info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Question for the Ages, Finally Answered
34 views
Skip to first unread message
BTR1701
Jul 18, 2018, 10:58:34 PM7/18/18
to
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_
of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
time signature. I'm a (very) amateur musician, and my ears are attuned
to bizarre beats. This was as jarring as it gets. A disorienting
rhythm-- in particular the driving, industrial-sounding beat that gets
louder and more prominent as the opening theme progresses. It wasn't in
5/4 or 7/8, both of which I can generally suss out with not much
difficulty. I tried to count the beat in my head, and by tapping on my
thigh: "DAH-doonk, dah-doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk." But for the life of
me I couldn't make anything fit. My world had been ripped apart, much
like Sarah Connor's when she discovered she was being hunted by an
implacable killing machine from the future.
First, a quick primer on time signatures for the uninitiated. Most
straight-ahead rock songs are written in 4/4 time. You can count
"1-and-2-and-3-and-4" with the bass drum thumping on the 1 and 3 and the
snare drum cracking on the 2 and 4. Similarly, when you hear a waltz you
can usually count off "1-2-3, 1-2-3" without much trouble.
These are both easily digestible time signatures that are pleasing to
our sense of order. Sometimes, however, a song will stray from the
standard beats and get a bit weird. Dave Brubeckąs łTake Five˛ is the
classic example of a song in 5/4 time. Listen to the repeating lick on
the piano (łdo-DA, do-DA, doo-DAH˛) and steadily count out ł1-2-3-4-5˛
with the 1 falling on the first łdo,˛ the 3 near the second łDA,˛ and
the 4-5 syncing with the łdoo-DAH.˛ Another mainstream piece in an outré
time: Peter Gabrieląs sprightly łSolsbury Hill,˛ which is in 7/4. You
can hear the bass drum thump seven times with each line of the verse.
Okay, back to THE TERMINATOR. Come with me if you want to live... in a
world where we definitively know the time signature of the film's score.
I paused the movie and took to the Internet, confident the source of all
information would give me closure, letting me exhale and enjoy some
unfettered cyborg ultraviolence.
No such luck. I quickly found a thread on a message board for Lansing
audio products in which my question had been posed, but the initial
responses were all wrong or unhelpful. Someone offered a link to
tablature in 3/4 time, which is incorrect. Someone else suggested it was
in 6/8, when it clearly isn't. My frustration mounted along with the
original poster's as he checked back in, still waiting for an answer.
Soon I found another thread on a different message board where that same
person had repeated his inquiry-- and had again received unsatisfying
results. I noticed that at the bottom of one of these threads a
respondent had offered a plausible theory that the song was in 13/16.
But the original poster still wondered: Where is the sheet music, or
some other official source, so we can settle this once and for all?
When I Googled the score's composer, Brad Fiedel, I found a tantalizing
tidbit. "TERMINATOR was very difficult," said Fiedel, "because I was
using many different synths and sequencers and because I didn't have
midi available on many of them I had to sync them by hand. This is why
the main theme is in a very odd time signature. The looping of the
Prophet-10 was just a little short of a complete measure."
At this point I needed to know the full story. So I found Fiedel and got
him on the phone. He was happy to take me back to the early '80s and set
the scene. He explained that before THE TERMINATOR, he'd worked on a
score for a TV movie about Hitler's last days. The producers were
concerned that lush string music might lend sympathy to Hitler, so
Fiedel conjured up a crashing, metallic ruckus. It was this sound that
formed the germ of the later TERMINATOR score.
Fiedel was at heart an improviser. To create the TERMINATOR theme, he
first set up a rhythm loop on one of the primitive, early-'80s devices
he was using. (In those days, Fiedel was firing up a Prophet-10 and an
Oberheim.) He recorded samples of himself whacking a frying pan to
create the clanking sounds. Then he played melodic riffs on a
synthesizer over the looped beat. Amid the throes of creation, what he
hadn't quite noticed-- or hadn't bothered to notice-- was that his
finger had been a split-second off when it pressed the button to
establish that rhythm loop. Being an old machine, there was no
auto-correction. Which meant the loop was in a profoundly herky-jerky
time signature. Fiedel just went with it. The beat seemed to be falling
forward, and he liked its propulsiveness. He recorded the score that way
and (not being classically trained) never wrote down any notation. The
music he'd improvised went straight into the film. With its
collaboration between fallible humanity and rigid machinedom, the score
was especially well-suited to the material at hand.
Much like the creators of Skynet, Fiedel was only later forced to
consider what he had wrought. He got a call from the legendary film and
TV composer Henry Mancini, who was planning to record an album of movie
scores with a full orchestra. Fiedel was giddy to learn that Mancini
wanted to include the TERMINATOR theme. But then Mancini asked for the
lead sheet-- the notes the bandleader would use so the orchestra
musicians could walk in off the street and nail the recording in one
take.
Fiedel enlisted a friend named George Kahn, a jazz musician who had a
music degree and more formal training, to help set the score to paper.
