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
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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.
Friday, March 16, 2007
The musical score, an ‘invisible’ medium.
Something that I started thinking about, and something that Matt L has touched on in his post ‘Image is primary, sound is secondary’ is the idea that sound supports the image instead of them being on an equal par. In particular this comes about with the idea that if we were to notice the music, then the storyline has failed in its role to keep the audience interested.
The reason I started thinking about this is when I came about this passage in ‘The Best Years of British Film Music 1936-1958’: “This is the dilemma for the ‘serious’ composer. Writing music that successfully interprets the sometimes fleeting nuances of filmic diegesis yields little in the way of intrinsically musical satisfaction.” In essence, we have told the composer that we really do not wish to hear their music.
The composer in question for this chapter was Arnold Bax, and he is quoted as having said: “I do not think that the medium is at present at all satisfactory as far as the composer is concerned, as his music is largely inaudible, toned down to make way for – in many cases – quite unnecessary talk.” This does not seem to have changed and music is written only to support the visuals for it.
Is this fair to the music medium? Conscripted to the background where it is to be treated as something to help add to the feeling in a film, but not allowed to be listened to in its own right?
However, I think it can work very well when used right.
Carrying on from Rose Rees-Owen’s post, ‘Music as Emotional Cues - Needed or not Needed That is the Question’, music can be shown as a powerful medium to convey emotions when she found herself sympathising with a rapist. This is a good insight into how a composer could manipulate the audience with the medium of the ‘invisible soundtrack’. She claims that Pedro Almodovar was able to use the music into getting the audience to feel sympathetic to the rapist. This is done with the use of not allowing us to listen to the music in its own right, but allowing the music to manipulate our thoughts of a given situation. A musical ‘cue’ as she puts it.
It would be hard to get the same reaction with music that is designed to be heard, as this music would distract from the storyline. One example that I can think of is in the case of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest’ This film uses classical music and, while I was watching it, I found myself separate from the storyline to groan at the choice in music. In this case the music did not serve the film, but separated it as both tried to grab the viewer’s attention.
It seems unfortunate to think of music as being in the subservient role. But in this arrangement it seems to be able to do a lot in engaging the audience into the films storyline of being a text to listen to in its own right. But, it seems a shame to the composer of a film score, just like it did to Arnold Bax, to be so restricted in the creativeness of their medium.
The reason I started thinking about this is when I came about this passage in ‘The Best Years of British Film Music 1936-1958’: “This is the dilemma for the ‘serious’ composer. Writing music that successfully interprets the sometimes fleeting nuances of filmic diegesis yields little in the way of intrinsically musical satisfaction.” In essence, we have told the composer that we really do not wish to hear their music.
The composer in question for this chapter was Arnold Bax, and he is quoted as having said: “I do not think that the medium is at present at all satisfactory as far as the composer is concerned, as his music is largely inaudible, toned down to make way for – in many cases – quite unnecessary talk.” This does not seem to have changed and music is written only to support the visuals for it.
Is this fair to the music medium? Conscripted to the background where it is to be treated as something to help add to the feeling in a film, but not allowed to be listened to in its own right?
However, I think it can work very well when used right.
Carrying on from Rose Rees-Owen’s post, ‘Music as Emotional Cues - Needed or not Needed That is the Question’, music can be shown as a powerful medium to convey emotions when she found herself sympathising with a rapist. This is a good insight into how a composer could manipulate the audience with the medium of the ‘invisible soundtrack’. She claims that Pedro Almodovar was able to use the music into getting the audience to feel sympathetic to the rapist. This is done with the use of not allowing us to listen to the music in its own right, but allowing the music to manipulate our thoughts of a given situation. A musical ‘cue’ as she puts it.
It would be hard to get the same reaction with music that is designed to be heard, as this music would distract from the storyline. One example that I can think of is in the case of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest’ This film uses classical music and, while I was watching it, I found myself separate from the storyline to groan at the choice in music. In this case the music did not serve the film, but separated it as both tried to grab the viewer’s attention.
It seems unfortunate to think of music as being in the subservient role. But in this arrangement it seems to be able to do a lot in engaging the audience into the films storyline of being a text to listen to in its own right. But, it seems a shame to the composer of a film score, just like it did to Arnold Bax, to be so restricted in the creativeness of their medium.
the influence of the past paving the way of the present
Interesting concept, but nothing new, as we look at music, the singers the songwriters and the bands of contemporary society, who draw upon past generations of music who inspire and influence their music, their songs and even their style? For many popular bands today their music carries underlying influence found within their lyrics their songs and the uncanny resemblance to musicians who may mean nothing to us, but maybe to our parents or even our grandparents. We look at bands like The Killer’s, whose recent album Sam’s Town and titled song “When you were young”, was strongly influenced by ‘The Boss’ Bruce Springsteen’s 1975 album Born to Run and the titled song “Born to Run”. My Chemical Romance whose album Welcome to the Black Parade, draws upon Pink Floyd and the ‘The Wall’ as influence for their video clip and their entire album. Roger Waters who?. Beyonce who draws inspiration from Aretha Franklin in her music, with her power ballads and the likes of Ella Fitzgerald and Kasabian influenced by Oasis and Oasis influenced by the Rolling Stones and Jet that draws from the influences of Queen, The Beatles and The Who. The Who are believed to be responsible for rock opera; looking at bands and their music draws from this infamous concept just look at the album Live from Leeds and in particular the concept album ‘The Who Sell Out’ in (1967). The Clash, Sex Pistols and the Ramones who have had significant impact on the garage punk alternative bands of today with the likes of David Bowie with his acollective music, Ziggy Stardust and make-up wearing bi-sexual stance has been a muse or a direct influence to bands today. I guess saying names like Roger Waters, Jimmy Paige, Pete Townshend, Joe Strummer, Robert Plant, Ray Davies and many others means nothing to us today, but their influence on contemporary music is apparent and still strong as ever, with the style of music, the conveying of topics and the lyrics. Many live performances and music video performances generate their own personas from the likes and list of the people above. As what they have achieved and how they have been immortalized by their music, it is not the awards, induction and accolades that validate the musicians, but it’s the bands and singers looking to them for direction, inspiration, influence. The desire to achieve such iconic status, meaningful music or to even be compared to the greats is something I’m sure many artists aspire, for their music to live on and to be used as a source by the next generation of artists, like they have done and the artists before them
Access All Areas: American Idol
Though there are many things I hate, I also love to hate American Idol. I do quite like it.
It's such a package. You've got the audition stage which is a bit like a stadium version of the rehearsal scene in hundreds of stage and movie musicals and dance movies.
The contestants come in all shapes and sizes, abilities and they're quite an ethnically/racially, straight and queer mix of multicultural America. God I hope that Indian guy has been eliminated though I'm sure many of the software engineer families and other Indian Americans are keeping him on the show even though he's terrible and has a smile that looks like he has excrement in his mouth.
The show's still geared to producing an oversinging diva whether it's a male or female. And it's dedicated to the power ballad. Cue Jennifer Hutson and a thousand wannabe Whitneys. However I've got a feeling this time around they've felt the pulse of the post-Timbaland pop charts and they'd like a Justin or Nelly Furtado wannabe with a twist that they develop during the show's training for each of the rounds. Timbaland called Justin the 'black white boy' and that's what they want in a smoother, sexier R & B Style, with cross racial teen appeal. I don't think it matters now whether the Justin 2 is brown, black, white, whatever. Nelly after all is Portuguese. You can have Asian Justins too. It's multicultural America. And you don't have to be thin like on America's Next Supermodel.
The 'We're in Hollywood' section is like the backstage musical 42nd Street with the theatre, barking judges and plain backrooms.
Once you get on to the studio audience format you've got the backroom where Ryan Seacrest (the 50th Most Loathsome Person in America, 2006--according to one website) gets all pal-ly and homey with his young steads. It's like Summer Camp America for exchange students.
Then there's the audience with their posters for their favourites and audience shots of family members. Wow, mixed race couple. Cool. Ah they look so proud. It was all worth it. Then the current affairs newsy bios but with stories of self-affirmation, hard work and dreams coming true with the family and community on the homestead. That stuff always has sentimental heartstring plucking musical arrangements with it. The band/orchestra is usually invisible, even if at various moments we see them in backroom doco footage or the music director is acknowledged. The musicians are hidden away in the service of the would-be star and his/her star-fication and the audience's star fixation and support for our favourites.
