Rock’n’Roll as an international language is important in the film Tokyo Pop (1988, Fran Rubel Kuzui). The importance of Rock’n’Roll, especially American popular songs, help I believe to build a bridge between western ‘rebellious’ culture and traditional eastern culture. I feel that in this film it shows also that Rock’n’Roll is also as a vehicle of escape from tradition.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Tokyo Pop
Friday, March 23, 2007
minstrelsy and a 13" wang
Or:Bamboozled and Boogie Nights
Last night my friend had to watch Bamboozeled, a Spike Lee joint, for one of her papers so we did a double feature with Boogie nights. I'm sure a lot of people have, but I hadn't, seen bamboozled. If you are planning on writing your essay on minstrelsy it is a must. The central premise of the movie is a TV writer who pitches a new millennium minstrel show to the network he works for. Around the central device of the minstrel show orbit a host of people who represent different slants on the idea of the minstrel. The TV writer who describes himself as an Oreo: brown on the outside white on the inside. His boss, a high fiving, white, male with giant photos of exclusively black sportsman behind his desk. A white rapper in Mos Def's character's militant black rights group. an Italian who, in a really uncomfortable scene, claims he is more of a nigger than niggers before doing a rap. Each of these represent a different take on the idea of the minstrel. This list is probably not exhaustive either. Grotesque minstrel memorabilia is a key feature of the visual imagery coupled with ‘blackface’ that the show’s fans start adopting making for some really unsettling viewing. The film is largely satirical and if you need a definition of that there is one in the opening scene of the movie. There is quite a bit of historical information, some really intelligent discourse about race issues, and even a kind of ‘Thank you for Smoking’ look at using critical discourse to justify racism. There is a classic scene where a spin doctor tries to defend her right to address black issues by saying she has a PHD in African studies from Princeton. The ‘Oreo’ character responds by saying something like: ‘Ah, excellent, a niggerologist’. Anyway way it’s a really good/easy way to get background to the history and resent debate about minstrelsy.
We watched Boogie Nights second and there was a scene towards the end that struck me as quite a clear reference to minstrelsy. When ‘I like to fuck’ Buck is in the doughnut store hold up, the robber shoots the store keeper through the head covering Bucks face with blood. I realize that blood is red and not black but I think the image is heightened by his bright white suit and the fact he does this weird minstrel, jazz hands, thing near his face. Buck’s character is definitely used as vehicle to address race issues and maybe this just serves as a visual cue to remind us of this. Think when Buck is applying for a bank loan and his face and hands are again in stark contrast to his suit. The bank manager wants to say your black and a porn star but only says what he can say: you’re a porn star. Bert Reynolds’s character seems to have reasonably good credit if you see my point. Also Buck seems to have a sincere like for country music, which is of course a bastion of whitedom, yet another slant on the minstrelsy.
Probably my favorite scene was when Dirk Diggler meets his sidekick (shake n bake) for the first time and the sidekick says ‘a lot of people tell me I look like Hans solo’ followed by some silence. In the silence I couldn’t help thinking – well I guess we know who Luke skywalker is, because Hans doesn’t have a saber, if you get me. All it needs is a heavy breathing drug dealer in a black helmet for the star wars metaphysics to be fully instated. Dirks special gift from ‘the force’ stops working after too much nose candy.
Digital mysticz at gelatos sat night. Braaaaap
Last night my friend had to watch Bamboozeled, a Spike Lee joint, for one of her papers so we did a double feature with Boogie nights. I'm sure a lot of people have, but I hadn't, seen bamboozled. If you are planning on writing your essay on minstrelsy it is a must. The central premise of the movie is a TV writer who pitches a new millennium minstrel show to the network he works for. Around the central device of the minstrel show orbit a host of people who represent different slants on the idea of the minstrel. The TV writer who describes himself as an Oreo: brown on the outside white on the inside. His boss, a high fiving, white, male with giant photos of exclusively black sportsman behind his desk. A white rapper in Mos Def's character's militant black rights group. an Italian who, in a really uncomfortable scene, claims he is more of a nigger than niggers before doing a rap. Each of these represent a different take on the idea of the minstrel. This list is probably not exhaustive either. Grotesque minstrel memorabilia is a key feature of the visual imagery coupled with ‘blackface’ that the show’s fans start adopting making for some really unsettling viewing. The film is largely satirical and if you need a definition of that there is one in the opening scene of the movie. There is quite a bit of historical information, some really intelligent discourse about race issues, and even a kind of ‘Thank you for Smoking’ look at using critical discourse to justify racism. There is a classic scene where a spin doctor tries to defend her right to address black issues by saying she has a PHD in African studies from Princeton. The ‘Oreo’ character responds by saying something like: ‘Ah, excellent, a niggerologist’. Anyway way it’s a really good/easy way to get background to the history and resent debate about minstrelsy.
We watched Boogie Nights second and there was a scene towards the end that struck me as quite a clear reference to minstrelsy. When ‘I like to fuck’ Buck is in the doughnut store hold up, the robber shoots the store keeper through the head covering Bucks face with blood. I realize that blood is red and not black but I think the image is heightened by his bright white suit and the fact he does this weird minstrel, jazz hands, thing near his face. Buck’s character is definitely used as vehicle to address race issues and maybe this just serves as a visual cue to remind us of this. Think when Buck is applying for a bank loan and his face and hands are again in stark contrast to his suit. The bank manager wants to say your black and a porn star but only says what he can say: you’re a porn star. Bert Reynolds’s character seems to have reasonably good credit if you see my point. Also Buck seems to have a sincere like for country music, which is of course a bastion of whitedom, yet another slant on the minstrelsy.
Probably my favorite scene was when Dirk Diggler meets his sidekick (shake n bake) for the first time and the sidekick says ‘a lot of people tell me I look like Hans solo’ followed by some silence. In the silence I couldn’t help thinking – well I guess we know who Luke skywalker is, because Hans doesn’t have a saber, if you get me. All it needs is a heavy breathing drug dealer in a black helmet for the star wars metaphysics to be fully instated. Dirks special gift from ‘the force’ stops working after too much nose candy.
Digital mysticz at gelatos sat night. Braaaaap
Music on Cell Phones.
If you buy music or songs off a website or download it to your phone, you can play the song on your cell phone quite easily and download the song to your computer. For example, you can purchase music off the Vodaphone music website, play it on your 3G phone and download it to your computer. However, if the cell phone is damaged and you need to replace your phone, even if you get the same model phone and use the same SIM card and cell phone number, you cannot play the songs that you downloaded previously.
Copying and dubbing have been common for many years with popular music and films. For example, you might have copied a CD onto tape or more recently, onto MP3 files which can be easily moved around different listening devices.
The new form of Digital Rights Management that is embedded in the new MP4 format used by cell phone music providers prevents users who buy the music directly from them to move the music files that they have purchased to other places.
I have been informed by Vodafone that the files are tied into the serial number of the cell phone handset, not the cell phone number. This prevents users from sending and swapping music between them. However, it also prevents the user from listening to music on other devices or replacing music on a damaged phone. Most people assume this is a given right because they have bought the songs already.
The shocking reality is; if you have downloaded a lot of music to your phone and the phone is damaged, you will lose all the songs you believe to be yours.
Is this new trend the end of a common practice that we thought we had a right to or will users rebel against this and buy their digital music in another place?
Mana E
Copying and dubbing have been common for many years with popular music and films. For example, you might have copied a CD onto tape or more recently, onto MP3 files which can be easily moved around different listening devices.
The new form of Digital Rights Management that is embedded in the new MP4 format used by cell phone music providers prevents users who buy the music directly from them to move the music files that they have purchased to other places.
I have been informed by Vodafone that the files are tied into the serial number of the cell phone handset, not the cell phone number. This prevents users from sending and swapping music between them. However, it also prevents the user from listening to music on other devices or replacing music on a damaged phone. Most people assume this is a given right because they have bought the songs already.
The shocking reality is; if you have downloaded a lot of music to your phone and the phone is damaged, you will lose all the songs you believe to be yours.
Is this new trend the end of a common practice that we thought we had a right to or will users rebel against this and buy their digital music in another place?
Mana E
Pot calling the kettle black?
Hi, First post and all.
This is kinda in reference to a post by Kate VN, titled 'but. but..'
I'm more interested in intellectual property (IP), and sampling when it comes to sounds, and sampling.
Joel Vietch has an amusing site called rathergood.com, in which he has all sorts of amusing songs and animations some which verge on being music videos, being made to accentuate or poke fun at established songs. Such as his viking kitten attempt of Gaybar by band Electric Six.
Joels funny animation (lots of Kittens)
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/
Rob Manuels faux doco of his mate getting ripped off.
http://www.robmanuel.com/2006/12/13/is-coke-ripping-off-the-little-guy/
The crux point comes as an example of a Argentinian coke ad surfaces where Coca-Cola seems to have ripped off another of Joels creations. Joels rights to his IP seem to have been circumvented. One of my friends ventured the idea that the fact that as Joel has clearly sign-posted the song in his video was written and played by the band Electric six that his animation is more legitimate, however.....does that mean if Coca-Cola Argentina had put a hastily scribed JoelVeitch@rathergood.com at the end of their ad that their use of his IP would be all right?
The main question I have, with regards to sampling of both audio and musical clips, is what are the general rules that are used to define and draw the lines between public domain and of copyright infringement?
Or more importantly, as both sites love to pull pranks on the general public have I just been the victim of another one of their hilarious scams?