"He called me up and said, 'Brad, what time signature is this in?' I
said, 'I dunno, 6/8?' He said, 'No, it's quirkier than that.'"
(Incidentally, a subsequent search turned up the fact that Fiedel
related a version of this anecdote to Film Score Monthly in 2013. I
don't know why it didn't show up on my computer in my initial search.
I'm blaming our capricious machine overlords.)
"Brad works mind to fingers to keyboard," Kahn says now, "and he
bypasses paper. So I had to sit down and figure it out." You might say
it was as though Kahn had been sent back in time to the early '80s--
dropped into a world that wasn't his own and he didn't understand-- on a
mission to safeguard the conception of a precious thing that he hoped
would live on into the future.
And the verdict? "It's in 13/16. Three plus three plus three plus two
plus two."
Sure enough, primed to listen for this grouping, I was at last able to
count out the beat. DAH-two-three-DOONK-two-three-CLANK-two-three-GONK
-two-GONK-two. Never has drumming on my thigh felt so cathartic.
Epilogue:
Brad Fiedel went on to write the theme for TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY
(in the much less jarring time signature of 6/8, because he felt that
film had more warmth), and scored various other film projects before
leaving Hollywood to make his own music. He's currently producing a
one-man musical about the artistic arc of his career.
George Kahn is a touring jazz musician with his own record label.
Henry Mancini sadly died before he could record that album of movie
scores.
The Skynet artificial intelligence system went online in 1997, quickly
achieved self-awareness, and remains dedicated to the extermination of
all humanity.
of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
time signature. I'm a (very) amateur musician, and my ears are attuned
to bizarre beats. This was as jarring as it gets. A disorienting
rhythm-- in particular the driving, industrial-sounding beat that gets
louder and more prominent as the opening theme progresses. It wasn't in
5/4 or 7/8, both of which I can generally suss out with not much
difficulty. I tried to count the beat in my head, and by tapping on my
thigh: "DAH-doonk, dah-doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk." But for the life of
me I couldn't make anything fit. My world had been ripped apart, much
like Sarah Connor's when she discovered she was being hunted by an
implacable killing machine from the future.
First, a quick primer on time signatures for the uninitiated. Most
straight-ahead rock songs are written in 4/4 time. You can count
"1-and-2-and-3-and-4" with the bass drum thumping on the 1 and 3 and the
snare drum cracking on the 2 and 4. Similarly, when you hear a waltz you
can usually count off "1-2-3, 1-2-3" without much trouble.
These are both easily digestible time signatures that are pleasing to
our sense of order. Sometimes, however, a song will stray from the
standard beats and get a bit weird. Dave Brubeckąs łTake Five˛ is the
classic example of a song in 5/4 time. Listen to the repeating lick on
the piano (łdo-DA, do-DA, doo-DAH˛) and steadily count out ł1-2-3-4-5˛
with the 1 falling on the first łdo,˛ the 3 near the second łDA,˛ and
the 4-5 syncing with the łdoo-DAH.˛ Another mainstream piece in an outré
time: Peter Gabrieląs sprightly łSolsbury Hill,˛ which is in 7/4. You
can hear the bass drum thump seven times with each line of the verse.
Okay, back to THE TERMINATOR. Come with me if you want to live... in a
world where we definitively know the time signature of the film's score.
I paused the movie and took to the Internet, confident the source of all
information would give me closure, letting me exhale and enjoy some
unfettered cyborg ultraviolence.
No such luck. I quickly found a thread on a message board for Lansing
audio products in which my question had been posed, but the initial
responses were all wrong or unhelpful. Someone offered a link to
tablature in 3/4 time, which is incorrect. Someone else suggested it was
in 6/8, when it clearly isn't. My frustration mounted along with the
original poster's as he checked back in, still waiting for an answer.
Soon I found another thread on a different message board where that same
person had repeated his inquiry-- and had again received unsatisfying
results. I noticed that at the bottom of one of these threads a
respondent had offered a plausible theory that the song was in 13/16.
But the original poster still wondered: Where is the sheet music, or
some other official source, so we can settle this once and for all?
When I Googled the score's composer, Brad Fiedel, I found a tantalizing
tidbit. "TERMINATOR was very difficult," said Fiedel, "because I was
using many different synths and sequencers and because I didn't have
midi available on many of them I had to sync them by hand. This is why
the main theme is in a very odd time signature. The looping of the
Prophet-10 was just a little short of a complete measure."
At this point I needed to know the full story. So I found Fiedel and got
him on the phone. He was happy to take me back to the early '80s and set
the scene. He explained that before THE TERMINATOR, he'd worked on a
score for a TV movie about Hitler's last days. The producers were
concerned that lush string music might lend sympathy to Hitler, so
Fiedel conjured up a crashing, metallic ruckus. It was this sound that
formed the germ of the later TERMINATOR score.