This is now the biggest television show in America in terms of ratings. We get to vote so it's a model for American democracy with better voting machines. We get to choose, not horrible Simon and wasted Paula (even though the tag tells you that New Zealand viewers cannot vote). We've got a black judge who can talk like a real dawg but still give lovin' to the budding showbizzers and potential hitmakers for the records he will produce and through which he will generate some revenue and more deals. The guy thinks he's Quincy and 'down' with the best of black clichés. So the show's got plenty of the minstrel factor.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. I hope some of you decide to write about the global pop format or any versions and variations of the Idol phenomenon. I've got to read more about this before the lecture on this topic at the end of semester but I think one of its recent 'origins' is Japanese and other Asian television markets and programmes in the 1980s and 90s, then the format was anglicized and honed in the UK and successfully exported to America. There are now many national versions of these global pop formats and even a world one which brings together not just national winners but pan-national contestents like an Arab singer, for example. There's also those other related shows where they pick someone to be in a band who have faded after past glories and/or need a new band member and new b(r)and. Lots of Tommy Lee and Sheryl Crow wannabes on these shows. Idol is also a good type of programme to think about the relationship between the global/local/national in these shows. How are the national variations different and the same? In Idol, how do the producers and the programme construct an 'imagined community' of viewers and listeners organized around this musical spectacle? How do they bind or suture the audience into the show's blend of musical experiences? Do they turn the process of star making inside out? Or do they expose you to the 'reality' of showbiz in very selective ways that do not make visible other facets of the process and the entertainment industry as a whole? How do they construct the subjects (the performers) as they seek the golden eggs. They remind us that anyone can achieve American success and happiness through a dream and hard work, in this case devoted to entertainment. It's really very much like the Hollywood musical and many other Hollywood products in this respect. It's as American as cluster bombs and apple pie. Some things change and others don't.
It's such a package. You've got the audition stage which is a bit like a stadium version of the rehearsal scene in hundreds of stage and movie musicals and dance movies.
The contestants come in all shapes and sizes, abilities and they're quite an ethnically/racially, straight and queer mix of multicultural America. God I hope that Indian guy has been eliminated though I'm sure many of the software engineer families and other Indian Americans are keeping him on the show even though he's terrible and has a smile that looks like he has excrement in his mouth.
The show's still geared to producing an oversinging diva whether it's a male or female. And it's dedicated to the power ballad. Cue Jennifer Hutson and a thousand wannabe Whitneys. However I've got a feeling this time around they've felt the pulse of the post-Timbaland pop charts and they'd like a Justin or Nelly Furtado wannabe with a twist that they develop during the show's training for each of the rounds. Timbaland called Justin the 'black white boy' and that's what they want in a smoother, sexier R & B Style, with cross racial teen appeal. I don't think it matters now whether the Justin 2 is brown, black, white, whatever. Nelly after all is Portuguese. You can have Asian Justins too. It's multicultural America. And you don't have to be thin like on America's Next Supermodel.
The 'We're in Hollywood' section is like the backstage musical 42nd Street with the theatre, barking judges and plain backrooms.
Once you get on to the studio audience format you've got the backroom where Ryan Seacrest (the 50th Most Loathsome Person in America, 2006--according to one website) gets all pal-ly and homey with his young steads. It's like Summer Camp America for exchange students.
Then there's the audience with their posters for their favourites and audience shots of family members. Wow, mixed race couple. Cool. Ah they look so proud. It was all worth it. Then the current affairs newsy bios but with stories of self-affirmation, hard work and dreams coming true with the family and community on the homestead. That stuff always has sentimental heartstring plucking musical arrangements with it. The band/orchestra is usually invisible, even if at various moments we see them in backroom doco footage or the music director is acknowledged. The musicians are hidden away in the service of the would-be star and his/her star-fication and the audience's star fixation and support for our favourites.
This is now the biggest television show in America in terms of ratings. We get to vote so it's a model for American democracy with better voting machines. We get to choose, not horrible Simon and wasted Paula (even though the tag tells you that New Zealand viewers cannot vote). We've got a black judge who can talk like a real dawg but still give lovin' to the budding showbizzers and potential hitmakers for the records he will produce and through which he will generate some revenue and more deals. The guy thinks he's Quincy and 'down' with the best of black clichés. So the show's got plenty of the minstrel factor.
Don't get me wrong, I love it. I hope some of you decide to write about the global pop format or any versions and variations of the Idol phenomenon. I've got to read more about this before the lecture on this topic at the end of semester but I think one of its recent 'origins' is Japanese and other Asian television markets and programmes in the 1980s and 90s, then the format was anglicized and honed in the UK and successfully exported to America. There are now many national versions of these global pop formats and even a world one which brings together not just national winners but pan-national contestents like an Arab singer, for example. There's also those other related shows where they pick someone to be in a band who have faded after past glories and/or need a new band member and new b(r)and. Lots of Tommy Lee and Sheryl Crow wannabes on these shows. Idol is also a good type of programme to think about the relationship between the global/local/national in these shows. How are the national variations different and the same? In Idol, how do the producers and the programme construct an 'imagined community' of viewers and listeners organized around this musical spectacle? How do they bind or suture the audience into the show's blend of musical experiences? Do they turn the process of star making inside out? Or do they expose you to the 'reality' of showbiz in very selective ways that do not make visible other facets of the process and the entertainment industry as a whole? How do they construct the subjects (the performers) as they seek the golden eggs. They remind us that anyone can achieve American success and happiness through a dream and hard work, in this case devoted to entertainment. It's really very much like the Hollywood musical and many other Hollywood products in this respect. It's as American as cluster bombs and apple pie. Some things change and others don't.
U2 'Window in the skies'
I think I'd rather see all these people lipsync U2 live rather than see the band itself. But where is Milli Vanilli? Is this U2 video a gesture of humility in the face of the history of popular music or an imperial gesture that subsumes all these greats into the U2 universe? Whaddya think?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
american Idol: They try to make me go to rehab, but I say Noooo no no.
Poor paula adbul is having a hard (or great) time dealing with show bidnezz...haha
What are peoples thoughts about the pop idol shows?
This whole notion of hypermediation where TV is trying to interact with the audience seems to be getting out of control, where 'reality tv' is just churrning out the same b.s. year after year expecting to make more money than the previous year. But am I the only one that's sick of it? Because it seems to be making a killing in revenue.
Festival Express
While it seems nearly impossible to produce the perfect authentic rock documentary, reading the articles from this past week and watching Wattstax made me think of what is in my opinion one of the best rock documentaries, Festival Express (2003). For those of you that haven't seen it, the film documents the 1970 5-day traveling festival featuring Janis Joplin, Buddy Guy, The Band, The Grateful Dead, Ian & Sylvia and many others. While it took nearly 30 years to be released to the public because of financial and political struggles leaving the archive footage to gather dust, I think it portrays many of the "do's" of rock documentaries. The film focuses on the audiences only when important such as a riot that breaks out over the cost of ticket prices in Toronto. The actual concert footage (everything is on 16mm), provides some of the best performances of the artists on the tour, such as Janis Joplin singing "Cry Baby". The best aspect of the film though, is how it portrays "the backstage". Cutting archive footage with current interviews of band members that are luckily still alive, you get to see these amazing musicians interacting on the train, revealing a 24-hour non-stop music festival. While of course it's impossible to tell whether or not some of the events are exaggerated because a camera was documenting the entire trip, it seems extremely genuine. Seeing such well-known and loved rock personalities together playing music and having an amazing time, takes away from the disillusionment of whether or not footage is authentic because it documents such a momentous occasion in rock history that anyone would love to see. The reactions and the reminiscing of the musicians so many years later definitely reveal good interviewing style as musicians such as Bob Weir are comfortable enough to joke about only being able to drink in Canada and not being able to do LSD or smoke marijuana.
This is one of the best clips from the film of Janis Joplin, Rick Danko (The Band) and Jerry Garcia drunkenly jamming.
I highly suggest seeing this film if you haven't, because it will definitely make you wish you could have been in Canada in 1970.
This is one of the best clips from the film of Janis Joplin, Rick Danko (The Band) and Jerry Garcia drunkenly jamming.
I highly suggest seeing this film if you haven't, because it will definitely make you wish you could have been in Canada in 1970.
Access All Areas: Madonna
Here's 'unseen footage' from Madonna's Truth Or Dare/In Bed With Madonna. At such lo res, Madonna looks like a cross between Gwen Stefani and Anna Nicole Smith. The timecode gives the video the feel of CCTV and all those reality surveillance shows on TV these days. The telephone conversation with Warren Beatty is more interesting than the scene used in the film where he's actually in the hotel room and doesn't like being shot by the camera. He doesn't want to be the object of surveillance. T or D anticipates the Truman Show and all the Big-Brother-Is-You Watching stuff that is now normal fare on our screens. I think it's authoritarian populism. People are supposed to perform in front of camera, become the kind of subjects that lifestyle, entertainment and celebrity culture script for them.
inside outside ra ra ra
i want to address a few topics that have come up within the course and also from the blog.
firstly, Linus responded to one of my previous posts about grime videos. I agree that grime videos (and a lot of the lyrics) center around the image/ego of the mc. In some ways thats a broad critique of both hip - hop and grime and possibly a large amount of other non-folk musics. Even the 'so sensitive life constantly hurts' emo frontman is selling a carefully crafted cultural niche. Instead of 'my guns the shiniest/ my mags are the spiningist' its replaced by 'i even cried when sally got knifed in home and away' or something. For most mc's though how big/bad i am etc is a popular topic. I find interest in seeing how different mcs handle the topic and challenge the conventions. (eg Dizzee rascal) Shakespeare didn't invent the sonnet sequence but made a great deal of flipping it on its head from the inside.
