Original soundtrack recordings vs. re-recordings?
- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 day, 7 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Per a discussion we had in another thread, I thought it would be worthwhile to ressurect this “oldie, but goodie” topic. As I said elsewhere, I had a loooong discussion with, especially, FSM member estgrey on this issue many years ago.
I’ve found that I prefer original soundtrack recordings for titles of a newer age, but there comes a point in the past — can’t say the exact year, maybe the early 60s and before? — where I almost always will prefer the re-recording. Good sound quality trumps original fidelity. Given that the performance is okay, of course.
For example, looking at my collection of Golden Age music, very, very little of it is original soundtrack recordings, they’re almost all re-recordings.
What about you?
looking at my collection of Golden Age music, very, very little of it is original soundtrack recordings, they’re almost all re-recordings.
What about you?
Same.
And for golden age it is easily understandable for the reasons you mentioned. I find it funny that the most post golden age rerecorded composer seems to be Jerry Goldsmith.
There is an ammount of rerecordings for Rózsa, Herrmann, Steiner, Tiomkin and Waxman.
Then there is quite some stuff available from Goldsmith, Barry, and maybe Jarre.Probably these were the producers favourites. There are probably lots of reasons why and how works are chosen for a rerecording. Rights, licensing, cost, availability, demand and chance.
And I never understood in the age on live to projection concerts, that there aren’t more recordings of these performing ensembles are made. There are orchestras having the sheet music and having rehearsed this stuff. Why don’t they make a recording session at the day before the LTP show or after?
Regarding Golden Age I am totally on the same page. And many Golden Age score work great in suites, too.
The extra tracks not on other releases already require extra licensing for release.
“Silver age” 😉 Yeah, it’s really funny and even score that at least later on turned out to be available. Like SAND PEBBLES.
And I never understood in the age on live to projection concerts, that there aren’t more recordings of these performing ensembles are made. There are orchestras having the sheet music and having rehearsed this stuff. Why don’t they make a recording session at the day before the LTP show or after?
A matter of rights and money. Performing live is surely much cheaper, probably even as a licence, than recording that. The extra tracks not on other releases already require extra licensing for release. Even if a live performances uses mics already recording in a studio is a different matter. And to be honest many of these live to screen performance have already recordings. And we know the market is rather small for these things…
Of course, it’s a bit tricky sometimes, because many Golden Age titles also had soundtrack albums that were re-recordings at the time. Once in a rare while, I can appreciate these, but they – too – suffer from archival sound. So I’m mostly talking about re-recordings done in the last 40-50 years.
I do have a FEW original soundtrack recordings of old scores scattered around. For example, I have the SONG OF BERNADETTE 2CD set, which I’ve whittled down to a solid 41-minute playlist in my iTunes. It’s a gorgeous score, and it’s kinda fascinating to hear those shimmering, portamento stylings of the 1943 recording. But I’d swap it out with a sparkling re-recording in a second.
Also, it’s kinda fascinating that old Karajan/Berlin Phil recordings of classical music from the 50s sound like they were recorded yesterday, whereas most film music from the era sounds ancient. Says a lot about the difference between classical and film music recordings, and how they were treated.
For example, I have the SONG OF BERNADETTE 2CD set,
Actually you don’t have it anymore because I have it due to our website relaunch deal years ago. Unless you have a 2nd copy 😉
Says a lot about the difference between classical and film music recordings, and how they were treated.
Yeah, back then even less people could imagine that anyone would listen to “that” separated from film…
Actually you don’t have it anymore because I have it due to our website relaunch deal years ago. Unless you have a 2nd copy
Ah, you’re right! Oh, well. Thankfully, I still have the FILES!
I also often thought that probably these by today’s standards often hysterical on the nose arrangements of golden age scores payed tribute to the audio limitations of the studios. Not sure if this is true or if this was just a musical fashion.
Surey you have to arrange differently for mono since you couldn’t mix tracks afterwards for years as well and do it all live by placement of the sections. I remember that on some booklet of their re-recordings John Morgan mentions that they/he did re-arrangments and especially I think extended the strings sections to make it sound more proper for an orchestra which was due to the original limitations.
That’s an interesting point — that they had to play over-the-top to reach “through” the sound limitations. And hence why it sometimes feels over-powering when re-recorded in crystal clear, contemporary sound. Could certainly be part of it, but I think it was more the mode of late-romantic composition that was fashionable at the time.
For moi:
1930s & 1940s – I prefer re-recordings, in general, because of sound quality.
1950s – Case by case. Most scoring stage recordings were not up to the quality of recording studios, but a few were.
1960s & 1970s – Generally the originals, for two reasons: 1) Scoring stage recording technology had finally caught up to that of professional recording studios; and 2) the integration of aural/oral idioms such as jazz, pop, and indigenous musics make some scores harder to accurately capture in retrospect. This can be exacerbated by not using correct period instruments.
