Josh500 1,615 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 Abandoned in the Woods . . . the main melody is repeated like four or five times. Can anyone tell me which instruments play the main melody??? I know the written score is not available, but can anyone tell just by listening to it?What I figure is this (I know it's wrong): 1. clarinet/bassoon? . . . . flute/clarinet2. brass (horn, trumpet, trombone) . . . . . strings3. strings . . . . . brass4. strings . . . . . crash of the pianos5. muted horn?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie 45 Posted March 7, 2005 Share Posted March 7, 2005 2. is horn and muted trumpet i think3. has horn as well?4. has horn and trumpet as well?5. has clarinet as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris ChrusherComix 46 Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Great cue, although I can't answer the question at hand. However, confusing... you have album version, film version, alternae version... no shortage of renditions, that's for sure. I prefer the album version myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo17nz 0 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Williams uses a lot of horn doubling w/wind or strings. Perhaps too much at times. I agree that Abandoned in the Woods is an excellent cue, however listening to it again & again I find it toooo virtuostic/bravuraesque for the film itself, as Thomas Newman said in an interview once the music is not supposed to be noticed to the extent to which the composer is trying to show off his/her ability it's supposed to supplement........although having said that its fun for the orchestra to play.........! And the CD soundtrack will not sell wel if the music is too intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSM 126 Posted March 9, 2005 Share Posted March 9, 2005 Thomas Newman said in an interview once the music is not supposed to be noticed to the extent to which the composer is trying to show off his/her ability it's supposed to supplement........Williams himself said this too.MSM - who never saw A.I. and is happy with just the music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh500 1,615 Posted March 9, 2005 Author Share Posted March 9, 2005 Thomas Newman said in an interview once the music is not supposed to be noticed to the extent to which the composer is trying to show off his/her ability it's supposed to supplement........Except when the music is composed by John Williams!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo17nz 0 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 LOL! I guess Williams's music is popular because his music works 60-80 % in a film like E.T. but it also makes Universal/20th century etc. some $$$$$ when sold as an albulm. Also with Star Wars - the theme primarily.As opposed to say Thomas Newman....Whose music works on a more intellectual level with the film. But doesn't sell well commercially....If I were a film director I would chose the logical option thesedays......to make money....therefore Williams is more in demand because he is a good composer and makes the film companies more money.Having said all this of course Superman, Star Wars, E.T. , Indiana Jones are all films of past decades. Their music is overall non-subtle (ie typical of the 1970's and early eighties( and favours the brass section. In direct contrast for example would be say ...... Amistad, Schindlers List, Catch me if you can would be borderline. To me anyway Williams's scores tend to be less Romantic and brassy thesedays as the public does not favour the blandness of Trumpets playing an octave or two fortissimo above everyone else in the orchestra.My 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 If I were a film director I would chose the logical option thesedays......to make money....What?I think you mean if you were a producer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh500 1,615 Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 So no one can give a definite answer to my original question??? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie 45 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 So no one can give a definite answer to my original question??? :roll:1. oboe, bassoon... flute, oboe, bassoon2. muted horn, muted trumpet... upper strings3. muted horn, strings... muted horns4. upper flutes, muted horn, muted upper trumpet, strings...5. muted horn, clarinet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh500 1,615 Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 So no one can give a definite answer to my original question??? :roll:1. oboe, bassoon... flute, oboe, bassoon2. muted horn, muted trumpet... upper strings3. muted horn, strings... muted horns4. upper flutes, muted horn, muted upper trumpet, strings...5. muted horn, clarinet...Thanks for that. Do you know that for sure, or is it just a guess??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie 45 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Well... educated guess, in that I'm not sure about additional, softer instruments - but those mentioned are definitely all there, except perhaps the clarinet for the fifth rendition (which is actually the consequent phrase of the forth rendition, by the way) - it just sounds like something else is adding extra body to the horn, but it's extremely subtle, and may just be a second horn that has a slightly darker timbre, and is fitting in so tightly in unison... that one's up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,193 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 We could all tell much better if this wasn't the worst-sounding soundtrack release in a few decades...Marian - who had to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crichton 4 Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 It needed saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 The DVD-Audio sounds better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 DVD audio will always sound better. Usually because its being played on a better sound system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Well Murphy mixed the music at that level of audio resolution of dvd audio, I wonder if we should be surprised his mixies sound muddy when reduced to CD audio bit rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 BTW speaking of DVD audio. What is the deal with that new CD format that is supposed to come out soon? I forget what the hell its called. ITs supposed to have audio quality on DVD level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Err, SACD you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 That is one of them. I believe there was another that promised even greater quality audio. Crap wish I could remember all this technical stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now