[Nicolai P. Zwar]

It’s perhaps just how we would use the two terms, and how I interpreted what you say, or perhaps we use or understand the terms differently.
So if someone told me “if I want to experience HAMLET, I’ll reach for the 1948 Laurence Olivier film over and over again, rather than watching any other interpretation regularly”, I would call that “performance-centric” rather than “work-centric”. And those were basically your words, I just now specified it with “Hamlet” and “Laurence Olivier”, but you can insert any other written score/play and performance/interpretation. Which is fine of course, nothing wrong with preferring or elevating or returning to one performance above all others. However, that is what I would call “performance-centric” rather than “work-centric”. Because there’s then basically one interpretation/performance of a work that’s at the center of the approach, rather than the work itself, whereas a “work-centric” approach to HAMLET would probably consider, ironically, many different performances of the work, and not rely on one single performance. That’s just how I would use the terms.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

The difference is that that person puts the Olivier Hamlet up as the pinnacle which can’t be bettered, and that’s why he returns to it again and again. He’s hung up on the performance.

That’s not the case for me, though. I have this rather scruffy-looking OST of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and I know it’s outshined both in sound and maybe even performance by that massive re-recording that was done a few years ago, for example.

But I don’t really care. It suffices for me. It’s maybe not the best, but it’s not bad enough that I have a need to replace it either.

Same with Beethoven’s ninth, for example. I have maybe three versions of that (two of which have fallen into my collection rather randomly), but I don’t stand in front of my shelf, ruminating over which version I’m going to play today, which am I in the mood for? I just reach for that Karajan one. And that will be the dose I need of this particular work/title/composition that day.

So yes, it’s rather the opposite of what you describe. Very laidback on the whole performance or various interpretation ordeal, more just interested in spending some time with any given work, in whatever version I have. That frees up more time to listen to other works, maybe even new ones!

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

The difference is that that person puts the Olivier Hamlet up as the pinnacle which can’t be bettered, and that’s why he returns to it again and again.

I don’t know, did he? Didn’t you then? I just basically quoted you: “If I want to experience one particular title, I’ll reach for one particular, preferred version over and over again, rather than dipping into other interpretations regularly.”

So I took it from the general and specified it: “If I want to experience HAMLET, I’ll reach for the 1948 Laurence Olivier film over and over again, rather than watching any other interpretation regularly”.

So that’s basically the same thing you said, just filled with HAMLET. As I said, you can insert Beethoven’s 9th as well, of course: “If I want to experience Beethoven’s 9th, I’ll reach for the 1977 Karajan recording over and over again, rather than listening to any other interpretation regularly”.

And that’s all fine… I find nothing wrong with having any preferred or favorite version of any piece of art.

This was just about the distinction between “work-centric” and “performance-centric”, and I find that definitely more “performance-centric” than “work-centric”. That’s all.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Yes, I shouldn’t have used the word ‘preferred’ there. That was misleading, as it implies careful scrutiny and comparisons between different performances to land on the “preferred” one. That’s not what happens in my case. I’m either indifferent to, or oblivious to, most alternative versions. If what I have is fine and fulfills my needs, that’s enough. Regardless of what else is out there, better or worse.

But there are of course exceptions where even I think about various performance matters, especially if the original version has severe issues of some kind. For example, if someone re-recorded Horner’s BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS in sparkling new sound, with flawless orchestral performance (but kept the original programme), I would probably opt for that. It’s the performance difference version of the sound issue/RAIN MAN version I mentioned earlier. But it would have to be rather extreme cases like that.

[Malte Müller]

Since we are going into detail, I am not sure if a film adaptation of a stage play (or book) and a interpretation of (classical) work can directly be compared this way. Especially film adaptions often take great freedom leaving things out or adding things, changing dialogues etc. A interpretation of a classical work may change pacing or speed here and there but the notes itself are not changes. There is no movement shortened or a counterpoint change because the conductor thinks so (at least in general). Beethoven’s 9th will still sound like it. While surely film adapting the same work will be much more different than that.

That said I understand the interpretation idea. Often you like what you heard first. Which apparently applies to a great many film score fans that see the film version of the score with all possible flaws as the only valid interpretation.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

The notes are still there, true, (just like the dialogue, characters, and plot may be there in two different performances of Hamlet), but the differences in performance of, say, the Goldberg variations a single performer can bring to the piece may be considerable. Even nuanced differences can lead to a different experience of the same piece. Especially if you are quite familiar with it.
So the principle, blueprint vs performance, applies. Though of course it’s rare the same movie gets made based on basically the same screenplay, though even that has happened.