Fiedel was at heart an improviser. To create the TERMINATOR theme, he
first set up a rhythm loop on one of the primitive, early-'80s devices
he was using. (In those days, Fiedel was firing up a Prophet-10 and an
Oberheim.) He recorded samples of himself whacking a frying pan to
create the clanking sounds. Then he played melodic riffs on a
synthesizer over the looped beat. Amid the throes of creation, what he
hadn't quite noticed-- or hadn't bothered to notice-- was that his
finger had been a split-second off when it pressed the button to
establish that rhythm loop. Being an old machine, there was no
auto-correction. Which meant the loop was in a profoundly herky-jerky
time signature. Fiedel just went with it. The beat seemed to be falling
forward, and he liked its propulsiveness. He recorded the score that way
and (not being classically trained) never wrote down any notation. The
music he'd improvised went straight into the film. With its
collaboration between fallible humanity and rigid machinedom, the score
was especially well-suited to the material at hand.
Much like the creators of Skynet, Fiedel was only later forced to
consider what he had wrought. He got a call from the legendary film and
TV composer Henry Mancini, who was planning to record an album of movie
scores with a full orchestra. Fiedel was giddy to learn that Mancini
wanted to include the TERMINATOR theme. But then Mancini asked for the
lead sheet-- the notes the bandleader would use so the orchestra
musicians could walk in off the street and nail the recording in one
take.
Fiedel enlisted a friend named George Kahn, a jazz musician who had a
music degree and more formal training, to help set the score to paper.
"He called me up and said, 'Brad, what time signature is this in?' I
said, 'I dunno, 6/8?' He said, 'No, it's quirkier than that.'"
(Incidentally, a subsequent search turned up the fact that Fiedel
related a version of this anecdote to Film Score Monthly in 2013. I
don't know why it didn't show up on my computer in my initial search.
I'm blaming our capricious machine overlords.)
"Brad works mind to fingers to keyboard," Kahn says now, "and he
bypasses paper. So I had to sit down and figure it out." You might say
it was as though Kahn had been sent back in time to the early '80s--
dropped into a world that wasn't his own and he didn't understand-- on a
mission to safeguard the conception of a precious thing that he hoped
would live on into the future.
And the verdict? "It's in 13/16. Three plus three plus three plus two
plus two."
Sure enough, primed to listen for this grouping, I was at last able to
count out the beat. DAH-two-three-DOONK-two-three-CLANK-two-three-GONK
-two-GONK-two. Never has drumming on my thigh felt so cathartic.
Epilogue:
Brad Fiedel went on to write the theme for TERMINATOR 2: JUDGMENT DAY
(in the much less jarring time signature of 6/8, because he felt that
film had more warmth), and scored various other film projects before
leaving Hollywood to make his own music. He's currently producing a
one-man musical about the artistic arc of his career.
George Kahn is a touring jazz musician with his own record label.
Henry Mancini sadly died before he could record that album of movie
scores.
The Skynet artificial intelligence system went online in 1997, quickly
achieved self-awareness, and remains dedicated to the extermination of
all humanity.
Ian J. Ball
Jul 19, 2018, 12:27:52 AM7/19/18
to
> And the verdict? "It's in 13/16. Three plus three plus three plus two
> plus two."
Yikes!!
> plus two."
--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)
BTR1701
Jul 19, 2018, 12:44:45 AM7/19/18
to
In article <pip405$et9$1...@dont-email.me>,
Honestly, I don't get this 'solution'. The professional jazz musician
comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
It seems to me they're all overthinking it. They seem wedded to the idea
that the entire phrase has to be contained in one measure, when a much
simpler way of notating it would be five measures with alternating time
signatures:
Three measures in 3/4, followed by two measures in 2/4
or
Three measures in 9/8, followed by two measures in 6/8
As a performer, that would be infinitely more understandable and clear
than sitting down at your stand and seeing a time sig of 13/16, for
gawd's sake.
Now if only John Carpenter would tell us the time signature for that
frakkin' HALLOWEEN theme...
comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
It seems to me they're all overthinking it. They seem wedded to the idea
that the entire phrase has to be contained in one measure, when a much
simpler way of notating it would be five measures with alternating time
signatures:
Three measures in 3/4, followed by two measures in 2/4
or
Three measures in 9/8, followed by two measures in 6/8
As a performer, that would be infinitely more understandable and clear
than sitting down at your stand and seeing a time sig of 13/16, for
gawd's sake.
Now if only John Carpenter would tell us the time signature for that
frakkin' HALLOWEEN theme...
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2018, 12:46:25 AM7/19/18
to
On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 10:58:34 PM UTC-4, BTR1701 wrote:
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_
> of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
>
> As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
> continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
> of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
> catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
> dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
> upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
> released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
> held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
>
> As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
> time signature.
> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_
> of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
>
> As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
> continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
> of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
> catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
> dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
> upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
> released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
> held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
>
> As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
> time signature.