In saying that grime has some hard work ahead to keep itself interesting and distinct
from hip-hop in terms of both sound and visual representation. Grime has been going through a bit of a low in terms of quality and output while dubstep has been enjoying its time in the lime-light. Interestingly dubsteps BPM has increased and Grimes slowed down to around the 70bpm mark. Basically a lot of whats come out recently sounds like weak hip-hop which is a bad turn. Its getting a bit far fetched but I'd be interested to have a look at how the Affect surrounding a scene changes the BPM. on the plus new albums from dizzee, kano and roll deep this year.
In terms of how the videos are looking i took what you said as a bit of a challenge. It took me ages but i eventually found a grime video where the artists don't appear in the video at all.
DISCLAIMER: plenty of people were harmed in the following images. If you dont like kind of X-rated funniest/wierdest/scariest home videos i wouldnt watch the following.
its the best video i've seen for ages. I think it is actually futuristic (future is now kinda way) that 3d drum and bass videos never reached. It seems to match the grittyness/grimyness of the beats/lyrics in the grime aesthetic. It opens up a whole lot of questions about the economy of images now that the internet is so prevalent. Its an entire video made without the director ever picking up a camera. also, because of the large anarchic streak in the internet so many of the images available still have the novelty or newness that is all but dead on tv and village 8 style movies. The only place it pops up on tv is the news. I think the video makes a comment about the kind of detachment that occurs in hyperreality where for example we had all seen multiple simulations of sept 11 in movies before it even happened. Also its quite a good visual representation of why grime is grime and not shiny-happy-people-esque. Anyway its a massive step away from the Gangster video cliche that Lupe Fiasco sums up:
"now come on everybody lets make cocaine cool - we need a few more half naked women up in the pool - and hold this mac 10 thats all covered in jewels and can you please put your titties closer to the .22's - and wheres the champagne, we need champagne now look as hard as you can with this blunt in your hand - and now hold up your chains slow motion through the flames now cue the smoke machines and the simulated rain -------- but not too loud cause the babies sleeping......"
gangster/baby image is from 50's movie called 'I killed hip-hop tryin to get rich' or something.
I found a video that further complicates the minstrel idea by involving issues of non-essentialist identity. This guy does actually have Jamaican parentage but couldn't look anymore white/bbc if he tried. its a dancehall soundclash some time in the 90s. I researched him a bit and he was quite a well respected 'soundbouy' in the scene. alot of people ive showed it to have a hard time believing its not a joke. Its an interesting look at how much we are effected by the visual appearance of musicians. The minstrel figure we saw in class seems (and probably is) quite ugly racism but i think with black/white Otherness its been a long history of mixed fascination and fear on both sides.
anyway introducing sir david "ramjam" rodigan:
grime
firstly, Linus responded to one of my previous posts about grime videos. I agree that grime videos (and a lot of the lyrics) center around the image/ego of the mc. In some ways thats a broad critique of both hip - hop and grime and possibly a large amount of other non-folk musics. Even the 'so sensitive life constantly hurts' emo frontman is selling a carefully crafted cultural niche. Instead of 'my guns the shiniest/ my mags are the spiningist' its replaced by 'i even cried when sally got knifed in home and away' or something. For most mc's though how big/bad i am etc is a popular topic. I find interest in seeing how different mcs handle the topic and challenge the conventions. (eg Dizzee rascal) Shakespeare didn't invent the sonnet sequence but made a great deal of flipping it on its head from the inside.
In saying that grime has some hard work ahead to keep itself interesting and distinct
from hip-hop in terms of both sound and visual representation. Grime has been going through a bit of a low in terms of quality and output while dubstep has been enjoying its time in the lime-light. Interestingly dubsteps BPM has increased and Grimes slowed down to around the 70bpm mark. Basically a lot of whats come out recently sounds like weak hip-hop which is a bad turn. Its getting a bit far fetched but I'd be interested to have a look at how the Affect surrounding a scene changes the BPM. on the plus new albums from dizzee, kano and roll deep this year.
In terms of how the videos are looking i took what you said as a bit of a challenge. It took me ages but i eventually found a grime video where the artists don't appear in the video at all.
DISCLAIMER: plenty of people were harmed in the following images. If you dont like kind of X-rated funniest/wierdest/scariest home videos i wouldnt watch the following.
its the best video i've seen for ages. I think it is actually futuristic (future is now kinda way) that 3d drum and bass videos never reached. It seems to match the grittyness/grimyness of the beats/lyrics in the grime aesthetic. It opens up a whole lot of questions about the economy of images now that the internet is so prevalent. Its an entire video made without the director ever picking up a camera. also, because of the large anarchic streak in the internet so many of the images available still have the novelty or newness that is all but dead on tv and village 8 style movies. The only place it pops up on tv is the news. I think the video makes a comment about the kind of detachment that occurs in hyperreality where for example we had all seen multiple simulations of sept 11 in movies before it even happened. Also its quite a good visual representation of why grime is grime and not shiny-happy-people-esque. Anyway its a massive step away from the Gangster video cliche that Lupe Fiasco sums up:
"now come on everybody lets make cocaine cool - we need a few more half naked women up in the pool - and hold this mac 10 thats all covered in jewels and can you please put your titties closer to the .22's - and wheres the champagne, we need champagne now look as hard as you can with this blunt in your hand - and now hold up your chains slow motion through the flames now cue the smoke machines and the simulated rain -------- but not too loud cause the babies sleeping......"
gangster/baby image is from 50's movie called 'I killed hip-hop tryin to get rich' or something.
Minstrels
I found a video that further complicates the minstrel idea by involving issues of non-essentialist identity. This guy does actually have Jamaican parentage but couldn't look anymore white/bbc if he tried. its a dancehall soundclash some time in the 90s. I researched him a bit and he was quite a well respected 'soundbouy' in the scene. alot of people ive showed it to have a hard time believing its not a joke. Its an interesting look at how much we are effected by the visual appearance of musicians. The minstrel figure we saw in class seems (and probably is) quite ugly racism but i think with black/white Otherness its been a long history of mixed fascination and fear on both sides.
anyway introducing sir david "ramjam" rodigan:
the musical
below is a clip from dancer in the dark. i wont say to much about it but its a good clip in terms of looking at where 'escapism' is in the contemporary musical and also questions about diegetic and nondiegetic sound. I can watch the ultra violence of the grime clip above without blinking but this movie killed me. kind of an upside down view of realism or something:
all done
all done
Image is primary, sound is secondary?
From the second lecture, I gathered that Chion saw the image as primary with sound being subservient to it. In this way, sound can be seen as giving added value to the image.
But in the age where music videos are so prevalent, couldn't it be the other way round? My reasoning is this: a song is written and recorded and subsequent to this a music video is made and used as a way of selling the song. In this way, the image could be seen as giving added value to sound (the music) couldn't it? The music video being used as a way of getting wider exposure for a given song. Thus sound could be primary and the image secondary.
This is most readily the case in music videos where a band simply "plays" somewhere with the singer lip syncing and the rest of the group pretending to play their instruments (even if there are amps, the guitars aren't usually plugged into them). The example that comes to mind in "Welcome to Nowhere" by the Mint Chicks, where they "play" in front of a screen of images and move around as if they're playing live. These images are just simply adding to the song, rather than the song adding to the images.
But in the age where music videos are so prevalent, couldn't it be the other way round? My reasoning is this: a song is written and recorded and subsequent to this a music video is made and used as a way of selling the song. In this way, the image could be seen as giving added value to sound (the music) couldn't it? The music video being used as a way of getting wider exposure for a given song. Thus sound could be primary and the image secondary.
This is most readily the case in music videos where a band simply "plays" somewhere with the singer lip syncing and the rest of the group pretending to play their instruments (even if there are amps, the guitars aren't usually plugged into them). The example that comes to mind in "Welcome to Nowhere" by the Mint Chicks, where they "play" in front of a screen of images and move around as if they're playing live. These images are just simply adding to the song, rather than the song adding to the images.
Access All Areas: Goodfellas
I mentioned this shot in the lecture yesterday. This is Scorsese's take on the backstage cliché. But this time it's the privileged audience members rather than the band. They've come to see Bobby Vinton. The diegetic music or is it non-diegetic music comes from the Phil Spector production 'And Then He Kissed Me' (was it the Crystals or the Ronettes?)
Access All Areas: Spinal Tap
Here's the scene from This is Spinal Tap I was talking about in the lecture.
Morphing: Grizzly Bear 'Knife'
We'll be talking about morphing and digital animation later this semester but I saw this nice example recently. Good band too.