Cheers
Mike-L
This is kinda in reference to a post by Kate VN, titled 'but. but..'
I'm more interested in intellectual property (IP), and sampling when it comes to sounds, and sampling.
Joel Vietch has an amusing site called rathergood.com, in which he has all sorts of amusing songs and animations some which verge on being music videos, being made to accentuate or poke fun at established songs. Such as his viking kitten attempt of Gaybar by band Electric Six.
Joels funny animation (lots of Kittens)
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/
Rob Manuels faux doco of his mate getting ripped off.
http://www.robmanuel.com/2006/12/13/is-coke-ripping-off-the-little-guy/
The crux point comes as an example of a Argentinian coke ad surfaces where Coca-Cola seems to have ripped off another of Joels creations. Joels rights to his IP seem to have been circumvented. One of my friends ventured the idea that the fact that as Joel has clearly sign-posted the song in his video was written and played by the band Electric six that his animation is more legitimate, however.....does that mean if Coca-Cola Argentina had put a hastily scribed JoelVeitch@rathergood.com at the end of their ad that their use of his IP would be all right?
The main question I have, with regards to sampling of both audio and musical clips, is what are the general rules that are used to define and draw the lines between public domain and of copyright infringement?
Or more importantly, as both sites love to pull pranks on the general public have I just been the victim of another one of their hilarious scams?
Cheers
Mike-L
Re-feeling through soundtrack
Hey,
This week’s lecture about the Hollywood film soundtrack reminded me the days I used to collect the soundtracks. Listening to the film soundtrack is more enjoyable than just music itself because you unconsciously get emotional effect without the real visuals or images infront of you.
In my opinion, soundtrack has been always popular especially among the film audiences because the soundtrack can evoke emotions and other associations that you had while watching the film without actually having to produce directly through the narratives. In addition, each song contains the image and atmosphere of one particular scene or character so it also can help audiences to recall the special scene or dialogue of the film. I say it is mostly the soundtrack's power that is making audiences to view the same film again and again (that is if the soundtrack is well fitted with the narrative and successful). Soundtrack can be used as a marketing tools and surely help film to achieve sensational result.
These are some of my favourite film OST (that I can remember now) and I believe they are all well known.
Shape of my heart (Sting) - Leon (1994)
Kissing You (Des'ree) - Romeo and Juliet (1996)
She (Elvis Costello) - Notting Hill (1999)
Tennessee (Hans Zimmer) - Pearl Harbour (2001)
The trouble with Love is (Kelly Clarkson) - Love Actually (2003)
Each of them produces specific emotions that audiences already have experienced through the film. Like, when listening to the Romeo and Juliet OST- Kissing You, audience can recall the scene where Romeo and Juliet first meet each other since it is so memorable. Notting Hill and Leon OST that I listed appear at the end of the film and somehow the mood of the music matches with the genre of the film. I personally like Pearl Harbour's soundtrack although it is mostly orchestral music because you can feel its own special emotional characteristic by the music as the music has been well tied-in with the narrative.
This week’s lecture about the Hollywood film soundtrack reminded me the days I used to collect the soundtracks. Listening to the film soundtrack is more enjoyable than just music itself because you unconsciously get emotional effect without the real visuals or images infront of you.
In my opinion, soundtrack has been always popular especially among the film audiences because the soundtrack can evoke emotions and other associations that you had while watching the film without actually having to produce directly through the narratives. In addition, each song contains the image and atmosphere of one particular scene or character so it also can help audiences to recall the special scene or dialogue of the film. I say it is mostly the soundtrack's power that is making audiences to view the same film again and again (that is if the soundtrack is well fitted with the narrative and successful). Soundtrack can be used as a marketing tools and surely help film to achieve sensational result.
These are some of my favourite film OST (that I can remember now) and I believe they are all well known.
Shape of my heart (Sting) - Leon (1994)
Kissing You (Des'ree) - Romeo and Juliet (1996)
She (Elvis Costello) - Notting Hill (1999)
Tennessee (Hans Zimmer) - Pearl Harbour (2001)
The trouble with Love is (Kelly Clarkson) - Love Actually (2003)
Each of them produces specific emotions that audiences already have experienced through the film. Like, when listening to the Romeo and Juliet OST- Kissing You, audience can recall the scene where Romeo and Juliet first meet each other since it is so memorable. Notting Hill and Leon OST that I listed appear at the end of the film and somehow the mood of the music matches with the genre of the film. I personally like Pearl Harbour's soundtrack although it is mostly orchestral music because you can feel its own special emotional characteristic by the music as the music has been well tied-in with the narrative.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Pop music on film and tv: it just makes sense!
Based on the readings for this week, the lecture and my own conclusions it just seems logical based on a marketing perspective for music and film to intertwine and unite. If combined successfully, a movie, television programme, song and/or artist can become an instantaneous hit so why would artists or directors miss this opportunity?! It may result in a loss of 'integrity' to a particular artist to appear in a main stream production however if money is on the mind (as it often is) what would hold them back? There are countless examples of music featuring on films or television which result in boosted sales and general public knowlegde of artists. A clear example is Snow Patrol, The Fray and KT Tunstall whose songs have all appeared during key moments in Grey's Anatomy and have evidently contributed to their album sales and public recognition. The Fray even depicts scenes from the show in the advertisements for their album on television. These songs have obviously been chosen for their appropriateness in the plot of the series and have fitted in with the emotion of the scenes, no doubt contributing to their success. This has also resulted in a compilation CD from music featured in Grey's Anatomy which has sold well. The 'synergy' does not stop there however. Established artists such as The Black Eyed Pea's used the recognisable riff from Pulp Fiction in a recent hit Pump It, which personally reminded me of the film every time I heard it and made me somewhat like the song which I probably would not have otherwise. The inclusion of the riff potentially widens the appeal of the song to a broader market which may attract an older demographic of listeners. When presented with evidence in the form of sales, viewings and publicity for musicians and film or television series it is evident the idea of 'synergy' is commercially viable for all involved but only when the song and accompanying scene flow seamlessly together or produces an effect on the audience.
Duran Duran’s “Girls on Film”
These days it is not common for us to see sex and nudity throughout music videos. Hip Hop artists are bathed in semi naked women and pop artists dance seductively in scantily clad clothing. When did images of sex become a tool for many artists to use to sell their music, and more importantly when did we stop being shocked at these images?
Duran Duran first released their notorious music video for “Girls on Film” in 1981. The video clip caused controversy and uproar among censors who dubbed the video pornographic and offensive with its montage of erotic and sexually explicit images, which included topless and semi naked women pouring champagne over themselves. Twenty five years later even I have to admit that this is one racy video clip. Some may find it offensive or distasteful, but no matter what opinion we may have I think that it’s easy to agree that it was genius for its time. Although it was banned on BBC TV and was heavily edited for MTV, the controversy surrounding the video created so much publicity that it boosted the success of “Girls On Film” which became the first top ten hit for Duran Duran’s musical career. Duran Duran distinguished themselves from other pop bands and caught the attention of the media, including MTV and the public. Very clever lads.
I guess this was just early days of using sexual images to sell, and “Girls on Film” was only a predecessor for music video clips to come from Madonna’s “Erotica” in 1992 and Christina Aguilera’s “Dirrty” and Benny Benassi’s “Satisfaction” in 2002. (I’m sure there’s worse). Images of drugs, death and violence are already appearing in music videos, shocking yet intriguing us, enticing us to buy their product.
But when did we stop being shocked? And what will come next for bands to get our attention…?
Hollywood Sound
Hey,
This might be a bit off-topic but thought I'd mention it anyway. Yesterday's lec with the Hollywood film soundtracks and the earlier lectures on Al Jolson and Bernard Herrmann kind of reminded me of Sunset Boulevard (1950). The theme in SB's opening sequence is quite similar to Psycho and Vertigo in that they are quite melodramatic with the crescendo patterns and sinister undertones.
There's an interesting scene where Norma Desmond (as the faded silent film star complete with her decadent '20s mansion) laments the advent of sound during a conversation with her then-New Hollywood 'ghostwriter' and future pimp, Joe Gillis.
JG: "You used to be in silent pictures, you used to be big."
ND: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small..."
Norma goes on to talk about how she can say anything she wants with her eyes.
Especially as a b/w film, I think the score adds to (or rather creates) the creepy decrepit mood and externalises Norma's distorted sense of self and Joe's opportunism; the music adds a colour to it, so to speak.
The special edition DVD also has a featurette on the famous composer for SB, German emigre, Franz Waxman. It concentrates on the leitmotivs (Bebop for the hip cat Joe and Valentinoesque tango melodies for old-fashioned Norma), and how Waxman and Billy Wilder 'condensed' the music to link across different scenes.
Stella
This might be a bit off-topic but thought I'd mention it anyway. Yesterday's lec with the Hollywood film soundtracks and the earlier lectures on Al Jolson and Bernard Herrmann kind of reminded me of Sunset Boulevard (1950). The theme in SB's opening sequence is quite similar to Psycho and Vertigo in that they are quite melodramatic with the crescendo patterns and sinister undertones.
There's an interesting scene where Norma Desmond (as the faded silent film star complete with her decadent '20s mansion) laments the advent of sound during a conversation with her then-New Hollywood 'ghostwriter' and future pimp, Joe Gillis.
JG: "You used to be in silent pictures, you used to be big."
ND: "I am big. It's the pictures that got small..."
Norma goes on to talk about how she can say anything she wants with her eyes.