> The Skynet artificial intelligence system went online in 1997, quickly
> achieved self-awareness, and remains dedicated to the extermination of
> all humanity.
Henry Kissinger sings the AI blues, have you heard it?
> achieved self-awareness, and remains dedicated to the extermination of
> all humanity.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/WY32o-9tr-E/xICv6FsxDAAJ
---------------
JJ Abrams composer: LOST - Title sequence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX6KGQ_W9Aw
anim8rfsk
Jul 19, 2018, 12:56:07 AM7/19/18
to
In article <atropos-351D4A...@news.giganews.com>,
5/4
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2018, 12:56:31 AM7/19/18
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
>As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
>continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
>of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
>catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
>dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
>upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
>released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
>held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
>As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
>time signature. I'm a (very) amateur musician, and my ears are attuned
>to bizarre beats. This was as jarring as it gets. A disorienting
>rhythm-- in particular the driving, industrial-sounding beat that gets
>louder and more prominent as the opening theme progresses. It wasn't in
>5/4 or 7/8, both of which I can generally suss out with not much
>difficulty. I tried to count the beat in my head, and by tapping on my
>thigh: "DAH-doonk, dah-doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk." But for the life of
>me I couldn't make anything fit. My world had been ripped apart, much
>like Sarah Connor's when she discovered she was being hunted by an
>implacable killing machine from the future.
He's making this much too difficult. I remember doing exactly the same
thing when I first heard it. You IGNORE the syncopated portion, tapping
out the main beats. The final beats aren't syncopated, so it's
TAP TAP one two three
>First, a quick primer on time signatures for the uninitiated. Most
>straight-ahead rock songs are written in 4/4 time. You can count
>"1-and-2-and-3-and-4" with the bass drum thumping on the 1 and 3 and the
>snare drum cracking on the 2 and 4. Similarly, when you hear a waltz you
>can usually count off "1-2-3, 1-2-3" without much trouble.
Eh.
If they're really trying to embed the tune in your head, they'll
actually count out 8 beats, especially if you're supposed to dance to
it. The brain likes things even. Mr. Monk was right about that.
>. . .
>When I Googled the score's composer, Brad Fiedel, I found a tantalizing
>tidbit. "TERMINATOR was very difficult," said Fiedel, "because I was
>using many different synths and sequencers and because I didn't have
>midi available on many of them I had to sync them by hand. This is why
>the main theme is in a very odd time signature. The looping of the
>Prophet-10 was just a little short of a complete measure."
Oh, that's just cool. Because the method he used was so primitive, he
got something memorable.
It's SUPPOSED to be discordant. It's an evil cyborg from a post
apocolyptic world in which machines are sentient! You don't want to be
able to count out 16 beats!
>. . .
>And the verdict? "It's in 13/16. Three plus three plus three plus two
>plus two."
Sigh. I've always counted out nine beats, not 13. It really breaks the
brain.
Very interesting interview with the composers. Good find.
>http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2014/02/the_time_signature_of_the_terminator_score_is_a_mystery_for_the_ages.html
>As THE TERMINATOR celebrates its 30th anniversary this year, the film
>continues to raise important questions: What are the risks to humanity
>of ascendant machine intelligence? How does a society correct the
>catastrophic missteps in its own past? And, most important, what the
>dickens is that weird time signature in the film's score? The other day,
>upon realizing that 2014 marks three decades since the film was
>released, I decided to stream the cautionary robot fable to see how it
>held up. I didn't make it past the opening titles.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiPOtTDG7c
>As the score kicked in, I immediately recognized it was in a strange
>time signature. I'm a (very) amateur musician, and my ears are attuned
>to bizarre beats. This was as jarring as it gets. A disorienting
>rhythm-- in particular the driving, industrial-sounding beat that gets
>louder and more prominent as the opening theme progresses. It wasn't in
>5/4 or 7/8, both of which I can generally suss out with not much
>difficulty. I tried to count the beat in my head, and by tapping on my
>thigh: "DAH-doonk, dah-doonk, dah-doonk, gonk gonk." But for the life of
>me I couldn't make anything fit. My world had been ripped apart, much
>like Sarah Connor's when she discovered she was being hunted by an
>implacable killing machine from the future.
thing when I first heard it. You IGNORE the syncopated portion, tapping
out the main beats. The final beats aren't syncopated, so it's
TAP TAP one two three
>First, a quick primer on time signatures for the uninitiated. Most
>straight-ahead rock songs are written in 4/4 time. You can count
>"1-and-2-and-3-and-4" with the bass drum thumping on the 1 and 3 and the
>snare drum cracking on the 2 and 4. Similarly, when you hear a waltz you
>can usually count off "1-2-3, 1-2-3" without much trouble.
If they're really trying to embed the tune in your head, they'll
actually count out 8 beats, especially if you're supposed to dance to
it. The brain likes things even. Mr. Monk was right about that.
>. . .