Antenna 3 at Rialto next Wednesday
Blurb follows:
ANTENNA UK celebrates the best left-field music videos made by British directors and includes filmed interviews with leading British directors talking about their work and background. Commissioned by the British Council, Antenna UK programmes have screened across the globe and are now here in New Zealand, exclusive to Rialto Cinemas!
With ever-more mainstream music channels on digital TV, and endless new pop tarts only too willing to shake their thing at any fish-eye lens who'll watch, the producers of ANTENNA UK firmly believe it's time somebody reminded the public that music videos can be more than just fuel for the egos of stars with already worryingly large heads.
In fact, some of the most influential and creative exploration of film comes from the music video sector and ANTENNA UK exists to shine a light on those on the front line of the scene.
ANTENNA 3 WITH SPECIAL GUEST JASON GROVES OF UK DESIGN STUDIO SHYNOLA!
Monday 19 March 2007 at 6:30pm
Rialto Wellington
Wednesday 21 March 2007 at 6:30pm
Rialto Newmarket
Tickets just $10.00
Join us for Antenna 3 where we take a look we take a look at some recent work by British directors, including established talents like Garth Jennings, director of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and a long list of benchmark music videos, and dom&nic who have a decade of video-making under their belts, and also newer faces like Ben Rollason, Karni+Saul and Chris Cairns. We also have the latest from Nizlopi, and Psapp, two bands proving to be reliably brilliant at making great videos.
Then we will be joined by special guest Jason Groves, founding member of Shynola.
Shynola have won D&AD Awards, British Animation Awards and MTV Awards for their work with such artists as Queens of the Stone Age, Blur, Junior Senior and Beck. Jason will host a 45 minute presentation, including the opportunity for Q&A from the audience.
Tickets are available now at www.rialto.co.nz
ANTENNA UK celebrates the best left-field music videos made by British directors and includes filmed interviews with leading British directors talking about their work and background. Commissioned by the British Council, Antenna UK programmes have screened across the globe and are now here in New Zealand, exclusive to Rialto Cinemas!
With ever-more mainstream music channels on digital TV, and endless new pop tarts only too willing to shake their thing at any fish-eye lens who'll watch, the producers of ANTENNA UK firmly believe it's time somebody reminded the public that music videos can be more than just fuel for the egos of stars with already worryingly large heads.
In fact, some of the most influential and creative exploration of film comes from the music video sector and ANTENNA UK exists to shine a light on those on the front line of the scene.
ANTENNA 3 WITH SPECIAL GUEST JASON GROVES OF UK DESIGN STUDIO SHYNOLA!
Monday 19 March 2007 at 6:30pm
Rialto Wellington
Wednesday 21 March 2007 at 6:30pm
Rialto Newmarket
Tickets just $10.00
Join us for Antenna 3 where we take a look we take a look at some recent work by British directors, including established talents like Garth Jennings, director of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and a long list of benchmark music videos, and dom&nic who have a decade of video-making under their belts, and also newer faces like Ben Rollason, Karni+Saul and Chris Cairns. We also have the latest from Nizlopi, and Psapp, two bands proving to be reliably brilliant at making great videos.
Then we will be joined by special guest Jason Groves, founding member of Shynola.
Shynola have won D&AD Awards, British Animation Awards and MTV Awards for their work with such artists as Queens of the Stone Age, Blur, Junior Senior and Beck. Jason will host a 45 minute presentation, including the opportunity for Q&A from the audience.
Tickets are available now at www.rialto.co.nz
More Admin Stuff!
I have begun the glorious process of matching names to people in more depth for my records, so I know who posted what when. As such, we have a short list of people who I can't place on my current class list.
I'm requesting the most updated class list from Denise as that might clarify some things, but meanwhile here are the people I can't place to a name.
If you wouldn't mind either telling me here or emailing me about it, that would be great. It would be great if you could sign off your future posts with your name.
THE LIST:
A F W
Amanda B
AthenaZ
ElaineL
Josh
MLiu
VNess
I'll probably wind up repeating this process a few times through the semester, but here's the first batch of unknowns.
- Kevin.
I'm requesting the most updated class list from Denise as that might clarify some things, but meanwhile here are the people I can't place to a name.
If you wouldn't mind either telling me here or emailing me about it, that would be great. It would be great if you could sign off your future posts with your name.
THE LIST:
A F W
Amanda B
AthenaZ
ElaineL
Josh
MLiu
VNess
I'll probably wind up repeating this process a few times through the semester, but here's the first batch of unknowns.
- Kevin.
Lecture 3 online
Yesterday's lecture is on CECIL now. The online lecture is a skeletal outline without images, which means you really need to attend the lectures to get the full version. However there are also some additions & clarifications in the online versions of lectures which will help you think about the issues more coherently and revise for exams. Hint hint.
Some Admin Stuff.
Hello everyone.
Here are some details which I thought I'd mention as they occurred to me.
1) Please do not disable responses to your posts. The whole idea of the blog is to be a community, and if people cannot respond to your ideas then that concept is kneecapped from the start.
2) Since I've had a number of questions about it, yes responses you make to other people's posts can count for the assignment. However, from previous experience it seems a good idea to make your response (if it's going to be a big one) on the main body of the blog, and link to the original post. The reason for this is that you can't search responses and neither can we administrators, and if you can't find your responses you can't hand them in at the end. We can search the main list of posts, and so can you.
3) And here we get to the main thing I wanted to get to. Practically everyone so far has a sensible posting name, which is brilliant. But since we have such a high number of students trickling in over time I thought I'd bring it up again. Please make a posting name which connects to you, personally, otherwise there's no way to know who to give the marks to. We already have one Athena Z who I can't locate on my class list, although that might be because it needs updating. If you've signed up under a name that doesn't connect to you, don't worry. The best solution we came up with in FTVMS203 was that you just need to remember to post your name at the bottom of each post in the text body, and I'll build up a list of who is who over time.
Otherwise, everything's going well. Does anyone have questions?
- Kevin.
Here are some details which I thought I'd mention as they occurred to me.
1) Please do not disable responses to your posts. The whole idea of the blog is to be a community, and if people cannot respond to your ideas then that concept is kneecapped from the start.
2) Since I've had a number of questions about it, yes responses you make to other people's posts can count for the assignment. However, from previous experience it seems a good idea to make your response (if it's going to be a big one) on the main body of the blog, and link to the original post. The reason for this is that you can't search responses and neither can we administrators, and if you can't find your responses you can't hand them in at the end. We can search the main list of posts, and so can you.
3) And here we get to the main thing I wanted to get to. Practically everyone so far has a sensible posting name, which is brilliant. But since we have such a high number of students trickling in over time I thought I'd bring it up again. Please make a posting name which connects to you, personally, otherwise there's no way to know who to give the marks to. We already have one Athena Z who I can't locate on my class list, although that might be because it needs updating. If you've signed up under a name that doesn't connect to you, don't worry. The best solution we came up with in FTVMS203 was that you just need to remember to post your name at the bottom of each post in the text body, and I'll build up a list of who is who over time.
Otherwise, everything's going well. Does anyone have questions?
- Kevin.
More than Elvis' pelvis. Much more.
The section of today’s lecture on Rock ‘n’ Roll in the 1950s talked about the tendency of visual media to de-sensationalise musical performances and the way musicians are represented on screen. The creators of variety shows and musical films clearly felt a moral obligation towards their audiences, and seeing as they couldn’t change the songs, controlling the image was clearly the only way to go. Nabeel mentioned that this conservative discourse is still around today. But I do have to wonder what those objectors to Elvis’ pelvis would think of this highly sexualised offering from Christina Aguilera ('Dirrty', David LaChapelle, 2002):
The popularity and commercial importance of music videos today means musicians have a lot more control over how their image is presented. As western societies have become more liberal, so has the content on its screens. We all know that sex sells – that’s why musicians exploit it, and why MTV and C4 will play it. There is very little (if any) desire to tone down the way in which artists choose to express themselves. Even live performances are shot to emphasise the physicality and sexuality of the stars, and are laden with gratuitous close ups of shaking booties and revealing costumes. None of which really has much to do with the music itself.
Of course, music television hasn’t proven itself to be completely without scruples just yet. If you think you can stomach it, here’s the link to Jarvis Cocker’s 'Running the World'. The content itself isn’t even graphic, but the karaoke-style words floating in the clouds spell out the offensive lyrics loud and clear. I think Alt TV’s probably the only channel you’ll find playing this here, although they may well have fallen under the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s radar since going digital…
The popularity and commercial importance of music videos today means musicians have a lot more control over how their image is presented. As western societies have become more liberal, so has the content on its screens. We all know that sex sells – that’s why musicians exploit it, and why MTV and C4 will play it. There is very little (if any) desire to tone down the way in which artists choose to express themselves. Even live performances are shot to emphasise the physicality and sexuality of the stars, and are laden with gratuitous close ups of shaking booties and revealing costumes. None of which really has much to do with the music itself.