Especially as a b/w film, I think the score adds to (or rather creates) the creepy decrepit mood and externalises Norma's distorted sense of self and Joe's opportunism; the music adds a colour to it, so to speak.
The special edition DVD also has a featurette on the famous composer for SB, German emigre, Franz Waxman. It concentrates on the leitmotivs (Bebop for the hip cat Joe and Valentinoesque tango melodies for old-fashioned Norma), and how Waxman and Billy Wilder 'condensed' the music to link across different scenes.
Stella
Contact details.
Since people have been asking, here are my contact details again.
My office is Arts 203.
Email address: kveale AT gmail.com
Office Hours: Monday 12-1 or 2
Friday 1-2 or 3.
The reasoning there is that during busier times of semester, like before essays are due, I have four hours a week and stick around till the later hour. If you need to see me outside those times, or in the extended times, send me an email and I'll be happy to sort something out for you.
- Kevin.
My office is Arts 203.
Email address: kveale AT gmail.com
Office Hours: Monday 12-1 or 2
Friday 1-2 or 3.
The reasoning there is that during busier times of semester, like before essays are due, I have four hours a week and stick around till the later hour. If you need to see me outside those times, or in the extended times, send me an email and I'll be happy to sort something out for you.
- Kevin.
Viewing for next week's class and reading
A correction to my last post. Instead of watching MTV 20 as your prescribed viewing for the week, please watch the videos mentioned in the readings that I've posted on the blog below. At least one exam question will relate to the Vernallis and Dieckmann readings. You're still welcome to view MTV 20 which provides a strong sense of the MTV video canon. You must watch Boogie Nights by next Wednesday.
Whoops. Just realized that watching the music videos might use up a lot of your net account so just watch as many music videos as you reasonably can in whatever format.
Whoops. Just realized that watching the music videos might use up a lot of your net account so just watch as many music videos as you reasonably can in whatever format.
Score vs Song
Something which has been bugging me since the start of this paper is the question of what is more complimentary to images, score or song?
In reality I think that both work, when used appropriately. It would also depend on the sort of film you were trying to make, for example, a complition score works for a period film. Wheras a complition score for a modern teen film just seems like a moneymaking exercise (synergy too).
Boogie Nights is a really good example of a compilation score working well. This may come down to the fact that the songs feel tied to the images (the filmmakers have obviously thought about this) and that they are also able to invoke the 70s and the 80s. I think it's just a side effect that the 2 volumes of soundtrack have sold well.
Musical montages in standard Hollywood fair tend to stick out like a sore thumb though. It just seems like a way to promote the soundtrack featuring the actor/singer. Here I'm thinking of Hillary Duff and Lindsay Lohan, both of whom have recorded songs for the soundtracks to the films they have starred in.
In general though, I'd say that music specifically conceived for a film is a better accompaniment (although the Tarantino way of doing things is interesting; coming up with a mix and developing the film around that). My example of a good score is that from Ravenous. This is a collaboration between Damon Albarn (the Blur and Gorillaz guy) and Michael Nyman (a notable composer). For this film they tried to use instruments (like a Jew's harp) from the period that the film was set (the 1800s). No pop songs here. If you've seen the film, you'll know that this score works really well.
So given that there is usually two soundtracks for films (the score and 'music from and inspired by the film') it is interesting to note that the latter is bound to sell better (shown by the fact there's often several volumes). This is probably because a score often doesn't function very well without the visuals to compliment it.
In reality I think that both work, when used appropriately. It would also depend on the sort of film you were trying to make, for example, a complition score works for a period film. Wheras a complition score for a modern teen film just seems like a moneymaking exercise (synergy too).
Boogie Nights is a really good example of a compilation score working well. This may come down to the fact that the songs feel tied to the images (the filmmakers have obviously thought about this) and that they are also able to invoke the 70s and the 80s. I think it's just a side effect that the 2 volumes of soundtrack have sold well.
Musical montages in standard Hollywood fair tend to stick out like a sore thumb though. It just seems like a way to promote the soundtrack featuring the actor/singer. Here I'm thinking of Hillary Duff and Lindsay Lohan, both of whom have recorded songs for the soundtracks to the films they have starred in.
In general though, I'd say that music specifically conceived for a film is a better accompaniment (although the Tarantino way of doing things is interesting; coming up with a mix and developing the film around that). My example of a good score is that from Ravenous. This is a collaboration between Damon Albarn (the Blur and Gorillaz guy) and Michael Nyman (a notable composer). For this film they tried to use instruments (like a Jew's harp) from the period that the film was set (the 1800s). No pop songs here. If you've seen the film, you'll know that this score works really well.
So given that there is usually two soundtracks for films (the score and 'music from and inspired by the film') it is interesting to note that the latter is bound to sell better (shown by the fact there's often several volumes). This is probably because a score often doesn't function very well without the visuals to compliment it.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Factors or Factories: Popular Film + Popular Music = Popular Theatre?
As discussed popular music has it’s origins from musical theatre, what astounds me is that musical theatre is able to sustain its popularity even to this day through its cultivation on screen. It has established itself a niche genre where it could promote itself as a movie and a business enterprise for generating popular music and panning out into stage shows. There is a wide selection of movies, predominately aimed at a younger audience which the core emphasis is to provide just as much lyrical value as narrative value. What also amazes me is that we could also view popular film and popular music as factors (or factories) of popular theatre hence the concept of “Popular Film + Popular Music = Popular Theatre” or perhaps more debatably the three being of equal significance in marketing and production: Popular Film = Popular Music = Popular Theatre in the context of this blog entry.It is not to say that all these films are successful, some of these films, usually hybridized projects, excelled in television and in the adult contemporary charts such as American Idol finalists Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini’s attempt to make a musical film From Justin to Kelly (2003) grossing $4,928,883 unable to break even, with the $12 million production budget. However musical films are often viewed as guilty pleasures, affluent in setting trends especially for the ever-consuming and conforming younger viewers. Disney’s High School Musical (2006) for instance, steering away from the childish overtones, is a successful project. Within a span of two years of its release excelled in both records and DVD sales, in the field digital downloading the single Breaking free reached no.1 and in 5 weeks accumulated 192,000 downloads. Other milestones include the follow up of an ice skating format of the production and international releases of stage shows, all spawned from the television movie of the production budget of $5 million; much more successful from Fox’s $12 million production budget of From Justin to Kelly.
Other recent musical films include Happy Feet, a hybridized form of both computer animated children’s comedy consisting of a disco/dance, gospel numbers, and adaptation of popular covers. Disney is renowned for their children’s programming, in attempt to reclaim their 2D animation triumphs, from the pitfalls of Home on the Range (2004), decided to do what they do best by returning to creating post-modern narratives. The production of the 2D animation of The Frog Princess, a parody of a fairytale will depict Disney’s first ever African-American Disney princess. Other Disney classics of a musical Genre include Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King which have spawned into theatrical productions and chart topping hits by Celine Dion, Elton John and Tim Rice. These are some great examples of Popular Film + Popular Music = Popular Theatre.
Though in this modern day and age these films are less frequent in the cinemas, other genres such as action and comedies tend to be relevant, closely associated with our everyday living, this genre carries a nostalgia that leaves a lasting impression throughout the media and entertainment industry, and ultimately how we perceive and live our lives. Be expectant of more musical films to showcase on the screen such as the 2007 remake of Hairspray with Grease star John Travolta and High School Musical’s Zac Efron.
First try at this
howdy all, it's Simon here and I am going top give this blogging thing a whirl (hope this part doesn't count for the 1000 words)
As I was sitting in the lecture and Mr. Zuberi was discussing about hoping that we have started the planning of the essay, I understand this is similar to the the essay idea of FTVMS 204 and we are to do our own things so I have an idea I want someone to help me out with
I was thinking of discussing in the essay about Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and how the replacement of all sound except the sound track gave the movie it's real reflection of alot of society's problems, mixing it's metaphorical ideas of political confrontation that music gets away with. Pink Floyd have lots of undertones in their songs, like the song about children being bricks in a wall, it's really referring to making soldiers out of them to go into war (popular display of this is when at concerts they show scenes of Vietnam when singing this song like at the Roger Walters concert in Jan)
anywho it's a starting point and I have alot to cover to get the final question/essay ready but a little feedback would be nice
cheers
your pal
SimonL
As I was sitting in the lecture and Mr. Zuberi was discussing about hoping that we have started the planning of the essay, I understand this is similar to the the essay idea of FTVMS 204 and we are to do our own things so I have an idea I want someone to help me out with
I was thinking of discussing in the essay about Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and how the replacement of all sound except the sound track gave the movie it's real reflection of alot of society's problems, mixing it's metaphorical ideas of political confrontation that music gets away with. Pink Floyd have lots of undertones in their songs, like the song about children being bricks in a wall, it's really referring to making soldiers out of them to go into war (popular display of this is when at concerts they show scenes of Vietnam when singing this song like at the Roger Walters concert in Jan)
anywho it's a starting point and I have alot to cover to get the final question/essay ready but a little feedback would be nice
cheers
your pal
SimonL
"EXTRA EXTRA: Music sold by image!"
Music videos have always been fuelled by commercial interest. There is the possibility that a music video will be a potential customer's first exposure to such artists, so an explicit visual depiction of the band's [or record company's] ideology, however vulgar or profane, is incredibly valuable and more powerful than the music alone in selling the artist. In the case of most popular music, the image of an artist is of equal importance to the music itself. This is equal both to so-called 'indie' bands like the Arctic Monkeys, who play on an image of 'amateurity' (I believe I just invented a word) and 'undergroundness' (I'm on a roll...), bad haircuts and all, as it is to the latest flash-in-the-pan, chain-hang-low pop rap act. Everyone has an image to sell, be it of South-Central L.A. gangsta, hip 'bohemian' Andy Warhol wannabe, or mysterious teutonic Kraftwerk disciple in black turtleneck...