>When I Googled the score's composer, Brad Fiedel, I found a tantalizing
>tidbit. "TERMINATOR was very difficult," said Fiedel, "because I was
>using many different synths and sequencers and because I didn't have
>midi available on many of them I had to sync them by hand. This is why
>the main theme is in a very odd time signature. The looping of the
>Prophet-10 was just a little short of a complete measure."
got something memorable.
It's SUPPOSED to be discordant. It's an evil cyborg from a post
apocolyptic world in which machines are sentient! You don't want to be
able to count out 16 beats!
>. . .
>And the verdict? "It's in 13/16. Three plus three plus three plus two
>plus two."
brain.
Very interesting interview with the composers. Good find.
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2018, 1:01:09 AM7/19/18
to
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>Honestly, I don't get this 'solution'. The professional jazz musician
>comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
But you're not able to count 13 beats, are you? I never have been able to.
>Honestly, I don't get this 'solution'. The professional jazz musician
>comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
>It seems to me they're all overthinking it. They seem wedded to the idea
>that the entire phrase has to be contained in one measure, when a much
>simpler way of notating it would be five measures with alternating time
>signatures:
>Three measures in 3/4, followed by two measures in 2/4
>or
>Three measures in 9/8, followed by two measures in 6/8
>As a performer, that would be infinitely more understandable and clear
>than sitting down at your stand and seeing a time sig of 13/16, for
>gawd's sake.
>Now if only John Carpenter would tell us the time signature for that
>frakkin' HALLOWEEN theme...
anim8rfsk
Jul 19, 2018, 1:04:48 AM7/19/18
to
In article <pip5uj$lj4$2...@dont-email.me>,
Beat you by 5 minutes! Pumpkin spice ice cream for MEEEE!
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2018, 1:51:46 AM7/19/18
to
That one's easy to count out.
There are a few others that come to mind.
"Everything's Alright" from Jesus Christ Superstar
Lalo Schifrin's Theme from Mission: Impossible.
anim8rfsk
Jul 19, 2018, 11:02:21 AM7/19/18
to
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2018, 12:35:55 PM7/19/18
to
Barry Margolin
Jul 19, 2018, 3:16:56 PM7/19/18
to
time signatures ever 2-3 measures. A temporary time signature switch is
not uncommon, but doing it throughout the entire piece would be crazy.
I was going to point out that the author could have found the answer in
the Wikipedia page for "List of music with unusual time signatures". But
it turns out that the citation for it is the author's own Slate piece --
the article is over 4 years old! Why has BTR suddenly become obsessed
with articles about movie music?
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
EGK
Jul 19, 2018, 4:12:54 PM7/19/18
to
I admit when I saw this thread title I thought it was going to be about
Bruce Willis's answer to whether Die Hard was a Christmas movie or not. He
finally answered at his roast last week saying it's not.
He's full of shit!.
BTR1701
Jul 19, 2018, 5:10:00 PM7/19/18
to
In article <barmar-1F7B36....@reader.eternal-september.org>,
score to THE FORCE AWAKENS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aw8948kp495z2sx/TFA-Finale.jpg?dl=0
If you want to hear what that sounds like, it starts at 5:01 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUBUlKgsNK8
> A temporary time signature switch is not uncommon, but doing it throughout
> the entire piece would be crazy.
Tell that to Leonard Bernstein. 'America' from WEST SIDE STORY changes
time signature literally every measure from start to finish. The entire
piece is 6/8 - 3/4 - 6/8 - 3/4 - 6/8 - 3/4, etc.
Having performed professionally in orchestras throughout my 20s, I can
tell you, I'd *much* rather have a constantly shifting set of familiar
time signatures than have to parse out some bizarre 13/16 time signature
that I'd never seen in printed music before in my life.
> Why has BTR suddenly become obsessed with articles about movie music?
Suddenly? I've been obsessed with film scores since I first picked up
the trumpet at the age of 11. Been playing them, reading them, and
reading about them ever since.
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <atropos-351D4A...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't get this 'solution'. The professional jazz musician
> > comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
> >
> > It seems to me they're all overthinking it. They seem wedded to the idea
> > that the entire phrase has to be contained in one measure, when a much
> > simpler way of notating it would be five measures with alternating time
> > signatures:
> >
> > Three measures in 3/4, followed by two measures in 2/4
> >
> > or
> >
> > Three measures in 9/8, followed by two measures in 6/8
> >
> > As a performer, that would be infinitely more understandable and clear
> > than sitting down at your stand and seeing a time sig of 13/16, for
> > gawd's sake.
> In article <atropos-351D4A...@news.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Honestly, I don't get this 'solution'. The professional jazz musician
> > comes up with 13/16, or three plus three plus three plus two plus two.
> >
> > It seems to me they're all overthinking it. They seem wedded to the idea
> > that the entire phrase has to be contained in one measure, when a much
> > simpler way of notating it would be five measures with alternating time
> > signatures:
> >
> > Three measures in 3/4, followed by two measures in 2/4
> >
> > or
> >
> > Three measures in 9/8, followed by two measures in 6/8
> >
> > As a performer, that would be infinitely more understandable and clear
> > than sitting down at your stand and seeing a time sig of 13/16, for
> > gawd's sake.