Of course, music television hasn’t proven itself to be completely without scruples just yet. If you think you can stomach it, here’s the link to Jarvis Cocker’s 'Running the World'. The content itself isn’t even graphic, but the karaoke-style words floating in the clouds spell out the offensive lyrics loud and clear. I think Alt TV’s probably the only channel you’ll find playing this here, although they may well have fallen under the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s radar since going digital…
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Liveness and constructed events.
To create a live event in the 21st century means expensive tickets and a focus on the spectacular. When i go to an event or see a concert played out on television i am not sure whether it is the music that is stimulating or the visuals that is adding to the experience. Perhaps it is a combination of both.
This is extremely prevalent in house music gigs for Drum and base gigs. Is the visual elements of smoke and disco lights for the camera, atmospheric intensity, something that comes with the price of the ticket or it could be just the fact that it works well for all the people on extasy, BZP or just plain drunk. Music at these types of house and drum and base gigs are typically linked with electronic music. Perhaps the techy kind of flavour links well with lazer lights and smoke. A modern way of determining electronica music is the treatment of saturday night fever type lighting.
Not only are there the lights and "buzzy" flashes. But also the large screen behind the DJ. These images include colourful patterns. Pictures of digital art and images. If you are not quite sure of what this looks like. Run Windows media player and enlarge the viewing window. Here you will see various effects that connect with the beat of the music.
Do these kinds of blowen up images and effects represent music to its visual core. Do they actually have meaning. I believe that they dont. They are simply there as a stimulate for aesthetics. Defining music under this kind of nostalgic wave like imagery.
Taking my points above. Imagine wiping out all these "extra" visual effects that a concert brings people. The cost of the ticket will most definitely drop. Will there still be a wow factor? just a blank stage with the performer at the top. No treatment to the eyes at all. Just raw music. It is almost difficult to imagine to say the least.
It seems like the more we step into the future the more constructed and spectacular events will get. The flashy treatment to mediated televised and live music must reach a certain criteria for the consumer in order for it to appeal. Music in a sense, as said in the lecture today. Will never be purely live. There are always ways to "liven" the performance up....
Heres a kind of example... Notice how much the visual/ spectacular enhance the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UdS2TxQiYE&mode=related&search=
I must admit... It is buetiful :)
This is extremely prevalent in house music gigs for Drum and base gigs. Is the visual elements of smoke and disco lights for the camera, atmospheric intensity, something that comes with the price of the ticket or it could be just the fact that it works well for all the people on extasy, BZP or just plain drunk. Music at these types of house and drum and base gigs are typically linked with electronic music. Perhaps the techy kind of flavour links well with lazer lights and smoke. A modern way of determining electronica music is the treatment of saturday night fever type lighting.
Not only are there the lights and "buzzy" flashes. But also the large screen behind the DJ. These images include colourful patterns. Pictures of digital art and images. If you are not quite sure of what this looks like. Run Windows media player and enlarge the viewing window. Here you will see various effects that connect with the beat of the music.
Do these kinds of blowen up images and effects represent music to its visual core. Do they actually have meaning. I believe that they dont. They are simply there as a stimulate for aesthetics. Defining music under this kind of nostalgic wave like imagery.
Taking my points above. Imagine wiping out all these "extra" visual effects that a concert brings people. The cost of the ticket will most definitely drop. Will there still be a wow factor? just a blank stage with the performer at the top. No treatment to the eyes at all. Just raw music. It is almost difficult to imagine to say the least.
It seems like the more we step into the future the more constructed and spectacular events will get. The flashy treatment to mediated televised and live music must reach a certain criteria for the consumer in order for it to appeal. Music in a sense, as said in the lecture today. Will never be purely live. There are always ways to "liven" the performance up....
Heres a kind of example... Notice how much the visual/ spectacular enhance the scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UdS2TxQiYE&mode=related&search=
I must admit... It is buetiful :)
How live performance is presented in TV- in terms of the crane camera use.
When we talk about live performance it is always referring to the gigs and concerts. In that moment, the performers could develop a close rapport with their audiences (or fans). However, the ticket might be expensive; the field might be full of people; the location might be far away; for those people who can not go to the concert in person, so they could just watch it on screen.
Television, the most pervasive and persuasive of modern technologies, marked by rapid change and growth, is moving into a new era, an era of extraordinary sophistication and versatility. Here, we can not neglect the function of crane camera which is broadly used in various TV programmes, such as sports, interviews, shows and so on, as we can move the crane and turn the camera to get different views. Therefore, crane camera enriches the lens language of TV programme in the way it is working, increasing movement and diversification of the frame, giving us a sense of boundless space, so that your eyes will never withdrew from the stage and it makes you just feel like in the live show.
Often we see people use two sets of crane camera in the general live performance, one is set in front of the stage for taking on the performer; the other one is mainly used for capturing the audiences’ response. By the greatest extent, the camera has to capture the performer’s fascinating movement. Fore-stage crane camera has to be positioned close to the stage and as much as possible on the two sides of the main stage. Besides, put the camera in this place it could break out the limitations and have more advantages than the normal camera, as it can take care of the whole stage through different views.
When we talk about live performance it is always referring to the gigs and concerts. In that moment, the performers could develop a close rapport with their audiences (or fans). However, the ticket might be expensive; the field might be full of people; the location might be far away; for those people who can not go to the concert in person, so they could just watch it on screen.
Television, the most pervasive and persuasive of modern technologies, marked by rapid change and growth, is moving into a new era, an era of extraordinary sophistication and versatility. Here, we can not neglect the function of crane camera which is broadly used in various TV programmes, such as sports, interviews, shows and so on, as we can move the crane and turn the camera to get different views. Therefore, crane camera enriches the lens language of TV programme in the way it is working, increasing movement and diversification of the frame, giving us a sense of boundless space, so that your eyes will never withdrew from the stage and it makes you just feel like in the live show.
Often we see people use two sets of crane camera in the general live performance, one is set in front of the stage for taking on the performer; the other one is mainly used for capturing the audiences’ response. By the greatest extent, the camera has to capture the performer’s fascinating movement. Fore-stage crane camera has to be positioned close to the stage and as much as possible on the two sides of the main stage. Besides, put the camera in this place it could break out the limitations and have more advantages than the normal camera, as it can take care of the whole stage through different views.
On Saving Drafts
Hi everybody,
It's come to my attention that if you hit the Save As Draft button when writing a post, that other people can still see your draft under certain circumstances.
I can't find the settings on how to turn this off, and it didn't happen in 2006, so I have to assume it's one of the 'features' of the new Blogspot script.
In any case, here's the warning. If you're writing a post that you might want to review later before posting, it seems prudent to do it in Word and then copy/paste the content.
- Kevin.
It's come to my attention that if you hit the Save As Draft button when writing a post, that other people can still see your draft under certain circumstances.
I can't find the settings on how to turn this off, and it didn't happen in 2006, so I have to assume it's one of the 'features' of the new Blogspot script.
In any case, here's the warning. If you're writing a post that you might want to review later before posting, it seems prudent to do it in Word and then copy/paste the content.
- Kevin.
some comments on diegetic/non-diegetic sound
Beneath is a video Beat Soufflé which I found browsing Youtube. This remarkably demonstrates the “meaningful play at crossing that [diegetic/non-diegetic] boundary” which Robynn mentions in the first reading. Ignore the first 40 seconds which establish the video’s connection to its prequel – Beat Pancakes. The rest of the clip shows the production of a song through diegetic means. This song imitates a normal song/soundtrack which in other cases would be typically non-diegetic. The reason why I think this is a particularly interesting example is because the sources of sound aren’t from stereos, musical instruments, voices etc. which can logically overlap the two domains; but uses objects which usually appear in soundtracks as strictly diegetic.
Another reason why I like this is example is that the whole point of the video relies on the collaboration of the visual and the audio track. One component doesn’t just merely assist the other in conveying a story or idea. Without the soundtrack the video would be a meaningless montage of kitchen utensils in action; and likewise without the images the sound would only be a trivial and somewhat incomplete rhythm. But it is the combination of these that makes the video entertaining.
Okay, so I’m sure many of you have heard that apparently Pink Floyds album Dark side of the moon syncs up with the Wizard of Oz (referred to as Dark side of the rainbow). The next clip is the best segment of this I could find online. This particular clip goes with the music quite well, but I’m personally pretty skeptical of the rest of the movie.
Regardless of it’s validity I wanted to discuss the conceptual implications of the soundtrack when synching separate media together.
Obviously the first thing to say is that all actual diegetic sound from the film is muted and replaced with a totally external non-diegetic soundtrack. On the other hand when you look up Dark side of the moon on the net there are a number of fan sites listing ridiculous amounts of apparent syncs between the sound and image throughout the film, these include diegetic sounds e.g.:
"Leave, but don't leave me..." from Breathe, is sung as Auntie Em appears to say "... Leave ..." to Dorothy, who then turns to leave
The rumbling at the end of On the Run lends itself nicely as the sound of distant thunder
During Eclipse the closing heartbeats sound as Dorothy listens to the Tin Man's empty chest.