1980s or later – I generally don’t pay attention to whether they are re-recordings or not.Because I just love statistics, I did a cursory check when the music in my collection was recorded (or released… depending on the information available on CD covers, booklets, etc.). As can be expected, up to the 1940s, just a few recordings, then already some more from the 50s… 60s…
So yeah, obviously, many older golden age scores really benefit from newer recordings simply for fidelity.
But there are plenty of other reasons why I enjoy re-recordings too… it’s not an “either/or” thing for me, if I’m really interested in a film score, I’m usually interested in hearing a different recording of it too.
Anyway….
I remember my music teacher in 2nd and 3rd grade very well. He had the gift to have an entire class of kids sit and listen enchantedly to classical music, such as Smetana, Britten, or even Bartók. Maybe as kids we couldn’t even spell their names, but he told us about them, their music, what to listen for, and then… dropped the needle and let the music do its spell.
Ironically, he was skeptical of recordings, almost suspicious of them, a bit like Celibidache. But he used them anyway. What else?
But even back in those early years I started to learn something… something that is true for me to this day. The music isn’t in the recording. It’s not what is written on paper either. It is what happens in your head, it is what you imagine, what you build, what you breathe into it. The recording is just the postcard. The music is the trip. (That’s my analogy… I just come from Italy… forgive me.)Because music is alive. Music is one person or a hundred people banging, scraping, bowing, blowing on metal or wood or whatever… music is a creation of the moment, it happens and already it’s gone again, it is something that exists in the moment of listening. So a recording is a snapshot of a landscape. Maybe it’s a beautiful snapshot, snapshots are great, photos are great. They are art, of course. But a snapshot is not THE landscape. Just like a recording of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony is NOT Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. So I try not to confuse the two. Because if you think the snapshot of a landscape is the real thing, you may be confused to see how the landscape looks at a different season, at a different daytime, with different weather… and the same is true for the recording of music. If you “listen” to the same snapshot over and over, you start expecting not just the same tree, but the same bird on the branch, in the sky… and you expect to see not just the same sky, but the same cloud, the same wind… So yeah, while I love recordings of music and I have thousands of them, they are NOT the actual music. And just like a photo of the exact same landscape, taken at a different time of day, or a different season, or slightly different angle, can be a totally new revelation, because the photo of a landscape is not the landscape, so can a different performance of a great piece of music reveal secrets that were not unlocked before.
Beethoven’s 5th is not something that wants to be fixed. The very first notes are a negotiation… according to Beethoven’s own instruction. That fourth note in the motive? Every conductor stretches it differently, like they are testing how far or short or loud they can go with it… and that’s what they are supposed to do. Or Bach… wow… one of my favorite composers nowadays (used to bore when I was a young lad though). Most people who love Bach don’t end up with a recording of the Well-Tempered Clavier or the Goldberg variations, they and up with a shelf of them. Okay, maybe not a shefl, but you end up with lots of them, because that landscape looks different and is worth looking at winter and summertime, daytime, nighttime, and so on… the music cannot and should not be “contained” to one recording.
Whenever I encounter Mozart’s Requiem, I check how the Rex Tremendae is performed. It can be performed so very differently, yet all true to the written score.
So where does that leave film music? That’s obviously what we’re talking about.. Williams and Rózsa are not Beethoven or Bach, and I don’t mean that in the sense that they are “lesser” composers, but in what their music does and achieves. Nobody needs twelve recordings of JAWS or BEN HUR. Film score are not so much prisms, they are built to hit hard, often on the nose, and not to unfold endlessly. And that’s okay, I love film scores. But even there, I am glad when a new recording shows up. I don’t need a dozen recordings of JAWS or EL CID, but I’m certainly happy to have at least two of them.
Because music should be performed. Not preserved. Not embalmed. Performed. (And then, yeah, sure, also recorded. 🙂 )
So I embrace new recordings of film scores. They sure can make an old favorite war-horse sound fresh and new again, and I’m not just talking about recording quality.
In fact, I am explicitly NOT talking about recording quality, because one thing a new recording of a film score is not: a “substitute” or “replacement” for the original tracks. If you want to hear the original tracks, if you fell in love with the recording you heard in the movie, well, you should get that recording and not hope for another recording to imitate it. Every recording must stand on its own to feet and should be allowed to live and breathe on its own.
My two cents on the subject (though I’ve said more or less the same things elsewhere on the net over the years.)
Yes, a very Nietzsche or Kierkegaard thing going on there, in your musings on the fleeting moment. I can relate to that. And definitely agree on the notion that film music, when it’s released on album, isn’t tied to one particular performance. It can breathe and live all on its own, in different interpretations.