> While it's understandable, it's kind of a nightmare to have to change
> time signatures ever 2-3 measures.
It's quite common, actually. For example, this excerpt from Williams'
> time signatures ever 2-3 measures.
score to THE FORCE AWAKENS:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aw8948kp495z2sx/TFA-Finale.jpg?dl=0
If you want to hear what that sounds like, it starts at 5:01 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUBUlKgsNK8
> A temporary time signature switch is not uncommon, but doing it throughout
> the entire piece would be crazy.
time signature literally every measure from start to finish. The entire
piece is 6/8 - 3/4 - 6/8 - 3/4 - 6/8 - 3/4, etc.
Having performed professionally in orchestras throughout my 20s, I can
tell you, I'd *much* rather have a constantly shifting set of familiar
time signatures than have to parse out some bizarre 13/16 time signature
that I'd never seen in printed music before in my life.
> Why has BTR suddenly become obsessed with articles about movie music?
the trumpet at the age of 11. Been playing them, reading them, and
reading about them ever since.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 19, 2018, 5:20:04 PM7/19/18
to
“Joseph played a younger me in Looper. He couldn’t pull it off. There is one actor who successfully played me. It was Demi Moore.”
Adam H. Kerman
Jul 19, 2018, 5:39:09 PM7/19/18
to
trotsky
Jul 19, 2018, 8:04:51 PM7/19/18
to
film music. Lately I've been getting records by Miklós Rózsa. Any
words of wisdom on this guy, or just the rather silly John Williams.
P.S. the John Williams I like is a classical guitarist from Australia,
who was also in the instrumental rock band Sky.
bruce2...@gmail.com
Jul 20, 2018, 5:13:20 AM7/20/18
to
A Friend
Jul 20, 2018, 8:16:02 AM7/20/18
to
In article <AG94D.209900$z83....@fx19.iad>, trotsky
Yes! BTW, and on-topic, he did the theme for the UK series ROSEMARY
AND THYME. (Two older gals solve mysteries.)
AND THYME. (Two older gals solve mysteries.)
Barry Margolin
Jul 20, 2018, 10:33:02 AM7/20/18
to
In article <atropos-A73FF8...@news.giganews.com>,
OK, I'll defer to your expertise.
>
> > Why has BTR suddenly become obsessed with articles about movie music?
>
> Suddenly? I've been obsessed with film scores since I first picked up
> the trumpet at the age of 11. Been playing them, reading them, and
> reading about them ever since.
I was just reacting to the fact that you posted two articles about them
in a row, totally out of the blue.
>
> > Why has BTR suddenly become obsessed with articles about movie music?
>
> Suddenly? I've been obsessed with film scores since I first picked up
> the trumpet at the age of 11. Been playing them, reading them, and
> reading about them ever since.
in a row, totally out of the blue.
BTR1701
Jul 20, 2018, 11:28:03 AM7/20/18
to
In article <barmar-EA8B23....@reader.eternal-september.org>,
They just happened to come up in my Twitter feed at the same time.
The article in the other thread did a fantastic job of explaining the
reasons behind the decline and fall of film music as an art over the
last 15 years or so.
The article in the other thread did a fantastic job of explaining the
reasons behind the decline and fall of film music as an art over the
last 15 years or so.
shawn
Jul 20, 2018, 1:47:57 PM7/20/18
to
where the top 100 tends to sound much the same? Mostly due to it being
written by the same people instead of each band/singer doing their own
thing.
BTR1701
Jul 20, 2018, 2:37:27 PM7/20/18
to
you're never gonna get anything as creative as "Bohemian Rhapsody" or Pink
Floyd out of the current manufactured music industry. Every song is
perfectly predictable in both structure, length, and harmony and even the
lyrics basically come from a mix-and-match template of "Ohh, babys" and
"Girl, I want/need/love yous".
------------
Real Orchestras Are Losing Jobs to Machines
------------
While Keltonic is at a place in his career where he can hire full
orchestras for his scores, younger composers like Russell or Thomas O'Boyle
will sometimes write and submit entire pieces entirely on their computer.
Even though he's a violinist, Russell rarely tracks himself playing live,
because the tone wouldn't be the same as the parts cranked out by the
software.
Even big-time goat-testicle-shaking composers do the majority of their work
on the computer nowadays. We may not realize it (or even be able to hear
the difference), but nearly all modern movies include at least some
electronic instrumentation. As you can guess, it's for the same reason
machines are taking the rest of our jobs: humans cost more. But even
massive-budget films like the third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN never required
a real human to physically record a single note. Most of you would never
notice the difference.
[BTR Note: *I* most certainly can hear the difference and I hate it.]