The days when record sleeves contained little more than text and frilly graphic details ended soon after Thomas Edison died. We now have a multiplicity of graphic and video forms representing contemporary music. Video clips are just one of them, but all have a commercial (and ideological) function.
I'm surprised this seems so new to some people.
The Influence of Music on the Narrative
I'm an extreme movie buff so movies definitely take up a lot of my time and I must say that especially after last week's lecture, I began to take note (even moreso than usual) of music used in film and how it weaves itself into and thus often, influences the narrative.
What struck me the most out of last week's lecture was when Psycho was brought up. Psycho is definitely one of my all-time favorite "oldies" movies; I think Alfred Hitchcock is/was a right master in his craft...especially considering the time his movies were made. Anyway, I thought it highly interesting when this guy (forgot his name!!) started talking about the scene where Marion is driving in her car. Nothing out of the ordinary happens in the scene but it is the score used at the time that heightens the suspense in that sequence. You know that something bad is going to happen because of the music.
I guess it's because we are so used to the presence of music in movies that we don't think too much of it's effect on the film. I find it amazing that music is so much a part of the film narrative these days that often you do not even realize it's there. If executed right, they work extremely well hand-in-hand to help push and/or complement the narrative. But turn off the volume and how we would interpret scenes in a film could potentially be completely different compared to when we saw the film with sound.
I watched Everything Is Illuminated not too long ago - has anyone else watched that? It is one of the films that, in my opinion, uses music quite well not only as part of the narrative, but also as a storytelling tool.
I have posted 3 clips from different points in the movie below. This can also tie in with what was talked about during the lecture today, and that is the different ways in which music is used in film: via quotation, allusion and leitmotiv. In each of the clips, the music takes on a different "role" per se. I think that is highly interesting; that how with just tweaking the volume, or adding dialogue, for example, a singular piece of music can bring about so many different meanings.
For those of youse who have not watched this film, the track that you hear in the clips is pretty much the only music that is used throughout the movie. This has gotten me wondering too then about films which use a standard "theme song" (eg. Mission Impossible, Harry Potter) vs. those which use several similar-themed songs (eg. Marie Antoinette)- what motivates and determines the music composer/designer to choose one over the other? If flipped, (if Mission Impossible used only similar-themed songs) would it be any more effective or less?
Anyway here are the clips from Everything Is Illuminated:
So what do you all reckon?
What struck me the most out of last week's lecture was when Psycho was brought up. Psycho is definitely one of my all-time favorite "oldies" movies; I think Alfred Hitchcock is/was a right master in his craft...especially considering the time his movies were made. Anyway, I thought it highly interesting when this guy (forgot his name!!) started talking about the scene where Marion is driving in her car. Nothing out of the ordinary happens in the scene but it is the score used at the time that heightens the suspense in that sequence. You know that something bad is going to happen because of the music.
I guess it's because we are so used to the presence of music in movies that we don't think too much of it's effect on the film. I find it amazing that music is so much a part of the film narrative these days that often you do not even realize it's there. If executed right, they work extremely well hand-in-hand to help push and/or complement the narrative. But turn off the volume and how we would interpret scenes in a film could potentially be completely different compared to when we saw the film with sound.
I watched Everything Is Illuminated not too long ago - has anyone else watched that? It is one of the films that, in my opinion, uses music quite well not only as part of the narrative, but also as a storytelling tool.
I have posted 3 clips from different points in the movie below. This can also tie in with what was talked about during the lecture today, and that is the different ways in which music is used in film: via quotation, allusion and leitmotiv. In each of the clips, the music takes on a different "role" per se. I think that is highly interesting; that how with just tweaking the volume, or adding dialogue, for example, a singular piece of music can bring about so many different meanings.
For those of youse who have not watched this film, the track that you hear in the clips is pretty much the only music that is used throughout the movie. This has gotten me wondering too then about films which use a standard "theme song" (eg. Mission Impossible, Harry Potter) vs. those which use several similar-themed songs (eg. Marie Antoinette)- what motivates and determines the music composer/designer to choose one over the other? If flipped, (if Mission Impossible used only similar-themed songs) would it be any more effective or less?
Anyway here are the clips from Everything Is Illuminated:
So what do you all reckon?
Boogie Nights, not so sure
I watched Boogie Nights for the first time last night, although it had been on my 'films to see list' for ages. Unfortunately I was a little disapointed with the film. I felt the narrative was weak, especially for film as long as two hours and twenty five minutes. I found it particularly interesting that the director, (I believe it was him who said this), of 'American Graffiti' talked about how, at the end of the cut, he had a three hour film and how he couldn't possibly release a three hour film so he spent another six months editing it down to an hour and a half. I found this an interesting statement ias it really revealed how the standard lengths of films have shifted quiet drastically over the last thirty or so years; today a three hour film is completely acceptable and it feels like I haven't actually seen a film lately that has been under two hours long. So is the new 'supersized' film length a good thing for films overall? I don't believe it is. I think that a film an hour and a half can often have just as much impact and the message can be just as strong as a three hour film. It forces writers, directors and editors to more selective in what they can include in the final cut, which may seem unfortunate initially ('charming' or atmospheric scenes may be lost) but ultimately it serves the film as a whole better. My step-father told me of when he had to cut a scene from the film he edited 'Whale Rider' because, even though it was a lovely scene on its own, it didn't help the film 'move along'. The shift in film length over time is extremely explicit when you compare the original 'King Kong' to the recent re-make by Peter Jackson. The 1933 original was 100 minutes but the recent re-make was 183 minutes! The story hadn't been extended or changed so why did Jackson add on an hour and twenty three minutes? It compromised the film as it really did feel like a 100 minute film being drawn out to be a 183 minute film. I had the same problem with Boogie Nights as it had a rather weak plot in my opinion. We begin with a young man getting seduced into the porn industry. As an audience we can predict from the start that the sweet young boy we have at the start of the film will be corrupted, and that just what happens. He becomes an arrogant drug addict. And then the end takes us back to the beginning in a cyclic, but I would say unrewarding narrative, with all the characters from the beginning of the film ending up back at the same place where they had started. I would argue that this is a plot for a shorter film than the one that was released. Its message was blurred and it seemed hard to decipher what the film was attempting to say. Was it saying that 'isn't this an F*'d up industry' or was it really wanting us to by into the 'wacky family' scenario that was presented to us in the film. It presented 70s porn as almost romantic when they compared it to violent 80s porn, but in reality how credible is this? I can't help but wonder, had the length been reduced, had they been pressured to fit it into the past standards of length, could this have also forced the filmmakers to be clearer in the message and voice of the film?
Full Circle
Well this is my first contribution to this blog I guess I gotta make a start sometime right may as well be now. Ok here goes nothing....
It occurred to me a couple days ago after the lecture about authenticity that I believe we have essentially come full circle on the issue. With performances of bands and musicians being questioned if they in fact lip sync rather than perform live in "live performances" to artists that perform a song on films which are dubbed or digitally corrected later. How then I ask can we trust that anything that is provided to us by performers at concerts or concert DVDs. Ashlee Simpson was caught lip syncing on Saturday night live in 2004, this event was publicized in the media incessantly. Just a simple search on Google reveals that a large number of musicians and performers either use digital technology to enhance their live performances or to make their performance sound more similar to what is presented in their albums which are highly stylized.
I think the term authentic has become a very loose term, because when we go and see a live performance for example seeing U2 in concert at Mount Smart Stadium how do we know that it is in fact Bono’s voice that we're hearing, for most audiences they are unable to see the performer’s face clearly so how are they expected to believe that it is the performer’s voice that is coming out of the speakers. Even if the voice that comes from the sound system is in fact the real performer it may have already been enhanced to provide a better quality of performance or quality of experience for the audience. A number of high profile performers have admitted to using voice enhancing technology from U2 to Oasis. I believe that if we were to see the James Blunt or Kelly Clarkson perform without the use of audio enhancing techniques I think I would most probably want to walk out after 20 minutes. So.. I think that we have come to a point where we can’t really live with pure authentic uncut performances without audio enhancement that we would enjoy it as much. So I ask what is the difference between listening to CD than to going to a live performance. Well I guess its just for the atmosphere maybe… So that’s my opinion on the subject. Any thoughts
It occurred to me a couple days ago after the lecture about authenticity that I believe we have essentially come full circle on the issue. With performances of bands and musicians being questioned if they in fact lip sync rather than perform live in "live performances" to artists that perform a song on films which are dubbed or digitally corrected later. How then I ask can we trust that anything that is provided to us by performers at concerts or concert DVDs. Ashlee Simpson was caught lip syncing on Saturday night live in 2004, this event was publicized in the media incessantly. Just a simple search on Google reveals that a large number of musicians and performers either use digital technology to enhance their live performances or to make their performance sound more similar to what is presented in their albums which are highly stylized.