I think these are way too much of a stretch and pure coincidence, but even so if these did sync up would the sounds be considered as diegetic or non-diegetic? In my opinion these would exist in both sound types – but could you still consider an external sound which is completely removed from the film to be diegetic? Similarly in the film festival one or two years ago they screened a movie but hired actors to make new sound effects off stage. Should those sound effects be considered as diegetic if they fit into the narrative context but weren’t recorded in the space that was filmed?
Another reason why I like this is example is that the whole point of the video relies on the collaboration of the visual and the audio track. One component doesn’t just merely assist the other in conveying a story or idea. Without the soundtrack the video would be a meaningless montage of kitchen utensils in action; and likewise without the images the sound would only be a trivial and somewhat incomplete rhythm. But it is the combination of these that makes the video entertaining.
Okay, so I’m sure many of you have heard that apparently Pink Floyds album Dark side of the moon syncs up with the Wizard of Oz (referred to as Dark side of the rainbow). The next clip is the best segment of this I could find online. This particular clip goes with the music quite well, but I’m personally pretty skeptical of the rest of the movie.
Regardless of it’s validity I wanted to discuss the conceptual implications of the soundtrack when synching separate media together.
Obviously the first thing to say is that all actual diegetic sound from the film is muted and replaced with a totally external non-diegetic soundtrack. On the other hand when you look up Dark side of the moon on the net there are a number of fan sites listing ridiculous amounts of apparent syncs between the sound and image throughout the film, these include diegetic sounds e.g.:
"Leave, but don't leave me..." from Breathe, is sung as Auntie Em appears to say "... Leave ..." to Dorothy, who then turns to leave
The rumbling at the end of On the Run lends itself nicely as the sound of distant thunder
During Eclipse the closing heartbeats sound as Dorothy listens to the Tin Man's empty chest.
I think these are way too much of a stretch and pure coincidence, but even so if these did sync up would the sounds be considered as diegetic or non-diegetic? In my opinion these would exist in both sound types – but could you still consider an external sound which is completely removed from the film to be diegetic? Similarly in the film festival one or two years ago they screened a movie but hired actors to make new sound effects off stage. Should those sound effects be considered as diegetic if they fit into the narrative context but weren’t recorded in the space that was filmed?
Film, Music and Popular Culture
The idea of film soundtracks is commonly the music inspired by or from a feature film. Soundtracks are not limited to film, but television and advertisements. The relationship of music and film is deeply rooted in popular culture. As the films and music of each decade represent reflect history, life, the people of that generation, the icons, the trends and cultural moments.
The ability of film to "effectively revisit and remake the past and present" (Tincknell, 1988), is achieved through music in the form of emotional discourse. We look at music which is used to capture cultural moments and evoke feeling through intensity of emotion or dramatic expression. Looking at Contemporary pop films and pop music today "the music soundtrack is a central element in contemporary popular films" (Tincknell, 1988). Music is not just heard but it is felt, it creates mental imagery, physical repsonse and emotional feeling. (Remember in "Ghost" the pottery scene, Unchained Melody, by the Righteous Brother). Through music we remember, we feel nostaglic and we are consumed by the film as we consume it. ( "Titanic" My Heart will go on, by Celine Dion. The ill fated Titantic ship, a slice of history, emulated by this song). Music is also the first thing we willl commonly think and associate a film with, the titled song (theme song). Contemporary television has used music in the way film has, but not really in the form of a soundtrack; in the way of a theme song, that is a central element to the programme or episode. The theme song resonates with audiences and the audiences create an attachment to that song with that specifc programme. (Greys Anatomy: Season one "Suddenly I See" By KT Tunstell or Season two " Chasing Cars" By Snow Patrol. Advertisements use popular music as a form of marketing and creating an association and attachment to certain campaigns, within contemporary popular culture; similar to that of film and television- using background music or a titled song. Car campaigns use of Body Rockers, B-52s, and Subuaru Legacy,most successful campaign to date "Total Control" by the Motels, featuring in the 1999-2000 circa. Apple ipods "Walkie Talkie Man". The relationship of Film, televsion, and advertisements with music is very important, they maybe differently meditated and used for different affect or effect, the relationship between each media with music has significant past and present importance in popular culture.
The ability of film to "effectively revisit and remake the past and present" (Tincknell, 1988), is achieved through music in the form of emotional discourse. We look at music which is used to capture cultural moments and evoke feeling through intensity of emotion or dramatic expression. Looking at Contemporary pop films and pop music today "the music soundtrack is a central element in contemporary popular films" (Tincknell, 1988). Music is not just heard but it is felt, it creates mental imagery, physical repsonse and emotional feeling. (Remember in "Ghost" the pottery scene, Unchained Melody, by the Righteous Brother). Through music we remember, we feel nostaglic and we are consumed by the film as we consume it. ( "Titanic" My Heart will go on, by Celine Dion. The ill fated Titantic ship, a slice of history, emulated by this song). Music is also the first thing we willl commonly think and associate a film with, the titled song (theme song). Contemporary television has used music in the way film has, but not really in the form of a soundtrack; in the way of a theme song, that is a central element to the programme or episode. The theme song resonates with audiences and the audiences create an attachment to that song with that specifc programme. (Greys Anatomy: Season one "Suddenly I See" By KT Tunstell or Season two " Chasing Cars" By Snow Patrol. Advertisements use popular music as a form of marketing and creating an association and attachment to certain campaigns, within contemporary popular culture; similar to that of film and television- using background music or a titled song. Car campaigns use of Body Rockers, B-52s, and Subuaru Legacy,most successful campaign to date "Total Control" by the Motels, featuring in the 1999-2000 circa. Apple ipods "Walkie Talkie Man". The relationship of Film, televsion, and advertisements with music is very important, they maybe differently meditated and used for different affect or effect, the relationship between each media with music has significant past and present importance in popular culture.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Nostalgia Minstrels
In attempting to come up with a research essay topic, I keep returning to what are perhaps the two most offensive music videos on TV at the moment - those for the latest singles by U2 and Red Hot Chili Peppers respectively.
I'm kind of interested in trying to unpack, if you like, these and similar videos in an attempt to see what exactly is so 'offensive' about them in comparison to others of a similar nature.
If you haven't seen the videos in question, they both fit into the music video genre of 'performers pretending to be other performers' - kinda like if Weird Al did a medley video but without the parody song to go with it (although I guess you could make a pretty strong case both bands have been parodying themselves for years...).
In the RHCP clip the band pose as a number of definitive, 'groundbreaking' acts from popular music history - so you've got RHCP performing as (something like...) Elvis, the Beatles, Ramones, Kraftwerk, Public Enemy, Nirvana, and then as... Red Hot Chili Peppers. Um, what? Says who?
The U2 video is a little different in that it uses some deft editing of actual footage of canonised pop musicians, 'from Bing to Beck', to make it look like they're all singing the latest U2 tune. It looks like it could be some kind of huge intergenerational charity single, only infinitely more disappointing when you discover it's Bono singing the whole thing. I think this one is probably the more offensive of the two if only for the fact that unlike the RHCP clip it appears to be entirely lacking a sense of humour (U2, pretentious? Never.)
So what's so bad about these clips? I haven't really figured it out yet. You could say "oh, they're saying they're up there with the Beatles and Elvis, what a bunch of arrogant old wankers," but popular musicians have been doing that for years - to miscontextualise John Lennon the Beatles themselves claimed to be "bigger than Jesus" and at the risk of sounding painfully white, don't such claims pop up in rap and hip hop all the time?
Maybe it's more the explicit use of a canonised performer's 'signs and signifiers' (here's where I wish I'd paid more attention in FTVMS101...) or something which seems so 'wrong', but then plenty of other videos have done the same and got away with it. There's that Weezer video for 'Buddy Holly' where they dress as (I'm assuming) the Crickets and play on the set of Happy Days, and there's a similar Nirvana video too. Yet I was never struck by any sense of profound misjustice in either of these videos...
Similarly, the Shins' clip for 'New Slang' sees them pose as a bunch of canonical indie album covers (Spiderland, Double Nickels, Zen Arcade... (fap fap fap)...) yet I never read it as the band 'positioning' themselves alongside these bands but rather as a throwback to a time when a mutual appreciation for the same obscure bands actually meant some.
So I guess some of the issues here are where the band 'positions' themselves in relation to the performers they visually quote, and also the whole insider / outsider, indie / mainstream kinda thing. Does Nirvana and Weezer visually quoting canonical popular performers reinforce their position as 'outsiders' just as RHCP and U2 doing the same reinforces their position as 'insiders'? Why is the former acceptable but the latter not? Is the band, the record company or the video director responsible? And so on.