Nearly every video game soundtrack is done this way, and even movies that
do record a live orchestra will overlay it with electronically enhanced
"samples" to give the score a massive, hyper-real sound. "This is why
scores like INTERSTELLAR, INCEPTION, DA VINCI CODE, SHERLOCK HOLMES, SAVING
MR. BANKS, and MAN OF STEEL have such a huge sound that you can't quite get
by recording the same music live," says Russell. "You will not be able to
just sit down and play PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN as it is shown on the page
and get the same results."
Hans Zimmer, of INCEPTION fame, was one of the pioneers of this technique.
[BTR Note: Which is why "sounds like Zimmer" is most definitely not a
compliment if your goal is composing quality music.]
Zimmer still wanted the sound of traditional orchestral instruments, but he
couldn't get real instruments to conform to whatever crazy noises were
bouncing around his brain. Early music samples weren't great at mimicking
"pretty" instruments, like an airy flute or a delicate harp, so Zimmer's
scores employed more heavy percussion, brass strikes, and rhythmic, choppy
strings, as those samples tended to translate better on a computer. This
eventually led us to the modern sound we hear in blockbusters today, which
we'll dub "Batman music":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wk88rjYS8&feature=youtu.be
You'll recognize that style of score as "decidedly modern" and "exactly
what's in literally every single action movie of the past decade". That's a
90-piece orchestra being heavily augmented by tons of electronic samples.
The BATMAN BEGINS score influenced a generation of composers, and movie
music became the way it is today in part because Zimmer's computer sucked
at woodwinds. And also because...
------------
Directors Are Constantly Recycling Scores
------------
Most of the people reading this can hum "The Imperial March" from STAR WARS
or the Indiana Jones theme, but could not at gunpoint do the same for, say,
IRON MAN or THOR. There's a reason for that... and in fact, a reason most
movie scores aren't original.
In general, composers need to see a movie before creating music for it,
which means that part comes last. But the film's director needs some kind
of music in the background during editing, so they use a temporary track
(often a score from some other movie, or some other piece of classical
music). But then, as Keltonic says, "they listen to it so much, they can't
imagine the scene without it." At that point, the director basically says,
"Give me something exactly like the temp score." Thus you wind up with a
score that's almost a cover version of somebody else's.
To be clear, this isn't at all a new thing. "The temp track for STAR WARS
is quite close to the finished product (not that John Williams isn't a
genius, because he clearly is)," says O'Boyle, "and Stanley Kubrick
famously liked the temp track that he threw together for 2001: A SPACE
ODYSSEY so much that he decided not to use a single note of the music he'd
hired Alex North to write and record for him. North didn't find out until
he sat to watch the premiere."
The main difference between then and now isn't that composers are ripping
each other off; it's what they're ripping off. All of those forgettable
Marvel soundtracks were influenced by Zimmer's Batman music. Although it's
undeniably cool, it isn't really what you'd call "memorable". (Can you hear
it in your head?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94TAFSMdkvk&feature=youtu.be
If you heard it again somewhere -- for example, while purchasing donuts
with your Visa card -- you wouldn't immediately think Batman's coming.
According to O'Boyle, this is absolutely intentional. What they want above
all else is consistency.
"It means that if you watch a big-budget Marvel movie, for instance, the
music is unquestionably grand and impressive when it comes to creating a
general sound world, but there's no way that the average person on the
street could hum one of their melodies. It's created music that sounds
typically 'big' and 'Hollywood,' but it's fairly devoid of general musical
character."
Great scores do still come along, of course. And as for Marvel, well, let's
just say they didn't exactly stick with the template with BLACK PANTHER,
which includes African flutes and drums the composer picked up during a
trip to Senegal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPuePGhNbLo&feature=youtu.be
shawn
Jul 20, 2018, 3:06:31 PM7/20/18
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:37:20 -0500, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
I notice they don't mention the wholely machine created songs that
have been talked about in the last few years. I wonder how long before
we see that happening for movie scores. Give the machine a raw edit of
the film and let it go to work scoring the various scenes. It's
certainly doable today with enough resources but I'm not sure how good
the final product would be.
>------------
>Real Orchestras Are Losing Jobs to Machines
>------------
>While Keltonic is at a place in his career where he can hire full
>orchestras for his scores, younger composers like Russell or Thomas O'Boyle
>will sometimes write and submit entire pieces entirely on their computer.
>Even though he's a violinist, Russell rarely tracks himself playing live,
>because the tone wouldn't be the same as the parts cranked out by the
>software.
>
>Even big-time goat-testicle-shaking composers do the majority of their work
>on the computer nowadays. We may not realize it (or even be able to hear
>the difference), but nearly all modern movies include at least some
>electronic instrumentation. As you can guess, it's for the same reason
>machines are taking the rest of our jobs: humans cost more. But even
>massive-budget films like the third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN never required
>a real human to physically record a single note. Most of you would never
>notice the difference.
>
>[BTR Note: *I* most certainly can hear the difference and I hate it.]
