Importance of booklets and liner notes
- Dette emnet har 31 svar, 8 deltakere, og ble sist oppdatert 1 uke, 2 dager siden av
.
-
Innlegg
-
I guess for super successful soundtrack albums like Horner’s Titanic many people just bought it for the song.>And of course to have some memorabilia on the shelf.
It is said many buy LPs for shelfing nowadays as well 😉
We briefly touched on track-by-track analyses (in liner notes) in this thread, and while searching my “back catalogue” at FSM for the ongoing ressurection series (sadly, many of the topics I’ve created over the years are met with a “404” error when I click them….I hope they fix that!), I stumbled on to one called “Lashing out at Track-by-Track Analyses!” from 2001. While I laugh at some of the prose here, from 24 years ago, the sentiment pretty much stands, so I re-post it here:
—————-
Most of you thought I was nuts when I lashed out at expanded releases. I probably won’t make a better case for myself when I’m now directing a kick against track-by-track analyses – at least the way they’re executed nowadays – in CD booklets and magazine issues. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that the two critical views are connected, though.
So, while trying not to regurgitate what has been said about a million times already (on the topic of FILM music vs. film MUSIC), I’ll explain.
You all know that I consider the film score album a separate entity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the film. As such, I even consider track TITLES superflous…Well, not exactly, perhaps, but the only purpose of track titles is, for me, that they work as a reference when I’m talking to guys like yourselves. A purely PRACTICAL function, in other words (that’s why I love Elliot Goldenthal’s music-style titles, like “adagio”, “lento” etc.). When I have purchased an album, I read the titles perhaps once, then never again.
No surprise, then, that I consider track-by-track analyses even MORE redundant and highly skippable. This is how they are written and why I think they don’t work:
PRESENT STATE:
Track-by-track analyses in most CD booklets and magazines nowadays are unfortunately limited to a purely DESCRIPTIVE level. They describe what is going on visually in a given scene and then proceed to describe what type of music is played and with what instruments etc. This is analysis in its purest “biological” form (dissecting the pieces of something). But only rarely do they move BEYOND that, to an attempt to describe how the film works in the visual context, of how it comments on the film symbolically, of how it “captures” or “creates” etc.. The consequence for the film MUSIC fan is that the analysis merely links the music to the film in a fetischistic manner. The consequence for the FILM music fan is that it simply tells us what we already know, what we already can gather from watching the film. Either way, it becomes void and redundant.
My “solution” to this can be separated into two scenarios:
FUTURE SCENARIO 1:
Describe the tracks in MUSICAL TERMS only (the way Luscious Lazslo does it here at the board), eschewing any mention of the film itself! This I would love, but highly doubt its feasability. It’s a minority approach that few will condone. Unfortunately.
FUTURE SCENARIO 2:
Elevate the analysis approach of the “present state” with ONE level, i.e. tell us how the music WORKS in a given scene, what it does to the overall narrative, what is its motivation etc.? Since this would still link the music to the film too firmly, I would probably still skip it upon purchasing an album, but this way it could at least become useful should I once decide to analyze a certain film and its music myself, and then see what someone else has written about it.
Don’t misunderstand me now: There is nothing wrong with track-by-track analyses per se! Just they way they’re written, or rather: the principle that dictates them (‘description only’).
I agree with Thor. However, some are written in a certain (save) format, often for accessible C and C releases. In reviews, it should be about some deeper musical details, in-context use, a deeper understanding of what it does, and overall feeling.
I have had four of my liner notes rejected based on being too comprehensive in addressing all possible aspects, even though I was promised complete freedom and only the limitation of the amount of sentences. Eventually, they wanted a detailed dry analysis of, say, a complete Rambo II, while the film and its use of music required a very different approach. All these cases are almost like a thing I reviewed in recent days: https://www.maintitles.net/reviews/faa-yeung-nin-wa/
I don’t think art exists without context, both how, by whom and when it was created as well how, by whom and when it is perceived. Music is not a descriptive art form, so I expect the liner notes to provide context. Context enriches art. So that’s what I look for in liner notes… context.
