listen to music you've owned a long time and see if it sounds different now?

[bollemanneke 3,342]

I stopped listening to bootlegs because they always seem to have problems, but I couldn't care less about them being illegal. They only exist because people are determined never to give us the proper album presentation from day one, meaning C&C. I'll buy any proper release of scores I like straightaway.

[Josh500 1,615]

12 minutes ago, bollemanneke said:

I'll buy any proper release of scores I like straightaway.

 

Me too. Many do.

 

But then, many don't. And there's the problem.

 

Some people here apparently don't understand that laws exist for a reason, and laws apply to everybody. I'm not saying that every law is correct and right, but this one sure makes sense. It's to protect the artist and the companies. If I was the artist, I'd expect such laws to protect me and my works!

[bollemanneke 3,342]

Don't know if this has already has been discussed, so... If the movie hadn't dialed out the opening seconds of Harry's Wish, would there have been a pause between Letters and Harry's wish? Or is it meant to be one piece of music?

[crumbs 14,306]

2 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

When the composer doesn't get paid for the bootlegs you're listening to, you're in fact stealing from him.

 

Just some friendly advice: if you're going to take the moral high ground on this issue, you might not want to 'like' posts featuring the exact illegal, bootlegged material you're complaining about.

 

 

After all, you'd be "stealing from him" by listening to it.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

19 minutes ago, crumbs said:

After all, you'd be "stealing from him" by listening to it.

 

I assumed it would have been taken down from YouTube if it wasn't legal. And I haven't said that I've never listened to illegally sourced music, but when I rarely do I have no problem admitting to myself that it's in fact stealing.

[Josh500 1,615]

Wow, looks like somebody can't admit when they're clearly in the wrong! Looks for any excuse and argument, no matter how weak and ridiculous.... 😂 

 

I think liking posts is still legal!

[crumbs 14,306]

18 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I assumed it would have been taken down from YouTube if it wasn't illegal. And I haven't said that I've never listened to illegally sourced music, but when I rarely do I have no problem admitting to myself that it's in fact stealing.

 

Then you really can't take the moral high ground on this issue, can you?

 

Based on your earlier arguments, whether or not it's been taken down from YouTube is irrelevant. Anything outside the official soundtrack releases is stealing from the composer, even YouTube clips. After all, Williams doesn't profit from those either (outside the officially sanctioned uploads, like on DisneyMusicVEVO).

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

Just now, crumbs said:

Anything outside the official soundtrack releases is stealing from the composer, even YouTube clips. 

 

No it isn't if it's approved by the right holders, or issued by them or one of their partners.

2 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Then you really can't take the moral high ground on this issue, can you?

 

Yes I can, because I don't claim it to be something that it isn't.

[Holko 9,516]

Anyone remember that time the EU commissioned a report about the effect of piracy on media sales and revenue and when it concluded there is no conclusively proveable link between them, tried to hush it all up because it did not fit their agenda of getting as much money into their pockets from bullshit as possible?

[crumbs 14,306]

11 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

No it isn't if it's approved by the right holders, or issued by them or one of their partners. 

 

...which I addressed in the very next sentence.

 

13 minutes ago, crumbs said:

After all, Williams doesn't profit from those either (outside the officially sanctioned uploads, like on DisneyMusicVEVO).

 

[Josh500 1,615]

12 minutes ago, Holko said:

Anyone remember that time the EU commissioned a report about the effect of piracy on media sales and revenue and when it concluded there is no conclusively proveable link between them, tried to hush it all up because it did not fit their agenda of getting as much money into their pockets from bulshit as possible?

 

The EU preaching about fighting corruption is hilarious. It's like the USA preaching about peace!

 

[bollemanneke 3,342]

14 minutes ago, Holko said:

Anyone remember that time the EU commissioned a report about the effect of piracy on media sales and revenue and when it concluded there is no conclusively proveable link between them, tried to hush it all up because it did not fit their agenda of getting as much money into their pockets from bullshit as possible?

I guess this happened before I started following current affairs.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

2 hours ago, Holko said:

Please tell me who the hell the victim of the crime of listening to unreleased music is. If the answer is the company that owns the unreleased music, the only people that can be blamed are themselves for not releasing it in the first place, therefore creating the situation. No loss is being created since that music is not available for revenue gain!

If you then buy LLL's Harry Potter box, there is no victim.

[Holko 9,516]

It'll get here on Monday! But that is not unreleased music.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

4 hours ago, Gurkensalat said:

You mean, it is better to stay uninformed, so you would gladly accept compromised quality as „superior sound“ (as many are raving here about the severely dynamically compressed mastering of the box)?? i dońt think so.  

 

@Jay, I dońt want to nag too much about this, but if you could perhaps shed light on the matter, why it was decided to hamper the dynamic range so much, I would be grateful. I mean, I know that some compression is often deemed necessary, but I think in this case it has been turned on far too much. Was a box like this really made for customers with no interest in quality hi-fi playback? I am really puzzled. 

The dynamic range of this set is great, you're just complaining, because you know the session leaks.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

3 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

The dynamic range of this set is great, you're just complaining, because you know the session leaks.

 

That's karma for you.

 

20 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

...which I addressed in the very next sentence.

 

 

It's up to the rightholders to decide what to give away for free, not you or me.

[Mr. Who 919]

5 minutes ago, Brundlefly said:

The dynamic range of this set is great, you're just complaining, because you know the session leaks.

I don’t know about the dynamic range but I prefer the OST mastsering of Hp2 over the LLL because the LLL is just a bit too sharp in my opinion. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

That's karma for you.

But he can still listen to the sessions so what’s the problem for him?

[crumbs 14,306]

21 minutes ago, Holko said:

Anyone remember that time the EU commissioned a report about the effect of piracy on media sales and revenue and when it concluded there is no conclusively proveable link between them, tried to hush it all up because it did not fit their agenda of getting as much money into their pockets from bullshit as possible?

 

Still a better result than what the Australian government has done -- legalised the ability for media companies to apply for bans on websites featuring pirated material.

[Jurassic Shark 12,051]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Who said:

But he can still listen to the sessions so what’s the problem for him?

 

I don't think he sees any problems.

[Brundlefly 2,385]

13 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

That's karma for you.

Why for me?