Anyway, I didn't actually intend to share my entire potential research essay with everyone (sorry), but rather to see if anyone can think of any other music videos that are similar to the ones I've talked about. There must be plenty more, so let me know if you have any YouTube recommendations. Thanks.
I'm kind of interested in trying to unpack, if you like, these and similar videos in an attempt to see what exactly is so 'offensive' about them in comparison to others of a similar nature.
If you haven't seen the videos in question, they both fit into the music video genre of 'performers pretending to be other performers' - kinda like if Weird Al did a medley video but without the parody song to go with it (although I guess you could make a pretty strong case both bands have been parodying themselves for years...).
In the RHCP clip the band pose as a number of definitive, 'groundbreaking' acts from popular music history - so you've got RHCP performing as (something like...) Elvis, the Beatles, Ramones, Kraftwerk, Public Enemy, Nirvana, and then as... Red Hot Chili Peppers. Um, what? Says who?
The U2 video is a little different in that it uses some deft editing of actual footage of canonised pop musicians, 'from Bing to Beck', to make it look like they're all singing the latest U2 tune. It looks like it could be some kind of huge intergenerational charity single, only infinitely more disappointing when you discover it's Bono singing the whole thing. I think this one is probably the more offensive of the two if only for the fact that unlike the RHCP clip it appears to be entirely lacking a sense of humour (U2, pretentious? Never.)
So what's so bad about these clips? I haven't really figured it out yet. You could say "oh, they're saying they're up there with the Beatles and Elvis, what a bunch of arrogant old wankers," but popular musicians have been doing that for years - to miscontextualise John Lennon the Beatles themselves claimed to be "bigger than Jesus" and at the risk of sounding painfully white, don't such claims pop up in rap and hip hop all the time?
Maybe it's more the explicit use of a canonised performer's 'signs and signifiers' (here's where I wish I'd paid more attention in FTVMS101...) or something which seems so 'wrong', but then plenty of other videos have done the same and got away with it. There's that Weezer video for 'Buddy Holly' where they dress as (I'm assuming) the Crickets and play on the set of Happy Days, and there's a similar Nirvana video too. Yet I was never struck by any sense of profound misjustice in either of these videos...
Similarly, the Shins' clip for 'New Slang' sees them pose as a bunch of canonical indie album covers (Spiderland, Double Nickels, Zen Arcade... (fap fap fap)...) yet I never read it as the band 'positioning' themselves alongside these bands but rather as a throwback to a time when a mutual appreciation for the same obscure bands actually meant some.
So I guess some of the issues here are where the band 'positions' themselves in relation to the performers they visually quote, and also the whole insider / outsider, indie / mainstream kinda thing. Does Nirvana and Weezer visually quoting canonical popular performers reinforce their position as 'outsiders' just as RHCP and U2 doing the same reinforces their position as 'insiders'? Why is the former acceptable but the latter not? Is the band, the record company or the video director responsible? And so on.
Anyway, I didn't actually intend to share my entire potential research essay with everyone (sorry), but rather to see if anyone can think of any other music videos that are similar to the ones I've talked about. There must be plenty more, so let me know if you have any YouTube recommendations. Thanks.
Once More, With Feeling.
Hi everybody.
Some people were having major problems with the songs I uploaded before, and it turns out that my comrades running the webspace moved everything over to a new server and they were thus Not Working.
It's fixed now, or should be, so here are the links again.
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - Mister Valentine's Dead
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - The Bells of Hell.
- Kevin.
Some people were having major problems with the songs I uploaded before, and it turns out that my comrades running the webspace moved everything over to a new server and they were thus Not Working.
It's fixed now, or should be, so here are the links again.
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - Mister Valentine's Dead
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - The Bells of Hell.
- Kevin.
Bibliography on CECIL
A list of books and articles that might be useful for research projects are up on CECIL now. I'll continue to update it during the semester. Many of the titles have been requested for transfer to Short Loan. They should be available over the next week. Please post links or other resources up on the blog if you find anything that might be useful for other students on the course. I can also order titles for the library. I'm really trying to boost the library's collection in this area of study.
Thanks to all of you who have been blogging so far. Many interesting topics : wish I could reply to all of you but for the most part I'll let you guys conduct the conversation and let the blog inform what I say in lecture. It's hella busy at the moment at the start of the semester anyway. Come and see me though about your possible research topics. I'm very open to all sorts of directions and approaches. You've just got to have something that you wanna argue in your papers. If you can't make it Thursdays 1-3 we can try and make another appointment.
Tomorrow, it's a bit of 40s jazz and 50s rock and roll and then into the liveness debate: a bit of electric Dylan, Milli with your Vanilli etc. We'll be 'disintegratin' the musical' with Wattstax. See you in class.
thanks
Nabeel
Thanks to all of you who have been blogging so far. Many interesting topics : wish I could reply to all of you but for the most part I'll let you guys conduct the conversation and let the blog inform what I say in lecture. It's hella busy at the moment at the start of the semester anyway. Come and see me though about your possible research topics. I'm very open to all sorts of directions and approaches. You've just got to have something that you wanna argue in your papers. If you can't make it Thursdays 1-3 we can try and make another appointment.
Tomorrow, it's a bit of 40s jazz and 50s rock and roll and then into the liveness debate: a bit of electric Dylan, Milli with your Vanilli etc. We'll be 'disintegratin' the musical' with Wattstax. See you in class.
thanks
Nabeel
Monday, March 12, 2007
Wattstax
Viewing Wattstax really got me thinking about how important music can be to different groups of people. To African-Americans in the 1960s and '70s, music was essential, a way to get through the racism and realities of everyday life. The performers at Wattstax were more than celebrities. They were an inspiration, the embodiment of hope and the desperate dream that life would get better. Their music wasn't made just to entertain, but to uplift. When Isaac Hayes (the main attraction) comes onstage at the end of the film, he sings directly to the audience about things that they can relate to. Specifically, being poor and black in America in a time when you could fight and die in a pointless war, but couldn't collect unemployment.
This also got me thinking about the current state of popular music. Where are all the social commentators? Where are the musicians who use their voice to say that things are wrong here and we know that and we understand that something must be done about it? There must be someone out there; I refuse to believe that everyone is making songs like "Fergalicious" and "Don't Cha."
I think Wattstax was an amazing event. It was a Woodstock for a group of people who had been silent for far too long. Unfortunately that silence is what led to the Watts riots in 1965. Could something similar now, to us, if we have no voice to express our displeasure with the current state of the world?
This also got me thinking about the current state of popular music. Where are all the social commentators? Where are the musicians who use their voice to say that things are wrong here and we know that and we understand that something must be done about it? There must be someone out there; I refuse to believe that everyone is making songs like "Fergalicious" and "Don't Cha."
I think Wattstax was an amazing event. It was a Woodstock for a group of people who had been silent for far too long. Unfortunately that silence is what led to the Watts riots in 1965. Could something similar now, to us, if we have no voice to express our displeasure with the current state of the world?
Throwing the Question Open.
I only really became interested in music relatively recently, and as such I have little handle on what it is that I like. What I thought I'd do this week was put up two songs by a Canadian bar-band that I like as a point of discussion, and also to see if I can throw the doors wide to being told what kind of music this is. At the moment, I have to get people to listen to their music (as I am now) since I can't describe their work. It's not because they're transcendant or emphemeral or "No, you can only experience their glory through listening," just that I lack the tools to do so.
In any case, here they are. I'd recommend not downloading them at university because you're paying for the bandwidth. The files will stay up for a week or so and then I'll pull them down, so if you're interested get into them now.
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - Mister Valentine's Dead
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - The Bells of Hell.
Email contact means that I have written permission to share these in this context. How cool is that?
- Kevin.
In any case, here they are. I'd recommend not downloading them at university because you're paying for the bandwidth. The files will stay up for a week or so and then I'll pull them down, so if you're interested get into them now.
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - Mister Valentine's Dead
Kevin Quain and the Mad Bastards - The Bells of Hell.
Email contact means that I have written permission to share these in this context. How cool is that?
- Kevin.
Music as Emotional Cues - Needed or not Needed That is the Question.
I was slightly surprised to read that someone had said that musical emotional cues were making audiences lazy - and I'm not sure if I agree with this or not.
Have you ever seen "habla con ella" (talk to her) directed by Pedro Almodovar? It was strange and slightly disturbing as I found myself sort of sympathising with a man who raped a woman in a coma. One of the reasons I did this is because of the emotional cues set up by the music, the "awww feel sorry for me music, a huge injustice has just happened to me music, I raped a woman and now they are sending me to jail, music" - HUH!?
I was even more confused when I handed back the DVD to the AV library desk and the guy asked, "Did you cry?" I was kinda like, what was I supposed to cry about? That a rapist got put in jail and is never going to see the woman that he loves (the one that he raped) again? He got what he deserved didn't he? DIDN'T HE!?