The composer matters, of course. But reading a short bio of Beethoven or Jerry Goldsmith is nice the first time, not the tenth. There is always the line between what is interesting context and what does the reader already know. And so it’s not possible and I don’t expect any writer of liner notes to always exactly tailor the notes to what I already know. Sometimes I read stuff I already know, but if there’s anything new in there I didn’t know, it’s already worth it. I sure learned a lot from liner notes of classical music and film music over the years. I guess what’s interesting is why this composer chose this project, how it fits into the arc of his career, and what it reveals about his creative choices. Liner notes should provide background, perhaps a glimpse into the decision making, the artistic gamble, the moment when a composer said yes to a story and began shaping sound into narrative. At least something that is specific to that particular work.
Since the music was written for a film, I expect the liner notes to tie the music to the film, or have a short summary or background of that film. Often times, I have no idea what the movie is even about, and have no inclination to actually watch it, so it’s nice to get some background information for what purpose the music was written in the first place.
Sometimes a track by track commentary makes sense, sometimes a broader overview is enough. But to treat a film score album as if it were a separate entity divorced from the film is like pretending a recording of Daphnis et Chloe has nothing to do with the ballet, or that Handel’s Water Music has nothing to do with the royal event it was composed for. Of course it does. Context enriches art. That is why liner notes should provide what is not in the music itself, the story beyond the notes. And I would say in case of Ravel’s “Daphnis et Chloe”, a track by track commentary makes perfect sense, as it helps you understand the “story” behind the music and how it progresses, whereas in Handel’s Water Music, a track by track analysis if of lesser importance, other aspects are more relevant. Same with film music, sometimes a track by track analysis makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t.
Describing the music in musical terms, as has been suggested, is not what I look for in liner notes. It actually makes no sense to me, because the one thing I have on an album is obviously the music. The music is already there on the album. So I don’t need it described in words. What I want is the information I may not have. When was it written, for what purpose, what was happening in the film or in the composer’s life that shaped it. A crash course in musical description is not the point. Of course, if there are unusual compositional techniques or instruments that are not immediately obvious, by all means, that should be mentioned. The point is to illuminate the music, to provide, as I said, context.
Doug Adams book The Music of the Lord of the Rings is exemplary in this regard. It goes far beyond standard liner notes, with score sheet excerpts, themes shown in notation, and analysis of how they are developed and tied to the narrative. It even explores how the music was designed conceptually, how it was woven into the fabric of the story. That is extraordinary, though clearly beyond what most liner notes can provide, and Doug Adams obviously had access to and many conversations with Howard Shore, so that’s quite a luxury. Still, it sets the bar for what contextual writing about film music can achieve.
From a practical perspective, liner notes are not advertising copy (people get to read them usually after they have bought the album), nor are they academic lectures. They should be entertaining, they are the bridge between the listener and the art. They should tell us why this music exists, what story/images/scenes it was meant to serve, and how it fits into the larger tapestry of the composer’s work. In short, they should set the music in the proper context and provide background information about the music, rather than being too concerned with the music itself. I don’t see how liner notes describing Beethoven’s 5th symphony would do much for me when I have a recording of it. What I do find interesting is the background of its creation, what is special about it, perhaps its impact and historical influence or significance (obviously, not relevant when the liner notes are for more current releases.)
As I said, I don’t think art, including or perhaps even especially music, exists without context. So in short, that’s what I would expect from liner notes: context.But context can be many things. Whole institutions exist that research and analyse music. It’s one thing to describe – in technical terms – the music on a superficial level, but the best analyses provide interpretation. Many classical album liner notes have this (in addition to all the other things, like the circumstances of the work’s creation). I would love it if soundtracks had that too; just describing and interpreting what the music does on its own. But that’s all very unlikely, of course.
I’m not sure I get what you are after… describing and interpreting what the music does on its own… but that’s what I do when I listen to music anyway already?
I don’t see how describing the actual music that I am listening to is a benefit? Describing the music could be a benefit if I cannot actually hear it, but I suppose in most cases, people who buy albums do so to hear the music, so what additional benefit would a description of what you are hearing provide?And I’m also wary of provided interpretation. Interpreting what the music does on its own, again, that’s what I do when I listen to the music. No need for someone to do that for me… in fact, that is the one thing I can do on my own without additional background information. 🙂
I don’t see how interpreting what the music does on its own actually belongs into liner notes, because interpreting what music does on its own is a highly subjective and personal matter. It can be interesting, no doubt, and you can write entire theses about it, but that’s more something that belongs to forums (such as this), or review sites, or whatever, but not necessarily liner notes, because that would make the notes drift too much into one person’s view and interpretation, and it might make the notes actually be less “timeless”, because views and interpretations may change over time. Liner notes should be a bit more neutral. At least personally I have comparatively little interest to read in liner notes how a piece of music affects the writer of the liner notes or makes him or her feel. That’s personal, I prefer the notes to remain more or less factual and objective. (I don’t mind a personal voice in liner notes at all, I don’t mind opinion either, but most important thing for me are facts. Interpretation is obviously not fact.)