I think the term authentic has become a very loose term, because when we go and see a live performance for example seeing U2 in concert at Mount Smart Stadium how do we know that it is in fact Bono’s voice that we're hearing, for most audiences they are unable to see the performer’s face clearly so how are they expected to believe that it is the performer’s voice that is coming out of the speakers. Even if the voice that comes from the sound system is in fact the real performer it may have already been enhanced to provide a better quality of performance or quality of experience for the audience. A number of high profile performers have admitted to using voice enhancing technology from U2 to Oasis. I believe that if we were to see the James Blunt or Kelly Clarkson perform without the use of audio enhancing techniques I think I would most probably want to walk out after 20 minutes. So.. I think that we have come to a point where we can’t really live with pure authentic uncut performances without audio enhancement that we would enjoy it as much. So I ask what is the difference between listening to CD than to going to a live performance. Well I guess its just for the atmosphere maybe… So that’s my opinion on the subject. Any thoughts
Music videos
The music industry and artists spend enormous amount of money and efforts to put their music videos together. A music video may be only 5 minute duration; however, attention is given to every single detail and is colossal. So we ask, why do music companies and artists actually bother with such a tedious project which could jeopardise them to have stress related disorders? The reason is that, benefit outweighs the risk.
By producing a 5 minute video clip, musicians are not only able to advertise their music through sound but also with visual medium. Visual advertisements thorough TVs and DVDs can make a huge difference to their advertisement strategy. Its is not only more effective than sound advertisement (e.g. radios, CDs) but enables music companies and artists to do showcase their artistic abilities and increase their chance of exposing their brands and sponsors. (E.g. wearing clothes and accessories that are owned by their sponsors)
These days, music videos are focusing more on commercial elements. One would wonder whether too much branding of music videos would jeopardise the artists’ chance of connecting to their audience through their music.
As a viewer, I would like to see more of artists oriented music videos where they are allowed to express their artistic skills or the musician's passion on their music and create a video clips that they can relate back to their music.
KJLee
Blogging, Research Essays et cetera
Just a quick note responding to an issue raised at the staff-student consultative committee today. To make valuable commentaries on the blogs you do not have to write in an academic style. You can be informal but you must have an analytical point to make, something to say that reflects on the content related to the course. Your writing shouldn't simply be descriptive. But don't worry about using jargon unless it really helps you explain something.
Similarly, when you think about your research essay topic, you need to have a point of view on the subject matter. You can't just write everything about a topic. Don't just be descriptive. You have to make a particular case. You need a research question that then determines your thesis statement. You have to make an argument with evidence to convince the reader that you're right. Basically I want to see your own analytical voice develop in the course. You should draw on other material to help you make your case, but it's ultimately your considered and persuasive angle on the topic that Kevin and I want to read. Please come and see us to discuss your topics or post something on the blogs to generate some dialogue. A good idea is to watch and listen to the stuff you're interested in, read material related to it, and then hone four or five sentences that summarize your project. That will help you to keep on track, make the paper a manageable one, and focus your argument.
Apologies about the technical interruptions in class today. We are cursed with MLT2.
All the films I mentioned today are cited in the readings for this week.
Next week I'll focus on Boogie Nights and then we'll begin to think about music video. I think I forgot to copy the few endnotes for the Vernallis chapter but you can easily access these in short loan. Please read that material and the other piece on MTV and watch at least 90 minutes worth of the music videos in the MTV 20 Collection that is on desk copy. I'm sure there are many who haven't seen Boogie Nights, so get that out of the way ASAP.
Similarly, when you think about your research essay topic, you need to have a point of view on the subject matter. You can't just write everything about a topic. Don't just be descriptive. You have to make a particular case. You need a research question that then determines your thesis statement. You have to make an argument with evidence to convince the reader that you're right. Basically I want to see your own analytical voice develop in the course. You should draw on other material to help you make your case, but it's ultimately your considered and persuasive angle on the topic that Kevin and I want to read. Please come and see us to discuss your topics or post something on the blogs to generate some dialogue. A good idea is to watch and listen to the stuff you're interested in, read material related to it, and then hone four or five sentences that summarize your project. That will help you to keep on track, make the paper a manageable one, and focus your argument.
Apologies about the technical interruptions in class today. We are cursed with MLT2.
All the films I mentioned today are cited in the readings for this week.
Next week I'll focus on Boogie Nights and then we'll begin to think about music video. I think I forgot to copy the few endnotes for the Vernallis chapter but you can easily access these in short loan. Please read that material and the other piece on MTV and watch at least 90 minutes worth of the music videos in the MTV 20 Collection that is on desk copy. I'm sure there are many who haven't seen Boogie Nights, so get that out of the way ASAP.
Boogie Nights Soundtrack
The Boogie Nights Soundtrack is really a must-own simply for the opening track of 'Feel The Heat' where Dirk Diggler and Reed Rothchild record their hit and "lay it down". It's high comedy. Leonardo DiCaprio was originally offered the role of Dirk Diggler but turned it down because he had already signed on to do Titanic (1997). But he suggested Mark Wahlberg for the role and who knew that Wahlberg could act so well. Also, Gwyneth Paltrow was originally offered the role of Rollergirl but turned it down. After seeing the movie Boogie Nights and also Magnolia I became an instant fan of director P.T. Anderson and vowed to watch every one of his movies. But then he did Punch-Drunk Love so now I blame everything on Adam Sandler.
The choice for the box set is the Commodore funk hit 'Machine Gun' I love the scene in the movie where Dirk is basically line-dancing to this song and it's impossible to listen to this and not feel better. This actually was the Commodores' first single from Motown records and it peaked at number seven staying in the charts for 15 weeks. This marked the early days for the Commodores before they had visions of adult contemporary singles and before Lionel Richie could even dream of a solo career.
My favorite quote:Buck Swope: See this system here? This is Hi-Fi... high fidelity. What that means is that it's the highest quality fidelity. It has the TK-421 modification which gives it 4 quads per channel. So basically you get twice the bass with the TK-421. You got yourself a system here....Customer: Well, I don't know if I'm going to need all that bass.Buck: Oh......I think you'll need it.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Comparing Ashley Simpson to 'real' musicians
Hi Guys
I have been having a bit of a ponder on what we've been discussing, & I've come up with the following yarn:
In response to the whole Milli Vanilli, I'd like to draw your attention to an instance whereby the singer/culprit was caught in the act of lip-sinking. During a so-called 'live performance', or 'live appearance' rather, on the popular talk show Saturday Night Live, Ashley Simpson was caught out when she missed her cue to start singing. This saw her becoming completely red-faced, making an early exit from the stage, & leaving her band to complete the song in the awkwardness of the situation (video). However, unlike Fab & Rob from MV, who had to attend publicly humiliating press conferences, Miss Simpson emerged with little long-term consequential scaring, & continues to be a role model to many a teeny bopper (while making a few million along the way). Granted, her name is not often mentioned between the covers of such respectable music magazines as the Rolling Stone, but despite all the odds, the possibility of this young pseudo-diva not only being nominated, but receiving a reputable music award for 'best female vocalist' (so, in this case, the Buenos Aires Times Music Awards do not count) is still within her grasp. After her receiving of the 2004 Q Award for Best Female Vocalist, Madonna was met with seemingly unkind-yet-frivolous words from Sir Elton John. Yes, his royal-fairyness himself, was reported saying during one of his temper tantrums "since when has lip-syncing been live", & added "anyone who lip-syncs in public on stage, when you pay $134 to see them, should be shot". Although she has long been criticised of lip-syncing during her live performances, Madge has maintained her stance & dismisses all such claims as false.
Now, as mentioned in the lecture last week, being able to sing perfectly while dancing simultaneously is virtually impossible. Therefore, in such an instance as the 2003 MTV Video Awards, where she performed that raunchy duet with queen tween Britney Spears, she (as well as Spears) would have been lip-syncing, & yet there was not so much as a single purist’s outcry. Furthermore, to me this simply illustrates the newly evolved relationship between live performance and mediatized performance.
It is with this in mind that I believe the secret to leaving behind a truly inspiring legacy, is more than being really good, but being authentic. Successful blues artists are indebted to their performing abilities. BB King, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Jimmy Hendrix- all of these artists are revered as some of the world’s greatest guitarists, besides the fact that they played electric guitars (reference to Bob Dylan’s incident at the Newport Folk Festival). Within the last decade, there was not much on offer to the airwaves in terms of blues. However, in the wake of him winning the 2002 Grammy Award for Best Male Vocalist, John Mayer has not only built the reputation & fanbase of guitar legend, but has also become one. From being regarded as a cliche acoustic singer/songwriter romantic, to rock/blues guitar connoisseur legend, Mayer has been identified as one of the “new guitar gods” in the Rolling Stone. To be able to make such a shift convincingly is a feat requiring, not only the convincing of the public, but of the critics- including famous guitarist’s themselves, who have since complimented Mayer on his guitaring ability- something that money could not buy. (The same shift is comparible to that from being a successful child actor, an equally successful adult actor). Therefore, it becomes a matter of ‘talking’, as well as ‘walking the walk’. Mayer is continually performing on tours, and known for straying completely off set-lists & playing impromptu 20 minute solos- something that cannot be successfully orchestrated while using pre-recorded vocal/band tracks. In Ashley Simpson’s case, ‘live’ shows (as rare as they would be) would strictly abide to a set-list, & for those of you who are interested, the following link connects to a video of Ashley singing in her ‘real’ voice- something that not many would call ‘talented’. Auslander claims that “live performance…has long been understood as the realm of the authentic, the true test of musicianship undisguised by studio trickery” (pg 89). However, does this comply with such an artist as Simpson? If what one hears on the record is not the true & authentic voice of the artist, nor is what is played at live performances, is it then wrong? It is a debatable issue, as it may well be her voice that is singing, but following all the ‘tweaking’, the studios has arguably changed the recognisable characteristics of her voice.