Yeah, for an untrained ear we aren't likely to notice but we do notice
the way they pump up certain frequencies to maximize the impact. Often
effective but also quite tiring.
>Nearly every video game soundtrack is done this way, and even movies that
>do record a live orchestra will overlay it with electronically enhanced
>"samples" to give the score a massive, hyper-real sound. "This is why
>scores like INTERSTELLAR, INCEPTION, DA VINCI CODE, SHERLOCK HOLMES, SAVING
>MR. BANKS, and MAN OF STEEL have such a huge sound that you can't quite get
>by recording the same music live," says Russell. "You will not be able to
>just sit down and play PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN as it is shown on the page
>and get the same results."
>
>Hans Zimmer, of INCEPTION fame, was one of the pioneers of this technique.
>
>[BTR Note: Which is why "sounds like Zimmer" is most definitely not a
>compliment if your goal is composing quality music.]
Though he certainly can produce quality music if you look back at THE
LION KING. It's just that doing that takes more time and money than
using computer aids.
Ah, but when someone mentions Batman music to me I always harken back
to the Batman cartoons. A distinctive sound that doesn't sound so
computer produced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ID92BAYYQ
or for all of the animated theme songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EBq8ZrzwQ
The early versions are quite generic which I guess goes along with the
effort they were putting in to the shows.
>If you heard it again somewhere -- for example, while purchasing donuts
>with your Visa card -- you wouldn't immediately think Batman's coming.
>According to O'Boyle, this is absolutely intentional. What they want above
>all else is consistency.
>
>"It means that if you watch a big-budget Marvel movie, for instance, the
>music is unquestionably grand and impressive when it comes to creating a
>general sound world, but there's no way that the average person on the
>street could hum one of their melodies. It's created music that sounds
>typically 'big' and 'Hollywood,' but it's fairly devoid of general musical
>character."
Good thing they spend a lot of effort on developing the character of
the on-screen characters as the music certainly isn't memorable.
wrote:
have been talked about in the last few years. I wonder how long before
we see that happening for movie scores. Give the machine a raw edit of
the film and let it go to work scoring the various scenes. It's
certainly doable today with enough resources but I'm not sure how good
the final product would be.
>------------
>Real Orchestras Are Losing Jobs to Machines
>------------
>While Keltonic is at a place in his career where he can hire full
>orchestras for his scores, younger composers like Russell or Thomas O'Boyle
>will sometimes write and submit entire pieces entirely on their computer.
>Even though he's a violinist, Russell rarely tracks himself playing live,
>because the tone wouldn't be the same as the parts cranked out by the
>software.
>
>Even big-time goat-testicle-shaking composers do the majority of their work
>on the computer nowadays. We may not realize it (or even be able to hear
>the difference), but nearly all modern movies include at least some
>electronic instrumentation. As you can guess, it's for the same reason
>machines are taking the rest of our jobs: humans cost more. But even
>massive-budget films like the third PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN never required
>a real human to physically record a single note. Most of you would never
>notice the difference.
>
>[BTR Note: *I* most certainly can hear the difference and I hate it.]
the way they pump up certain frequencies to maximize the impact. Often
effective but also quite tiring.
>Nearly every video game soundtrack is done this way, and even movies that
>do record a live orchestra will overlay it with electronically enhanced
>"samples" to give the score a massive, hyper-real sound. "This is why
>scores like INTERSTELLAR, INCEPTION, DA VINCI CODE, SHERLOCK HOLMES, SAVING
>MR. BANKS, and MAN OF STEEL have such a huge sound that you can't quite get
>by recording the same music live," says Russell. "You will not be able to
>just sit down and play PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN as it is shown on the page
>and get the same results."
>
>Hans Zimmer, of INCEPTION fame, was one of the pioneers of this technique.
>
>[BTR Note: Which is why "sounds like Zimmer" is most definitely not a
>compliment if your goal is composing quality music.]
LION KING. It's just that doing that takes more time and money than
using computer aids.
to the Batman cartoons. A distinctive sound that doesn't sound so
computer produced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3ID92BAYYQ
or for all of the animated theme songs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5EBq8ZrzwQ
The early versions are quite generic which I guess goes along with the
effort they were putting in to the shows.
>If you heard it again somewhere -- for example, while purchasing donuts
>with your Visa card -- you wouldn't immediately think Batman's coming.
>According to O'Boyle, this is absolutely intentional. What they want above
>all else is consistency.
>
>"It means that if you watch a big-budget Marvel movie, for instance, the
>music is unquestionably grand and impressive when it comes to creating a
>general sound world, but there's no way that the average person on the
>street could hum one of their melodies. It's created music that sounds
>typically 'big' and 'Hollywood,' but it's fairly devoid of general musical
>character."
the on-screen characters as the music certainly isn't memorable.
trotsky
Jul 21, 2018, 5:43:18 AM7/21/18
to
trotsky
Jul 21, 2018, 5:44:39 AM7/21/18
to
0 new messages