Yes, we seem to appreciate different things there. Per what we were discussing in the Williams book thread, I think a text automatically gets more “life” when there are subjective interpretations involved (whether I agree with them or not). The superficial-technical-contextual descriptions may be more timeless, or have added value when one needs sheer information, but it’s often also boring as hell as a reading experience. Like a manual.
For example, if I read a text where the author describes why THAT particular instrument creates THAT particular association or meaning in a work, that’s life and energy right there. Keeps it interesting. Or the shift in timbres or rhythms as they pertain to other parts of the work. Etc. This is fairly common in liner notes about non-programmatic works.
I don’t mind such descriptions or evaluations, but when an author describes, as you say, why THAT particular instrument creates THAT particular association or meaning in a work, it’s likely that it all becomes totally subjective and as such, I don’t really need to see that in liner notes.
Of course, there are many examples where particular compositional techniques are explained and examined in the context of a work, and that’s all fine and well, but I am first and foremost not looking for personal opinions and interpretations in liner notes. I think they should serve as a general introduction to a work that enables the listener to explore and understand the work on his or her own terms.
Now obviously, I enjoy other people’s opinions, otherwise, why spend time on Internet forums, but liner notes are not the place for personal interpretation of music, that’s just not something I seek in liner notes. And in fact, that’s now what I see in most liner notes.
To sum it up: The liner notes should enable the listener to better interpret and understand the music, and not interpret and understand the music for them.I think subjective evaluations can open up a whole new room of understanding of a work.
A sort of related example is featurettes on DVDs and Blu-rays. Most of the time, they’re straightforward featurettes about the nuts and bolts of the production (sometimes casually, sometimes more in-depth), and they can be both enlightening and useful. But they don’t really widen my horizons.
Vice versa, you have something like the feature-length ‘making of’ on my old DVD of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, which is more of a ‘film essay’, really, that contains vibrant, almost poetic language and plenty of interpretations. These (often subjective) observations have led me to a deeper understanding of the work; things I hadn’t noticed on my own. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything (I have my own interpretations as well), but they’re gateways into a work. Liner notes can fill that function too, but they rarely do.
The difference is that if you have lengthy “making of” of classic movies, you usually have seen the movie already. I found Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker’s Apocalypse excellent.
A retrospective or making of or featurette may contain many points of view, many subjective experiences and opinions, and that’s all fine.
Liner notes are more like a short introduction to a work. In any case, I prefer facts over viewpoints in liner notes, and ideally, the notes provide context not readily apparent from the music itself. But if it’s interesting enough, by all means, you can also include personal views and opinions. I do have some classical music liner notes where the performers discuss their particular approach to the work, which of course can be very interesting.
I’m open to various approaches to liner notes, they don’t all have to be the same. But by and large, liner notes should provide context rather than interpretation, facts over opinion, at least, that should be the tendency. They should enable me to get a better understanding/appreciation of the music by providing context and background information that is not evident in the music itself.That brings me back to these track-by-track descriptions. The track title explains usually well enough in which scene the music plays. So, if I have watched the movie and the track-by-track descriptions just says what is happening in the scene of that track it is completely useless and boring reading these notes.
Totally agreed! Now if the liner notes could, instead, speak about the SUBTEXT of the scene, and what the music does to communicate it, that would be something else altogether. That would be ‘future scenario 2’ from the post above.
Well, just because one has seen a movie once doesn’t necessarily mean one remembers every piece of music and how it was used in the context of the film. Especially not if there are years or even decades between listening to a piece of film music and watching the movie. Not to mention that often I actually have not seen the film and have even no intention to. So if the liner notes provide the appropriate context for the music (and save me from having to watch some movies), I think that is their job. That doesn’t mean all liner notes should always be track-by-track descriptions, of course.
But be that as it may, liner notes often to go beyond that, and do comment on the subtext of the scene or explore what and how the music does to communicate. I’ve seen all kinds of liner notes, some better than others, but it’s not as if liner notes never do into more detail of how the music functions.
- Du må være innlogget for å svare på dette emnet.