[Malte Müller]

I absolutely believe what you say that it makes a difference.Even more so on solo interpretations like the Goldberg variations where you hear evry note directly. It is not that I don’t know that myself. Let it jus tbe a film score and a re-recording that varies a bit what you are used to. Or take the Hungarian orchestra Goldsmith had to use 😉 Or a cover version of a tv theme that just doesn’t get it right.

I think just don’t have the time or don’t want to spent it for exploring that for one single work in general if there is so much more music out there to explore.

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Of course, the differences between two Shakespeare performances may be more obvious right away, different actors, costumes etc. However, the gusto of the piece may nevertheless be the same.
Some compositions are so delicate, a bad performance ruins it, even if all the notes are there. (I’ve recently seen that in a movie scene, where a character played Beethoven’s sonata No. 14 because she had to… all the notes were there, but no life at all, it was a dead corpse. (As was the intent of the scene.)

As far as time, we all get to decide what to spend it on. Some people watch the same movie ten times… even though they could watch new movies. It’s funny that in the Let’s Talk about collections and listening habits! thread, Thor mentioned that he gets the dilemma of listening to new scores, which takes up the time he could have used listening and re-listening to old stuff.

Ah, old or new, that is the question.

I have actually limited time for music, I listen to maybe one or two albums a day, at most. So I have to choose wisely what I listen to, and it’s a mix of the new and familiar. However, I count listening to a previously unknown recording of a new work as “new”, and listening to Brahms’ fourth by Gardiner was certainly listening to “new” music, even though I know the symphony itself quite well. Tonight it’s John Field’s Nocturnes, and album I acquired last year but haven’t listened to yet.
Composer was hitherto unknown to me, so to my ears, it’s new music.

It’s a beautiful recording, I have no alternate versions of these pieces. (Yet?)

[GerateWohl]

As Shakespeare was mentioned, is then WEST SIDE STORY just another production of ROMEO AND JULIET? Or are just looking at different stagings of WSS in this comparison of different recordings of musical works?

[Tall Guy]

A few weeks ago we saw the UK’s Opera North perform the Marriage of Figaro. Apparently they usually sing it in English, but this time it was in Italian with the English words shown on big screens to the side of the stage. Also, it was set in an English country house and in the sort of clothes the country set might have worn in the 1970s (so pretty much what they’d wear today).

I imagine the “feel” of it would be different to it being in period costume and another language. Would you truly be able to compare, despite it being the same music?

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

Personally, I just made the analogy of art that can be divided into “blueprint” (play, screenplay, score) and execution (play, movie, performance) to make a specific point; I wouldn’t overinterpret or analyze it.
Obviously, they all differ. What they have in common is that they are performance art with a set of instructions. A play has actors performing written parts guided by a director, a symphony has musicians playing written music guided by a conductor.

West Side Story is not Romeo and Julia, though it’s inspired by it. But it’s got it’s own book… however, we’ve got two West Side Stories on film.

[Thor Joachim Haga]

Here’s an old FSM post I wrote, from 2002, that I felt would fit into this thread:

“Let’s talk re-mixes/re-arrangements. Particularly relevant now that DJ XL’s superb mix of Elvis’ “A Little Less Conversation” is doing so well all over the world.

To stick with rock/pop first, re-doing something is usually a very mixed bag. Certainly, Pink Floyd proves it. David Palmer tried to re-arrange their music with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, but failed rather miserably as he added a cheesy drum beat and simplified orchestrations. PF’s music COULD have been translated to an orchestral idiom, but one should have used a symphonic premise, not a rock/pop one. Then I’m much more satified with some of the techno re-mixes that have been done – such as “The Pink Floyd Experience” or “Welcome to the Remix 2000”. They have maintained the crucial elements of PF’s music, yet added appropriate synthscapes and beats. Recommended! Of course, “technifying” is not always a success. Look no longer than Scooter’s horrible slaughtering of Supertramp’s sophisticated “Logical Song”. And I won’t even mention boyband A1’s kindergarten whining of a-ha’s fantastic “Take on Me”.