Like Clapton’s Unplugged album (1992), which is referred to in the Auslander reading, Mayer too has a live album, Any Given Thursday (2003). In his, Clapton covers a number of other artist’s songs, & so too does Mayer. In his cover of SRV’s instrumental Lenny, he breaks in & out of the song by adding his own ‘flavour’ to it. Time constraints are present on both albums- as this is Mayer’s longest track at 8 mins. Meanwhile, Clapton seems to play the songs through once, & avoids going off on tangents. Is this evidence of both artists being aware, & therefore, restricted by time constraints? It wouldn’t be too severe I’d think, but the fact is that mediatisation of the live performance, to some extent, affects its validity of being ‘authentic’. Then again, it could just be that Clapton didn’t feel the need to prove himself as a guitarist, unlike Mayer did at the time, & simply stuck to basics; thus complying the ‘unplugged’ ethos.
One thing is certain, Ashley Simpson will not be releasing a live album anytime soon.
John Lennon
Hey everyone
I went and saw the John Lennon vs USA the other week and found it extremly enjoyable and interesting in the way that the documentary was set out. Not knowing much at all about John Lennon and his attribution to the world and music the documentary was set out in a very clear and easy to follow way. The issues of liveness was explored with scenes of the "bed" peace event where Lennon and his wife stayed in bed for most of their honeymoon while media surrounded them. The documentary had "live" interviews followed by personal interviews with people (most activists also) who knew Lennon and his work. Has anybody else seen this film and what do you think of the way it was composed?
I went and saw the John Lennon vs USA the other week and found it extremly enjoyable and interesting in the way that the documentary was set out. Not knowing much at all about John Lennon and his attribution to the world and music the documentary was set out in a very clear and easy to follow way. The issues of liveness was explored with scenes of the "bed" peace event where Lennon and his wife stayed in bed for most of their honeymoon while media surrounded them. The documentary had "live" interviews followed by personal interviews with people (most activists also) who knew Lennon and his work. Has anybody else seen this film and what do you think of the way it was composed?
Monday, March 19, 2007
Film for Music or Music for Film
In the reading for this week “Synergy and the Commercial Functions of Film Music” the debate over whether or not music is made for film or film for music is briefly brought up and then quickly decided that both benefited from each other’s success.
Further on in the reading a situation is described where Cameron Crowe is told that if he didn’t have a hit song included in his movie Say Anything then it wouldn’t be marketed. The reading goes on to discuss issues of creative control over music chosen for film, although in my opinion it has the potential to once again open up debate over ‘film for music’ or ‘music for film’ as clearly the success of Crowe’s film was dependant on whether or not it had a hit single.
Over the years film companies have recognized the importance of popular music in film as a way of making more money, obvious through the integration of film companies with record companies to record stores and so on. It seems to me that we will see more examples of music influencing film then the other way around.
Matt C
Further on in the reading a situation is described where Cameron Crowe is told that if he didn’t have a hit song included in his movie Say Anything then it wouldn’t be marketed. The reading goes on to discuss issues of creative control over music chosen for film, although in my opinion it has the potential to once again open up debate over ‘film for music’ or ‘music for film’ as clearly the success of Crowe’s film was dependant on whether or not it had a hit single.
Over the years film companies have recognized the importance of popular music in film as a way of making more money, obvious through the integration of film companies with record companies to record stores and so on. It seems to me that we will see more examples of music influencing film then the other way around.
Matt C
But..but..
HI all
The ethics of downloading music is not a subject that has been covered or looks to be covered in the near future, but is an area of great interest to me. Issues of ownership are integral to understanding the internet. This raises two questions: 1) if the internet is "free space", how can the of users of the internet be condemned under the law of copyright? and 2) Why is it that the public feel so much in the wrong as to fear repercussions for downloading what others, (however rightly or wrongly), have made available to us?
I recently heard someone remark that he had "sold his soul" to Limewire and the illegal downloading of music, but "felt guilty" half way through a download and cancelled it. I myself am a user of Limewire and find myself justifying my use of this site and "illegal" downloads: ‘The music industry is just trying to milk us for all we're worth; artists don’t stay around long enough to justify spending $30-odd on a cd; its just one song; its not like I’m selling it for profit; its free space!!! Isn't it?!?’ The older generation justifies the downloading of “their” music by claiming that the artists are either dead or dying and have all made their millions, whereas we (the youth of today) should support up-and-coming artists who are still trying to make their money. Hang on… aren’t we also still trying to make our millions?! The guilt that leads to these justifications by both old and young seems to me to be a phenomenon created by those who are trying to regain power over that wide expanse of freedom known as the internet. The internet has created a whole new standard of legal and moral issues: copyright laws become outdated within this context of freedom and morality takes on a new aspect as those who download are “wrong” and those who don’t are “right.” This moral standard is more a reflection of imposed authority than of cultural understanding. These comments in no way are an indication of my political leanings. However, I do feel that those in power are somewhat out of line trying to impose limits on us within a limitless society (that of the online arena).
The ethics of downloading music is not a subject that has been covered or looks to be covered in the near future, but is an area of great interest to me. Issues of ownership are integral to understanding the internet. This raises two questions: 1) if the internet is "free space", how can the of users of the internet be condemned under the law of copyright? and 2) Why is it that the public feel so much in the wrong as to fear repercussions for downloading what others, (however rightly or wrongly), have made available to us?
I recently heard someone remark that he had "sold his soul" to Limewire and the illegal downloading of music, but "felt guilty" half way through a download and cancelled it. I myself am a user of Limewire and find myself justifying my use of this site and "illegal" downloads: ‘The music industry is just trying to milk us for all we're worth; artists don’t stay around long enough to justify spending $30-odd on a cd; its just one song; its not like I’m selling it for profit; its free space!!! Isn't it?!?’ The older generation justifies the downloading of “their” music by claiming that the artists are either dead or dying and have all made their millions, whereas we (the youth of today) should support up-and-coming artists who are still trying to make their money. Hang on… aren’t we also still trying to make our millions?! The guilt that leads to these justifications by both old and young seems to me to be a phenomenon created by those who are trying to regain power over that wide expanse of freedom known as the internet. The internet has created a whole new standard of legal and moral issues: copyright laws become outdated within this context of freedom and morality takes on a new aspect as those who download are “wrong” and those who don’t are “right.” This moral standard is more a reflection of imposed authority than of cultural understanding. These comments in no way are an indication of my political leanings. However, I do feel that those in power are somewhat out of line trying to impose limits on us within a limitless society (that of the online arena).
In terms of the "illegal" use of music for one's own benefit, all that has changed is the means by which that music is made available. However, this one change has added a new dynamic to the arguments of previous generations concerning the issue of ownership, a dynamic that is at once both fascinating and frustrating.
Just a thought
Kate VN
"Almost Nobody is Getting Rich Off Indie Rock."
For my research assignment I am interested in covering what is now officially becoming known as the "O.C Effect" that is, the 'indie' bands that appear or whose song are featured on the TV show the O.C gaining huge popularity. Artists include Death Cab For Cutie, The Killers, Rooney, The Shins, Modest Mouse and an array of other bands who begin with 'The'. While there are plenty of unprofessional commentaries on the internet from various D.I.Y fan sites etc I wanted to know if anybody out there knew of any academic articles that may relate to this topic. I have searched Google Scholar but it was not very helpful. Any ideas would be much appreciated.
Keepin' it Real. YO YO YO!
Baudrillard on what is real: "an escalation of the true or lived experience." It's all about selling your stories isn't it? The reader talks about Clapton gaining the grammy because he sung about his son that died in a freak accident. Especially in the world of hip hop, it is so important to sell your stories. This is why it is actually quite a good career move to get involved in a shooting at a night club like sean combs did, and didn't 50 cent get shot like 7 times? It's a pluss if the event is covered by the media to make it seem more real, but even if it isn't, as long as you sell it like it is and make it believable for your listeners then it has authentic value.
The Pussycat Dolls sell themselves as a rather slutty, post feminist girl band, but for all we know they might bake cookies and watch Martha Stuart. Because it is believable, it has authentic value - it's not about keepin' it real, it's about selling it real.
The Pussycat Dolls sell themselves as a rather slutty, post feminist girl band, but for all we know they might bake cookies and watch Martha Stuart. Because it is believable, it has authentic value - it's not about keepin' it real, it's about selling it real.
Welcome to the Black Parade
Reading the Carol Vernallis article “Telling and Not Telling” and then watching C4 with the various contemporary pop music videos on Select with Joel; the concept of narrative and nonnarrative music videos got me thinking on what was narrative and nonnarrative. I realize the certain techniques within specific contexts and the use of aesthetics and technical features. Watching the music video of “Welcome to the Black Parade” by My Chemical Romance, I would assume this to be a narrative, as it creates the appearance of having a narrative, as I think it has a beginning, a middle and an end (Vernallis, 2004). It has characters- ‘The Patient’ dressed in a hospital gown, the two women, embodying Fear and Regret and Mother War who wears a gas mask and is dressed in a Victorian gown. The song is about dying and being taken by death in the form of the Black Parade. The video begins within a hospital and then moves to a surreal cityscape, surrounded by ruins and the remains of destroyed buildings blanketed in ash (Wikipedia, 2007). The music video follows the Patient, as he wonders through the parade looking at everyone, as the float passes through and then in the middle he is presented with a medal, which seems obvious but still ambiguous, whether the medal is symbolic of a life completed, acceptance of death or death itself. The end comes when the parade then leaves and the Patient is left alone. The characters of the music video lack dialogue, a technique of narrative. The Director Samuel Bayer is able to incorporate the band in the narrative. The bands gestures correspond with the music and the narrative. The images of MCR, works within the narrative, as being on the float they do not blunt the narrative drive, but are part of the parade and the narrative. This music video draws from other techniques- silent film, dialogue, (mise-en-scene), the costumes worn are meant to be the opposite of the costumes worn by the Beatles on the cover of their album ‘Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band’, television commercials (temporal compression choreographed movements of figures, photography (buildings from San Francisco Earthquake, San Francisco Hall and a painting (inspiration from ‘Christ’s Entry into Brussels in 1889’, by James Ensor.