By the way, do you really have music in your collection that was recorded in the 1890s?
If I want to hear film music exactly as it was used in the film, I can watch the film.
Some musical details that are effective in the context of a film don’t work for me as part of a standalone listen, such as a final note held out forever, or a few bars repeated multiple times. The film context includes visual, dialog, and sound effect elements that add variety to the repetition, but without those elements, the music can sound monotonous.
Yes, on the DGG Centenary collection, Volume 1.
It was released when Deutsche Grammophon celebrated their 100 Years Anniversary, as part of the DGG Centenary Collection. I picked up a lot of those back in the day, and volume 1 included some odds and ends from the pioneering time of recording days. It includes a voice recording of founder and inventer Emile Berliner, testing the new possibilities of the “Grammophone”. It may be the oldest recording in existence. Also the Philip Sousa March “Hail to the Spirit of Liberty” was probably chosen because it was “loud” and could thus be recorded better than, say, a Chopin Nocture. That recording is from 1898!
So these very old recordings are more of a selection of very early recordings etc… historically very interesting (I think), but of course not for modern “high-fidelity” listening sessions.Wow. Interesting set, academically.
Some musical details that are effective in the context of a film don’t work for me as part of a standalone listen, such as a final note held out forever, or a few bars repeated multiple times.
Yes, I call them “film music gimmicks” somewhat derogatorily. Lots of tenuto strings and stingers in horror music, for example. I like it when the sharp edges of these are grinded down for re-recordings. But I know that others get their panties in a twist when that happens, because it doesn’t sound exactly like it did in the film.
Yeah, volume 2 includes even Richard Strauss conducting his own music in the 1920s, so that is historically interesting.
Yes, I call them “film music gimmicks” somewhat derogatorily. Lots of tenuto strings and stingers in horror music, for example. I like it when the sharp edges of these are grinded down for re-recordings. But I know that others get their panties in a twist when that happens, because it doesn’t sound exactly like it did in the film.
This begs the question: For contemporary labels that license original recordings, are they legally prevented from making any sorts of editorial decisions, or are the producers simply afraid to do so, knowing that a few hardcore accuracy proponents will be offended if the CD has only, say, 8 repetitions of a phrase rather than 64?
Interesting question. Probably both saving the extra works since it costs time and money and probably rights as you generally – at leat over here – are not allowed to edit/change any work without legal consent of the creator at all. If he did 24 bars of the same he did 24 bars of the same…
Could be both? I have close-to-zero knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts of rights and releases, but I’m pretty sure there would be a lot of angry fans if it didn’t have every single iteration.
Not sure, in fact, I have no idea, perhaps because I don’t have film scores on my radar — let alone listen to music — that could be improved by removing its gimmicks to begin with.
I sometimes think of the example that is Max Steiner’s KING KONG. It’s a classic score, and one I kinda like, maybe 60%. I picked up the Marco Polo recording years ago (eventually I traded it off) and enjoyed it quite a bit. But I read something about Steiner not being pleased with his original orchestra or the original performance. He had written it “better”. I think if he had heard Stromberg & Morgan’s recording, it would have been closer to his original intentions. Bigger orchestra, better performance. So sometimes, a new recording might actually IMPROVE things, make it closer to how it was originally envisioned.
On the other hand, electronic scores are rarely performed better in a re-recording. They’re so uniquely tied to one particular set of inputs and performance. Which is why none of the Vangelis re-recordings have been particularly good. Even if they use the same equipment, they don’t have the composer’s very specific way of playing them.
It might be easier with an orchestra to get things similar to the original. Maybe because more is actually written of it. Even if it is and must not be an exact “copy”. Someone somewhere – was is Stromberg maybe? – noted the term “new recording” would be preferred over “re-recording”.
I think electronic, jazz and even pop scores only work in “re-recordings” if they are actually new interpretations not trying to be the original. Actually more like cover versions…
I disagree, it is much more difficult to “re-create” the sound of an orchestral recording with another orchestra than it would be to recreate a synthesizer recording with another synthesizer. Synthesizers are by there very nature more deterministic and predictable in their output, whereas an orchestra his 50 to 100 people, all different, all with unique instruments… no matter how the Vienna Philharmonic plays a piece, no matter who conducts, they will never ever sound like the Berlin Philharmonic or vice versa. Of course, if you record multiple synthesizers “in a room”, it becomes more tricky (because the room is then “analog”), but should still be easier than an orchestra.
Whereas I’ve heard Alan Howarth recreate John Carpenter scores that sound just like the original film score tracks (except when they purposely divert from it, when Howarth embellishes expands on them).
I have to disagree with that.