Film music is likewise a very mixed bag. I absolutely loved Paul Oakenfold’s funky remix of Elfman’s POTA main titles, and I really like a lot of what David Arnold did to the original Bond theme. But then you have something like Sting’s performance of “Windmills of Your Mind” in the THOMAS CROWN remake….I like Sting, but his ubiquitous reggae/ska-sound didn’t work well with Legrand’s melodic flow. I’ll take the original any day (although, obviously, one may put the finger on Harrison’s all too casual singing as well). Then you have things like STAR WARS, which ranges from the bizzare but interesting (the jazz trio or church organ arrangements) to the cheesy (Meco).

What is your opinion on the topic of re-arranging in general? What do you think are some good re-mixes or re-arrangments of certain songs or tracks – film music or otherwise (note: I’m not talking about re-recordings of entire scores here)? Got anyone you DISlike? If so, why?”

[Nicolai P. Zwar]

What is your opinion on the topic of re-arranging in general? What do you think are some good re-mixes or re-arrangments of certain songs or tracks – film music or otherwise (note: I’m not talking about re-recordings of entire scores here)? Got anyone you DISlike? If so, why?”

Generally, I think it’s perfectly okay to re-arrange songs, tracks, themes, whatever. It’s perfectly normal for one composer to re-visit his own or other people’s material. Bach scraped Vivaldi and re-arranged some music for his own concerti, so why shouldn’t someone else to the same with John Williams? If someone metamorphed themes by Carl Maria von Weber into a symphonic composition, why not? Everybody from Miklós Rózsa to Sergei Rachmaninoff tried their hand at re-arranging and re-purposing Paganini’s Caprice No. 24 in A minor. Of course, it’s not the same to re-purpose themes for a new composition, or to re-arrange a composition for a different setting.
I liked what Michael Giacchino did with his two “Exotic Themes” albums, taking is own film themes and creating two exotica lounge albums out of it, a sort of modern day nod to Lex Baxter.

Indeed, I thought the Paul Oakenfold “Rule the Planet remix” quite good, enjoyed that. However, often time, orchestral arrangements of pop/rock songs reveal the compositional deficiencies of the source material, so they often sound “bland”. An exception was Peter Gabriel’s “New Blood” album, with new orchestral arrangements of classic Peter Gabriel songs. Now, not all of the songs “gain” by being performed with an orchestra, but at least this album took the orchestra “seriously” and explored the songs with it, instead of just treating the orchestra and just a different kind of background layer sound.
Especially “San Jacinto”, a song I always loved, became more powerful in the orchestral version.

Basically, every arrangement of the songs on New Blood was inspired by one of Gabriel’s favorite composers… I could never help feeling that this “San Jacinto” version has a strong “Thomas Newman” vibe (and Gabriel has worked with Thomas Newman before).

Since I also like Jazz, many of the film arrangements I like tend to be jazz versions; the advantage of jazz is: you can just have a theme and let great musicians have a run/jam at it.

Got anyone you DISlike? If so, why?

I’m sure there are lots… the thing is, I tend not to remember them or get hung up about it. If I don’t like a piece of music, I tend not to pay too much attention to it. I mean, take the Giorgio Moroder synthesizer arrangement of the SUPERMAN theme (on the Superman III soundtrack). Sounds like a “demo” today. Who needs it? I don’t “hate” or “DISlike” it, it was an experiment, it’s more of a curiosity item nowadays, and why not have Moroder do a performance ofSUPERMAN on synthesizers, but in the end, it proved that synthesizers were no match for the London Symphony Orchestra. 🙂

[Malte Müller]

I do like cover versions that transform something into a totally different style. I even do like Meco’s Star Wars and else disco covers. A bit cheesy yeah ;-).

Especially in the 70s there were lots of great ones make things groovy or even more groovy. Willi Bobo’s cover of the Kojak theme is great and even.

The Oakenfold mentions were also good. Or Moby’s Bond theme take although it is not really far from anything Arnold did.

A great cover of Barry’s tv theme to THE PERSUADERS is Neo’s “Persuaders”:

Moroder’s Superman cover is indeed a not so great example. His Battlestar Galactica is more convincing (although I like Phillip’s own take best). The 80s had some cheesy stuff. I admit back then I was a big fan of the ROCKY theme disco version mixing it with EYE OF THE TIGER:

I still have that maxi single 😉 They also did a version of Goldsmith’s FIRST BLOOD which was less great.

I am not a techno fan so I quite dislike for example the techno version of Doldinger’s DAS BOOT.

[Author]

Posts