(Copyright right laws, unable to post the photos, but go to Wikipedia types in 'Welcome to the Black Parade' and 'Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' to check out the resemblance.)
(Copyright right laws, unable to post the photos, but go to Wikipedia types in 'Welcome to the Black Parade' and 'Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' to check out the resemblance.)
Sunday, March 18, 2007
James Morrison
I guess the fear of these music critics is that as the mediatisation of music keeps developing and the spheres of the live and the mediated keep on merging, even the ‘natural and real’ performances such as the acoustic performances of say James Morrison will too be able to be simulated to look ‘authentically real’.
As I was thinking about this topic, my thoughts kept changing.
If the fans enjoy it is there anything wrong with this type of performance? It’s entertainment and entertainment comes in many forms. The mass media is a trick of the eye and the ear. If consumers are looking for the authentic, the real, it may not be in existence anymore in popular culture. Buy a guitar and learn to play it, then you’ll have authenticity, unless it’s an ELECTRIC GUITAR.
Authenticity can be in the eye of the beholder, as technology advances, definitions change. Who knows, in 50 years everyone might be lip-syncing and that’ll be authentic because some other people are using robots to sing for them.
If the Grammy’s are having a problem with ‘simulation’ perhaps some stricter guidelines or criteria should be made as to who can with these awards. There are so many genres of music how can someone be ‘best new artist’? Is it fair to compare a group that can play music and one that only sings? The creation of the music is just as important as the singing itself. Milli Vanilli lip-synced. It was deceptive because it’s assumed that pop stars sing. But at the end of the day it’s just entertainment and that’s what consumers want. Critics should stick with classical if they’re so concerned about music authenticity.
I have to say I do like it when a singer can actually sing, and I think if you like ‘authenticity’ (James Morrison sorts) you have to go and seek that kind out. However there the problem occurs because now there’s a fear that even singers like these can be impersonated, simulated.
As I was thinking about this topic, my thoughts kept changing.
If the fans enjoy it is there anything wrong with this type of performance? It’s entertainment and entertainment comes in many forms. The mass media is a trick of the eye and the ear. If consumers are looking for the authentic, the real, it may not be in existence anymore in popular culture. Buy a guitar and learn to play it, then you’ll have authenticity, unless it’s an ELECTRIC GUITAR.
Authenticity can be in the eye of the beholder, as technology advances, definitions change. Who knows, in 50 years everyone might be lip-syncing and that’ll be authentic because some other people are using robots to sing for them.
If the Grammy’s are having a problem with ‘simulation’ perhaps some stricter guidelines or criteria should be made as to who can with these awards. There are so many genres of music how can someone be ‘best new artist’? Is it fair to compare a group that can play music and one that only sings? The creation of the music is just as important as the singing itself. Milli Vanilli lip-synced. It was deceptive because it’s assumed that pop stars sing. But at the end of the day it’s just entertainment and that’s what consumers want. Critics should stick with classical if they’re so concerned about music authenticity.
I have to say I do like it when a singer can actually sing, and I think if you like ‘authenticity’ (James Morrison sorts) you have to go and seek that kind out. However there the problem occurs because now there’s a fear that even singers like these can be impersonated, simulated.
Live versus Mediated:
In my opinion, it has become increasingly difficult to clearly define that which is considered live and that which is not. Before the advent of new media technologies at events, it was much easier to categorise a performance as live because we simply understood live as being that which preceded the mediatised. For example, a concert would be considered ‘live’ if one was at the stadium experiencing the performance as it occurred. With the addition of cameras and other media equipment, and as that performance becomes transmitted to television for instance, it becomes mediatised. Now however, there are problems in solidly defining what is live because of the introduction of technologies such as video screens, to live events like concerts and sporting events to allow all spectators to fully experience the event.
Similarly, questions are raised about a proposed ‘liveness factor’ when the use of computer-programmed musical instruments and voice-enhancing devices, are used in concerts. Is something still regarded as live if it is mediatised (even if ever so slightly)? I guess for recent generations, what is considered live may not be so traditional. I know that personally, I would still consider watching a concert by means of a huge video screen at a concert to be live – merely because I am at that concert, experiencing it first hand, even if I have to rely on media technology to assist my experience. In a sense then, this doesn’t really maintain the value of what is traditionally seen as a ‘live performance.’ Traditionally, live would probably have been limited to performances that did not use the assistance of media technologies.
Nevertheless, with the increasing use of media technologies at concerts and other events, I think it’s useful that the way we use the word ‘live’ (in terms of performance) has been updated, and has changed with the times. Auslander (2006, p86) writes that “live performance thus has become the means by which mediatised representations are naturalised.” It seems that finally, mediatisation has become accepted as a valuable part of the experience of a live performance.
~ Shalinie ~
Similarly, questions are raised about a proposed ‘liveness factor’ when the use of computer-programmed musical instruments and voice-enhancing devices, are used in concerts. Is something still regarded as live if it is mediatised (even if ever so slightly)? I guess for recent generations, what is considered live may not be so traditional. I know that personally, I would still consider watching a concert by means of a huge video screen at a concert to be live – merely because I am at that concert, experiencing it first hand, even if I have to rely on media technology to assist my experience. In a sense then, this doesn’t really maintain the value of what is traditionally seen as a ‘live performance.’ Traditionally, live would probably have been limited to performances that did not use the assistance of media technologies.
Nevertheless, with the increasing use of media technologies at concerts and other events, I think it’s useful that the way we use the word ‘live’ (in terms of performance) has been updated, and has changed with the times. Auslander (2006, p86) writes that “live performance thus has become the means by which mediatised representations are naturalised.” It seems that finally, mediatisation has become accepted as a valuable part of the experience of a live performance.
~ Shalinie ~
Mixtapes for the road
In thinking about soundtracks of road movies, Easy Rider (1969) is one of the first examples that comes to mind. It is particularly noted for the use of songs that epitomized the motorcycle, counterculture of the 1960s with songs by Jimi Hendrix, The Band, Steppenwolf, The Byrds, amongst others. Soundtracks like these are valued for what we might be able to see as a correlation between aesthetic, image/narrative and sound.
Much of this is attributed to conscious choices by the director of the film, and I wonder if this has led to an evolution of recent road movies, or rather films with road movie aspects. I am referring particularly to Broken Flowers (2005) and Elizabethtown (2005). In both movies, the main characters undergo a road trip, accompanied by compilations that their friends have provided for their journey.
The music is thus diegetic, as the character slips the mix cd into the player and goes on his journey. However, the fact that these songs have been chosen by another character gives it a pleasurable sense of “non-diegesis” and it mirrors the same deliberate choices that a director would have made in providing accompanying music to a character in another film.
The two films also seem to regard their soundtracks very self-reflexively. For example, in Broken Flowers, Don Johnston (Murray) goes on a journey to find out the truth about the existence of a 19 year old son that he has only just learnt about. His neighbour Winston provides him with a mix cd, that works perfectly as Don drives through the country searching for his numerous ex-girlfriends. Especially with the use of Mulatu Astatke’s Yegelle Tezeta, the songs give a sense of curious, sleuth-like anticipation from Don.
Elizabethtown has Drew Baylor (Bloom) drive cross country from Kentucky to Oregon, almost in a celebration of the country’s history, in iconic places such as Memphis (focusing on Elvis’ music, lookalikes and Drew himself shown in the driver’s seat donning the same iconic sunglasses). On the open road, Claire Colburn’s (Dunst) voiceover tells Drew: “Some songs require air. Open your windows”. This voiceover somewhat resembles a director’s commentary on a dvd release, explaining the specific reason behind the choice of song in a scene.
This self-reflexive nature gives it a double layered pleasure in viewing the film. But I wonder if there is any unsettling tension as a result of this self-reflexivity. Or does this conscious awareness only help us enjoy it more, without complications?
Much of this is attributed to conscious choices by the director of the film, and I wonder if this has led to an evolution of recent road movies, or rather films with road movie aspects. I am referring particularly to Broken Flowers (2005) and Elizabethtown (2005). In both movies, the main characters undergo a road trip, accompanied by compilations that their friends have provided for their journey.
The music is thus diegetic, as the character slips the mix cd into the player and goes on his journey. However, the fact that these songs have been chosen by another character gives it a pleasurable sense of “non-diegesis” and it mirrors the same deliberate choices that a director would have made in providing accompanying music to a character in another film.
The two films also seem to regard their soundtracks very self-reflexively. For example, in Broken Flowers, Don Johnston (Murray) goes on a journey to find out the truth about the existence of a 19 year old son that he has only just learnt about. His neighbour Winston provides him with a mix cd, that works perfectly as Don drives through the country searching for his numerous ex-girlfriends. Especially with the use of Mulatu Astatke’s Yegelle Tezeta, the songs give a sense of curious, sleuth-like anticipation from Don.
