SUPPORT FILMTRACKS! CLICK HERE FIRST:
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
iTunes (U.S.)
Amazon.ca
Amazon.fr
eBay (U.S.)
Amazon.de
Amazon.es
Half.com
Glisten Effect
Editorial Reviews
Scoreboard Forum
Viewer Ratings
Composers
Awards
   NEWEST MAJOR REVIEWS:
     1. Transformers: Last Knight
    2. Cars 3
   3. The Mummy
  4. Wonder Woman
 5. POTC: Dead Men Tell No Tales
6. Alien: Covenant


   CURRENT BEST-SELLING SCORES:
       1. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
      2. Fantastic Beasts/Find Them
     3. Willow
    4. The Ghost and the Darkness
   5. An American Tail
  6. The Wind and the Lion
 7. Doctor Strange
8. 10 Cloverfield Lane
   CURRENT MOST POPULAR REVIEWS:
         1. Star Wars: Force Awakens
        2. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
       3. Titanic
      4. Avatar
     5. Nineteen Eighty-Four
    6. Gladiator
   7. Star Wars: A New Hope
  8. Animal Farm
 9. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
10. Harry Potter: Sorcerer's Stone
Home Page
Menu Options ▼
Comments about the soundtrack for The Towering Inferno (Disaster Compilation)
OST vs rerecordings

Dan Parkes
<Send E-Mail>
(client-82-3-80-87.manc.adsl.virgi
n.net)


  Responses to this Comment:
Amuro
OST vs rerecordings   Wednesday, September 10, 2008 (3:11 p.m.) 
• Now Playing: James Horner's The Spitfire Grill  

I am just wondering if I am the only soundtrack collector who will only listen to the original studio recordings as used in the film and will adamently avoid the plethora of rerecordings such as the many albums that Christian has recently been reviewing. I am not sure what it is about the soundtrack community and how many seem to tolerate all of these rerecordings with obvious differences in timing and arrangement. They never sound as good as the version that was used to the desired effect in the film.

Why can we not have the original OST versions in compilation albums? If we were to purchase a Best of the Beatles and got home to discover it was a cover group I am sure most would want their money back. And yet even great compiliations of John Williams, Alan Silvestri and James Horner will contain rerecorded versions from concerts rather than the OST. I know the reason is economic -clearance was maybe too expensive.

What I have ended up doing is creating my own compilation albums from OSTs in my collection. These no beating the original...



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Amuro
(98.220.188.161)
Profile Picture
  In Response to:
Dan Parkes

  Responses to this Comment:
Dan Parkes
Re: OST vs rerecordings   Wednesday, September 10, 2008 (7:53 p.m.) 

> I am just wondering if I am the only soundtrack collector who will only
> listen to the original studio recordings as used in the film and will
> adamently avoid the plethora of rerecordings such as the many albums that
> Christian has recently been reviewing. I am not sure what it is about the
> soundtrack community and how many seem to tolerate all of these
> rerecordings with obvious differences in timing and arrangement. They
> never sound as good as the version that was used to the desired effect in
> the film.

> Why can we not have the original OST versions in compilation albums? If we
> were to purchase a Best of the Beatles and got home to discover it was a
> cover group I am sure most would want their money back. And yet even great
> compiliations of John Williams, Alan Silvestri and James Horner will
> contain rerecorded versions from concerts rather than the OST. I know the
> reason is economic -clearance was maybe too expensive.

> What I have ended up doing is creating my own compilation albums from OSTs
> in my collection. These no beating the original...

I see what you mean, but I think you're missing some of the point. These rerecordings are obviously not meant to fit the film, but are rather meant solely to be listened to, so its not necessary for the conductor to follow every tempo perfectly or to insist upon making each musical gesture exactly the same. In that way, the conductor (and the players) are able to be much more musical in some instances, and there are times where I believe certain rerecordings have more passion and energy than the originals do. Your comparison to the Beatles cover, I think is a little off the point here because even the Beatles didn't perform the same songs the exact same ways every time, no one does. This is more akin to classical music, where you will hear that Simon Rattle and Leonard Bernstein interpret Mahler's 5th symphony differently, but both are incredible and fantastic to listen to. You don't want to go to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and hear that they're not performing Beethoven 3 because New York already did it. At this point its not about being faithful its about being musical and inventing one's own interpretation.

As for making a little extra money... well there's no problem with that eh?



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display


Dan Parkes
<Send E-Mail>
(client-82-3-80-87.manc.adsl.virgi
n.net)

  In Response to:
Amuro
Re: OST vs rerecordings   Thursday, September 11, 2008 (2:40 p.m.) 
• Now Playing: A compilation of James Horner originals!  

> I see what you mean, but I think you're missing some of the point. These
> rerecordings are obviously not meant to fit the film, but are rather meant
> solely to be listened to, so its not necessary for the conductor to follow
> every tempo perfectly or to insist upon making each musical gesture
> exactly the same. In that way, the conductor (and the players) are able to
> be much more musical in some instances, and there are times where I
> believe certain rerecordings have more passion and energy than the
> originals do. Your comparison to the Beatles cover, I think is a little
> off the point here because even the Beatles didn't perform the same songs
> the exact same ways every time, no one does. This is more akin to
> classical music, where you will hear that Simon Rattle and Leonard
> Bernstein interpret Mahler's 5th symphony differently, but both are
> incredible and fantastic to listen to. You don't want to go to see the
> Chicago Symphony Orchestra and hear that they're not performing Beethoven
> 3 because New York already did it. At this point its not about being
> faithful its about being musical and inventing one's own interpretation.

> As for making a little extra money... well there's no problem with that
> eh?

Thanks, Amuro. So maybe I am the only purist out there who dislikes rerecordings masquerading as originals. I am not saying that rerecordings are inherently bad in themselves (although some are awful), some are good -I attend concert performances etc. they're a great idea. What I am trying and maybe unsuccessfully saying is that 'compilation' albums such as Christian is reviewing almost always contain rerecordings and concert versions rather than the actual originals as I would prefer as a collector. And I think the public is often fooled into buying albums of soundtrack music that they believe are the real McCoy when in fact they are not. To go back to my popular music reference...if you buy a standard rock album you can safely assume it is the original, studio recording... if it is anything else it will explicitly state 'live' 'alternative mix' etc however these compilation albums you have to read the very small print to find out if it is the original or not...



Post Full Response         Edit Post         Threaded display



Copyright © 1998-2017, Filmtracks Publications. All rights reserved.
The reviews and other textual content contained on the filmtracks.com site may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Christian Clemmensen at Filmtracks Publications. Scoreboard created 7/24/98 and last updated 4/25/15.