Yes, if you want to replicate – exactly – an original orchestral recording from yesteryear (like some fans weirdly crave), I can see that it’s tricky. But orchestral music is written down on score sheets, and it’s up to the musicians to interpret that the way they want. And in my opinion, no interpretation is “wrong”. Everything goes. Well, within reason, but you get my point.
Electronic music, vice versa, rarely has the music written down on score sheets. It’s all a product of a singular moment in time — with whatever equipment was being used, and whichever way the musician performed it (electronic music is more organic than you give it credit for). So even if a later person uses the exact same equipment, it will have a hard time replicating the original sound. Great examples are the various Vangelis re-recordings (like BLADE RUNNER or THE BOUNTY), which sound nothing like the original Vangelis. Even if they use the exact same equipment – like the rare Yamaha CS-80 – you can clearly hear it’s not performed by the Greek composer’s intuitive, broad way of playing.
The best way is to go completely different, like – say – THE SYMPHONIC JEAN MICHEL JARRE album that Nic Raine did.
But Ed Starink, who produced most of the SYNTHESIZER’S GREATEST HITS albums in the late 80s and early 90s, managed admirably. Maybe because he produced those albums right around the time the original scores were being produced themselves, which lent itself to easier approximation. Moreso than later samplers can do. But they’re not exact replicas. He added his own twist on things, sometimes even surpassing the original. I still think his version of Vangelis’ “Dervish D” from SPIRAL is better than the original (because it adds a backbeat that the original desperately craved).
So yeah, orchestral re-recordings are dynamic in a whole other way than electronic re-recordings are.
I don’t think Blade Runner is a particularly good example, because it’s not a purely electronic score. There is such a multitude of electronic and acoustic elements in the score, which I agree cannot be “replicated”. I love Edgar Rothermich’s performance of Blade Runner, it’s an excellent album and both the performance and sound are excellent, but of course, it’s not a direct replication of Vangelis’ sound. It is, as I noted up there, synthesizers “in a room” (by which I mean synthesizers and accoustic instruments mixed and actually recorded). That’s just like another “orchestral” recording… two of these will never sound “alike”.
However, when it comes to purely electronic synthesized music, then it’s easier to recreate a performance, as you can eliminate a lot of the “human” (or acoustic) elements.
Again, I think you underestimate the organic, human element of electronic music. If it were just machines, people would easily be able to replicate the sounds of whatever they wanted to replicate. It’s a combined element of the tech (and the specific way the inputs are set) and the way it is being played or programmed. I think even if Vangelis wrote down EXACTLY what tech and inputs he used, people wouldn’t be able to replicate the broad, intuitive, almost improvised way he played the synths.
Not that that’s a goal. As I said, I prefer re-recordings that remove themselves much further from the original, to become its own thing. Rothermich tried too hard to be Vangelis, IMO, and didn’t really succeed. The aforementioned Starink did better, hitting that perfect note between original fidelity and something new.
I think even if Vangelis wrote down EXACTLY what tech and inputs he used, people wouldn’t be able to replicate the broad, intuitive, almost improvised way he played the synths.
This is true, which is why I am not talking about absolutes. I am talking about degrees. I am not taking the human out of the equation, no two performances of any piece of music are alike. My response was to Malte that it might be easier with an orchestra, which is what I objected to. Because it is easier for one person to recreate the same electronic sound of another person (especially if he’s got the same (type of) synthesizer), than it is for 100 people to recreate the same sound of 100 different people on 100 different instruments. That was my argument in context.
Possibly. It’s difficult to measure the degree of difficulty between such things.
But my point was that orchestral music has this GREAT advantage; this point-of-departure in the score sheets, through which they can interpret more or less freely. Electronic music doesn’t have that.
I know that both you and I champion the great freedom in having an orchestra do their own thing, and not let the original film performance be the be-all, end-all benchmark of how it should sound.
Yes, we’re not really in disagreement.
One core difference between orchestral and electronic music is, as you said, that orchestral music is practically always written down. Notes on paper, which are to be performed. And different performers perform the same piece, the same notes, differently.
Not all electronic music is written down (though a lot of it actually is… especially when it’s mixed with orchestral music, as in the scores by Jerry Goldsmith (I have some actual scores here) or also classical works, like Piere Boulez’ Répons which is written for orchestra and real-time computer-driven sound transformation via the 4X digital signal processor!
Anyway, of course, not all electronic music is written down, often times (though not always) it doesn’t even require more than one performer.
However, I found Alan Howarth’s performance of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 recreates the exact vibe and sound of John Carpenter’s original score quite well, possibly because he’s worked with Carpenter and knows exactly what he did. It’s also not overly complicated music, with repeated ostinatos and clear chords. So once you get the “sound”, it’s fairly easy to recreate a performance that aligns well with a previous performance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.