Elizabethtown has Drew Baylor (Bloom) drive cross country from Kentucky to Oregon, almost in a celebration of the country’s history, in iconic places such as Memphis (focusing on Elvis’ music, lookalikes and Drew himself shown in the driver’s seat donning the same iconic sunglasses). On the open road, Claire Colburn’s (Dunst) voiceover tells Drew: “Some songs require air. Open your windows”. This voiceover somewhat resembles a director’s commentary on a dvd release, explaining the specific reason behind the choice of song in a scene.
This self-reflexive nature gives it a double layered pleasure in viewing the film. But I wonder if there is any unsettling tension as a result of this self-reflexivity. Or does this conscious awareness only help us enjoy it more, without complications?
Milli Vanilli/authentic - inauthentic music and performance
: I was thinking when I saw that Milli Vanilli video in class – Why couldn’t Rob and Fab have continued there careers and just kept lip syncing? Since many of there crazed fans would surely still support them for there live performances on stage. Many of there fans did not care about their authenticity; they just enjoyed seeing them perform. So for some Milli Vanilli supporters, obviously, the visual performance alone was enough to keep them coming back for more. Similar to the loyal monkey’s fans who still supported them even after they had discovered that they didn’t write/sing there own songs. Some people supported the Monkey’s more for there rebellious attitude and what they represented rather than their music.
Is there really much difference between the lip syncing scandal of Milli Vanilli and the virtual musical figures of today? For example: that virtual frog thing (which I really hate by the way and can’t recall it’s name) which is on all the music videos. Is a computerised character which plays a visual role in the artists mainly computer generated music really that different from the lip syncing situation of Milli Vanilli? After all they both didn’t produce there own music. Since and Fab (Milli Vanilli) were human figures performing the visual role for the real singer's music. In both of these very different examples – the music and visual performances are separated, to produce better quality entertainment. Perhaps if the actual singer of Milli Vanilli had performed in concert, his music would never have become as famous as it did when it was lip synced by Rob and Fab.
Anyway…. Back to the topic, I personally prefer the idea of authentic music, musicians who produce their own material. But, I believe that, with technology becoming so advanced, in the not to distant future, we will struggle to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic music. Also the mediated and digitally enhanced songs we hear on the radio/CD will become superior to the live music heard in concert (this is already happening today). This will lead to, and already has in some bands/musicians, to ‘radio/CD only musicians’, who can’t or are too intimidated to attempt to ‘cut it live’. But, this process will be slowed because it is in the music industries best interests to maintain the distinction between live and mediated music. Since there is a lot of money associated with the selling and/or promoting of the same song/album many times as ‘live on dvd’ or ‘live in concert’ etc.
adam.
Is there really much difference between the lip syncing scandal of Milli Vanilli and the virtual musical figures of today? For example: that virtual frog thing (which I really hate by the way and can’t recall it’s name) which is on all the music videos. Is a computerised character which plays a visual role in the artists mainly computer generated music really that different from the lip syncing situation of Milli Vanilli? After all they both didn’t produce there own music. Since and Fab (Milli Vanilli) were human figures performing the visual role for the real singer's music. In both of these very different examples – the music and visual performances are separated, to produce better quality entertainment. Perhaps if the actual singer of Milli Vanilli had performed in concert, his music would never have become as famous as it did when it was lip synced by Rob and Fab.
Anyway…. Back to the topic, I personally prefer the idea of authentic music, musicians who produce their own material. But, I believe that, with technology becoming so advanced, in the not to distant future, we will struggle to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic music. Also the mediated and digitally enhanced songs we hear on the radio/CD will become superior to the live music heard in concert (this is already happening today). This will lead to, and already has in some bands/musicians, to ‘radio/CD only musicians’, who can’t or are too intimidated to attempt to ‘cut it live’. But, this process will be slowed because it is in the music industries best interests to maintain the distinction between live and mediated music. Since there is a lot of money associated with the selling and/or promoting of the same song/album many times as ‘live on dvd’ or ‘live in concert’ etc.
adam.
Live vs. mediated:
In today’s highly mediatized society, live performances (concerts etc) have become very important. Consequentially the mediatization of live performance has developed an evil persona. In some areas of society mediatization has become essential, for example: mediatization has become important to the sporting industry, and has enhanced the viewers experience and even altered the rules of some sports. Like in league, when the referee is unsure of whether a try has been scored or not, he/she will ‘check upstairs’ with the video referee. This ‘third referee’ will analyse the replay over and over again, sometimes for up to 10 minutes. In this example, mediatization has changed the way the sport is played, for the better, so perhaps mediatization isn’t so bad after all. Mediatization allows for a more professional and accurate form of sport, free from human error. Although in very tight situations, the video referee may be undecided and will pass the decision back to the original - ‘live’ referee, so here the live and mediated overlap.
A good example of mediated performance is seen at sports events/concerts, where the big screen provides audience members with a mediated version of the live, at the live event itself. So they can switch there attention back and forth between performer and screen. When I attend a sports game such as the warriors, it is usually for the atmosphere of being there, because the majority of the time, I can’t see what is happening as well as I could on television at home. Here the live event is compared to the mediated event, rather than the mediated event being compared with the live, which would seem more logical. I prefer the mediated event to the live in this context. Where I am told everything that is happening by the commentators and don’t miss any important action.
I also find it interesting that live music in concerts today is compared with the compact disc, to see if it is on par, can the performer live up to his mediated reputation? Does he/she sound equally as good live as on CD/radio? Or has the artist digitally enhanced there recordings too much, so that they cannot ‘cut it live’? Live performances are evaluated based on there reference to the mediated performance, when the logical expectation would be for mediated performances to be evaluated based upon how they sound live, but this is not so.
adam.
A good example of mediated performance is seen at sports events/concerts, where the big screen provides audience members with a mediated version of the live, at the live event itself. So they can switch there attention back and forth between performer and screen. When I attend a sports game such as the warriors, it is usually for the atmosphere of being there, because the majority of the time, I can’t see what is happening as well as I could on television at home. Here the live event is compared to the mediated event, rather than the mediated event being compared with the live, which would seem more logical. I prefer the mediated event to the live in this context. Where I am told everything that is happening by the commentators and don’t miss any important action.
I also find it interesting that live music in concerts today is compared with the compact disc, to see if it is on par, can the performer live up to his mediated reputation? Does he/she sound equally as good live as on CD/radio? Or has the artist digitally enhanced there recordings too much, so that they cannot ‘cut it live’? Live performances are evaluated based on there reference to the mediated performance, when the logical expectation would be for mediated performances to be evaluated based upon how they sound live, but this is not so.
adam.
Rock documentary in less than seven minutes
The music video belongs to the realm of commercial enterprise; and this can be hard for “legitimate” bands to contend with. In an attempt to utilize the medium of the music video, but stay true to the music, bands have turned to the codes of the rock documentary to make their videos. The music video for the Guns ‘n’ Roses song Paradise City off their 1987 album Appetite For Destruction is one such video.
The video opens with a pan across an empty stadium, and then proceeds to show the construction of the stage that will be set for the performance (much like a similar scene in Wattstax). The obligatory backstage scenes of the rock documentary are shown here, as we watch the band relaxing and rehearsing as the stage is set.
The opening “scenes” of the video are shot in black and white, giving it a naturalistic, cinema verite look, as if legitimising its existence. However, the actual performance of the song is shot in colour, as if, Jonathan Romney suggests in the readin, the fan’s life “explodes into colour when their objects of adoration arrive on stage.”
Throughout the performance the video cuts back to backstage life (as shown through black and white). The audience is able to see into the real life of their rock gods –on the tour bus, hanging out, rehearsing, and signing autographs.
The second half of the video begins the process of the performance again. Following the shots on the tour bus we see another concert being set up, another changing room, another set of fans to sign autographs for. The finale of the song is a different performance to the first one that we are introduced to. The video comments on the life of a rockstar – the cyclical nature, the repetition - and in doing so demystifies that life; bringing them down to the same level of the fans.
Film concerts
Adrian Wootton mentions in his essay that the spectators of a film are interested in seeing the band and not the audience. Yet in another section he mentions that the spectator of the film either was not present in the concert and want to experience it vicariously or they were present and just want to bring the memories back. I think he is contradicting himself by these two different statements...Firstly we need to understand what makes a spectator to buy a ticket and attend a concert. Is it the experience of the band only or does the crowd play a greater role in creating that spectacular experience. Watching a film concert is very similar to attending a concert mainly because the spectator wants to see the band in a concert and not in a music video. And the very main difference between a music video and a film concert is the presence of a real crowd.
I believe that the spectator in a live concert observes the crowd as well as the performers and this also applies to watching a film concert because as Adrian says the spectator wishes to bring the memories back or experience the concert. If the film only shows the band on the screen the experience of the concert for a spectator will be as he or she was to attend a live concert without a crowd. So his statement that the spectators want to just see the band only is not even nearly correct because he is underestimating the role of the emotional response of the crowd to the band in creating a ‘live concert’ atmosphere.
I believe that the spectator in a live concert observes the crowd as well as the performers and this also applies to watching a film concert because as Adrian says the spectator wishes to bring the memories back or experience the concert. If the film only shows the band on the screen the experience of the concert for a spectator will be as he or she was to attend a live concert without a crowd. So his statement that the spectators want to just see the band only is not even nearly correct because he is underestimating the role of the emotional response of the crowd to the band in creating a ‘live concert’ atmosphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)