I guess what I was doing, was being lazy and following the cues of the music to tell me how I was supposed to feel about the character. It didn't help that he was the protagonist and all round, nice guy, apart from the rape incident. It was weird because I didn't want to feel sorry for this guy because it goes against everything i have learnt. Raping women is wrong. I felt like i was betraying society by feeling sorry for this guy... Anyway, I guess this kind of shows how much directors can manipulate audiences through music, and I think, Almodovar takes a certain amount of pride in the way he messes with audiences heads. I don't think the musical cues made the audience lazy, however, more like set them up to be disturbed and confused and basically doubt their whole sense of morals and whether they're good people or not...
Have you ever seen "habla con ella" (talk to her) directed by Pedro Almodovar? It was strange and slightly disturbing as I found myself sort of sympathising with a man who raped a woman in a coma. One of the reasons I did this is because of the emotional cues set up by the music, the "awww feel sorry for me music, a huge injustice has just happened to me music, I raped a woman and now they are sending me to jail, music" - HUH!?
I was even more confused when I handed back the DVD to the AV library desk and the guy asked, "Did you cry?" I was kinda like, what was I supposed to cry about? That a rapist got put in jail and is never going to see the woman that he loves (the one that he raped) again? He got what he deserved didn't he? DIDN'T HE!?
I guess what I was doing, was being lazy and following the cues of the music to tell me how I was supposed to feel about the character. It didn't help that he was the protagonist and all round, nice guy, apart from the rape incident. It was weird because I didn't want to feel sorry for this guy because it goes against everything i have learnt. Raping women is wrong. I felt like i was betraying society by feeling sorry for this guy... Anyway, I guess this kind of shows how much directors can manipulate audiences through music, and I think, Almodovar takes a certain amount of pride in the way he messes with audiences heads. I don't think the musical cues made the audience lazy, however, more like set them up to be disturbed and confused and basically doubt their whole sense of morals and whether they're good people or not...
Thriller -- micheal jackson
Michael Jackson's Thriller is a fourteen-minute music video released in December 1983 to support Michael Jackson's single "Thriller". In my opinion, it is the best and most popular music video of all time. The reason why I wanna talk about this MTV is that it was less of a conventional video and more of a mini-film.
In the history of music industry, most MTVs have been produced just to help propagandize the original songs and the albums; and in most people's thoughts, music video is just the appendant of the song; however, "Thriller" was not produced in that purpose. The music was even re-edited to match the video, this shows the importance of this video and also comes to the question: do music videos just serve the songs or they got some interactivities?
"Thriller" remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter :) ). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other. My favorite part is where the zombies stagger in on the couple and the girl turns to see that Michael has turned into one of them. Then, they do a little dance. The scariest thing about "Thriller" may be the fact that it is consistently more fun and enjoyable than a lot of movies that are made. After twenty years it remains the premier music video.
There's some other versions of "thriller", post here, just for fun!
--LIJIA ZHANG (ATHENA)
In the history of music industry, most MTVs have been produced just to help propagandize the original songs and the albums; and in most people's thoughts, music video is just the appendant of the song; however, "Thriller" was not produced in that purpose. The music was even re-edited to match the video, this shows the importance of this video and also comes to the question: do music videos just serve the songs or they got some interactivities?
"Thriller" remains the greatest of the pop music promos to have a plot, great visuals, and a tip-top song to wrap the film around. Michael Jackson was at the top of the tree at this time (and not so altered in his plastic surgery regime for it to matter :) ). Here he is in good form - the song is terrific, he leads the zombies in dance like no other. My favorite part is where the zombies stagger in on the couple and the girl turns to see that Michael has turned into one of them. Then, they do a little dance. The scariest thing about "Thriller" may be the fact that it is consistently more fun and enjoyable than a lot of movies that are made. After twenty years it remains the premier music video.
There's some other versions of "thriller", post here, just for fun!
--LIJIA ZHANG (ATHENA)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
thoughts on musicals, old and new
I found the clips from musicals in last weeks lecture particularly interesting as it was only recently that I attended a screening of 'Dream Girls'. I asked myself: why is it that I find the musicals of the 50s so enjoyable and yet I detested the modern musical 'Dream Girls'? They both belong to the same genre that has rather specific genre conventions, and yet my response differed so extremely. I think perhaps we are more comfortable to enjoy the hammy elements and camp aesthetics of the old musicals because it fits into our romanticised impression the 1950s. We enjoy 'Singin' in the Rain', 'An American in Paris', 'South Pacific' as a product of the time and accept the films as they are. A modern musical doesn't have the 'retro' advantage. I critiqued 'Dream Girls' as a contemporary film and compared it to the many other films I had seen around in the weeks leading up to the Oscars. Perhaps it was in this context, when I was viewing other films like 'History Boys', 'The Queen', 'The Departed', 'The Last King of Scotland', that caused me to particularly dislike the film 'Dream Girls'. Perhaps we expect more from our films today, more social awareness, more complexity, more power to initiate change, and in this context of expectation there is no longer room for the hammy musical re-make. We can enjoy the musicals of the 1950s because we don't hang today's expectation of 'what is good film making' around their necks. In viewing 'Dream Girls' however, I couldn't help but wonder what film could have been made, what story missed out on being told. Still, I suppose you've got to have the shade to have the light.
Hi all
Just some thoughts from last weeks lecture.
The clip seen in lecture two, "A Personal Journey: American Cinema ptI", dealt with the musical genre up until the 1950's. Post-war muscials strike me as having lost that certain something that made previous productions so popular and well-loved (even today). Musicals such as Bandwagon and An American in Paris have a raw, edgy feel not present in earlier musicals. The documentary mentioned above comments on the film noir influences on the film Bandwagon, and this is evident in the ballet which is dark and unsettling in its subject matter, its dance style and music choice. Considering film noir and its impetus and implications, it can be said that the post war era and its social complications seeped into even the most beloved of all genresdenying audiences that associated utopia. Earlier musicals, even during the depression era, have a glow about them, an aura of "can do" spirit and a reaching to fulfill the American dream. Post-war productions in this genre, however, are in many ways, a depiction of a society that has lost faith in this dream, that is driven by a consumer culture and the hardships of a nation trying to (re)build, as it were. Even the stars are fading, with both Fred AStaire and Gene Kelly failing in both age and enthusiasm, and increasingly paired with younger women. Somehow, these later films can never live up to the beloved musicals of an earlier generation. However, they still have something to offer in terms of providing an interesting analysis of post war society and its trends.
Moving on to the clip that dealt with the score for Psycho, i thought it was interesting that Hitchcock wanted silence during the shower scene. At first my reaction was similar to that of commentator's, the score in the shower scene adds an idescribable something to the panic and plot pointing that it invokes. However, with more thought, I wondered if in fact silence would have made the scene that much more disconcerting, for without sound cues, we (the audience) are at a loss at what to feel. Sound points to emotional responses that are appropriate for certain scenes (whether we understand this consciously or sub-consciously). Without sound as our guide, we are left to our own emotions which arguably would intensify our shock and panic responses in a scene like that in psycho.
Just a thought
Kate van Niekerk
Just some thoughts from last weeks lecture.
The clip seen in lecture two, "A Personal Journey: American Cinema ptI", dealt with the musical genre up until the 1950's. Post-war muscials strike me as having lost that certain something that made previous productions so popular and well-loved (even today). Musicals such as Bandwagon and An American in Paris have a raw, edgy feel not present in earlier musicals. The documentary mentioned above comments on the film noir influences on the film Bandwagon, and this is evident in the ballet which is dark and unsettling in its subject matter, its dance style and music choice. Considering film noir and its impetus and implications, it can be said that the post war era and its social complications seeped into even the most beloved of all genresdenying audiences that associated utopia. Earlier musicals, even during the depression era, have a glow about them, an aura of "can do" spirit and a reaching to fulfill the American dream. Post-war productions in this genre, however, are in many ways, a depiction of a society that has lost faith in this dream, that is driven by a consumer culture and the hardships of a nation trying to (re)build, as it were. Even the stars are fading, with both Fred AStaire and Gene Kelly failing in both age and enthusiasm, and increasingly paired with younger women. Somehow, these later films can never live up to the beloved musicals of an earlier generation. However, they still have something to offer in terms of providing an interesting analysis of post war society and its trends.
Moving on to the clip that dealt with the score for Psycho, i thought it was interesting that Hitchcock wanted silence during the shower scene. At first my reaction was similar to that of commentator's, the score in the shower scene adds an idescribable something to the panic and plot pointing that it invokes. However, with more thought, I wondered if in fact silence would have made the scene that much more disconcerting, for without sound cues, we (the audience) are at a loss at what to feel. Sound points to emotional responses that are appropriate for certain scenes (whether we understand this consciously or sub-consciously). Without sound as our guide, we are left to our own emotions which arguably would intensify our shock and panic responses in a scene like that in psycho.
Just a thought
Kate van Niekerk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)