Wednesday, March 27, 2019

That we would do we should do when we would

The plural of Panda is Pandae.

Some of the visual effects in The Expanse are simply amazing. Some aren't. This is one that definitely is. 

Here's a brief thought which sputtered in my brain briefly for a brief moment of briefing: it's almost impossible to find a piece of "bad" scoring in a film because the bad score is the film. You get a bad film and you don't blame it all on the score. You just think "this is dumb." This is because the emotional reality of the movie is undermined by the poorly thought through music. I can't really think of any movies which really got trashed by their own scores. 

I mean with the exception of Logan's Run

Impressive work with this submission - very ambitious in scope and in many respects highly successful. It almost seems impossible to answer the essay question on “bad film music” without eventually having to unravel the entire discipline of filmscoring to work out how such a thing could be judged, and you’ve taken to that challenge rather admirably. Overall I’d suggest that the ambition outstretches the word-count somewhat - certain premises are taken for granted rather than discussed, and each chapter of this piece could easily be its own complete essay. But given the limitations, and the challenge you’ve set yourself here, the result is admirable and generally forms strong arguments, with strong supporting evidence, to lead to strong conclusions - which demonstrates a very good understanding of the topic at hand. 

The Composer As Filmmaker

Overall this is a good point, but I don’t think the point is completed - in that I think it’s not entirely clear what the benefits of considering oneself a filmmaker are - and the drawbacks of failing to. For instance - examples of filmmusic that fails to consider itself an aspect of the filmmaking - and why this is ultimately unsuccessful. You have a few quotes and some decent citations but what would complete this chapter for me is a greater focus on examples, examples that prove your point. One thing that immediately comes to mind, for instance, is 2001: A Space Odyssey which doesn’t have a composer for the final score, it’s all composed by non-film-composers who did not consider themselves filmmakers. And yet it works masterfully - clearly, 2001 is an unusual film for lots of reasons, but for your theory to be sound it has to encompass these oddball filmscores (one might argue that in the case of 2001, the temp music was literally placed there by a filmmaker, and that in this case the “arranger is a filmmaker” works as a close allegory). 

The Dialogue Is The Melody

I really love the technical angle in this chapter - the use of diagrams and a technical breakdown of the frequency content of spoken voice and certain instrumental registers - this is great evidence, and it does well to build a really strong grounding for an argument. However, as with the last chapter, you don’t give any examples of the negative - how the lack of appreciation of this concept can lead to disasters. I’d suggest perhaps an example from Golden Era Hollywood - Gone With The Wind, for instance, has plenty of examples where music occupies many of the same registers as the spoken dialogue and it would be quite easy to judge the music/dialogue relationship in GWTW as somewhat overscored (in fact, you could probably find a number of filmscore journalists/writers referring to Steiner’s method as “overscoring”). This would then give weight to the negative - consider the dialogue as part of the melody, or suffer these potential consequences. At the very least this would tie this much closer to the title - “what is good film music, what is bad film music?” - it’s important to give weight to both of these. 

The Subtext

The Shakespeare example here is really good, I like this introduction to this chapter - the idea that the narrator can be saying one thing whilst the characters say another - or that the characters can be saying one thing but meaning another - this kind of dramatic irony is a really powerful tool for film composers and I’m really glad you touched on it. I think, though, you break your own definition of subtext. You portray subtext as “the difference between what a character says and what a character does” - The Shining/Blade Runner example you give later breaks that, where you say the footage is the same but the “subtext” is different. I suppose in this context the “character” is the narrator - but you need to build this into your definition. Or shift from talking about subtext to talking about “true perspective”, which I think could be defined as the “subtext” of the film narrator. You introduce the “true perspective” but go back to talking about subtext - so I think these terms could just be clarified here. Also, you say “the music plays the subtext of the picture, a score that misunderstands or does not know the subtext, is bad” - again, it’s probably worth providing examples of “bad” music that does not know, or understand the subtext - again, tying this more closely to the question. 

Every Show Is A Musical

I like the theoretical notion that the characters can “hear” the score. This is quite interesting, but inevitably begs the question - what’s the point in entertaining that the characters can hear something if they don’t have the power to acknowledge or interact with it in any way? You suggest that it’s simply “part of the world” - if that were so, then why is it forbidden for the character to interact or acknowledge this? For instance, the characters cannot verbally mention each others’ makeup being perfect, they do not, and if they did, it would be seen as fourth-wall-breaking. Perhaps it’s a little more complex than simply characters being able to hear their background score. I think, perhaps it’s better to think of this less as though the characters can “hear” the score (as this implies an emotional “input” of the score *into* the characters, which no doubt does not exist unless the film is being ironic or postmodern), but rather that the characters are active in “producing” the score, as it is an expression of their emotional truth - more that they “speak” the score rather than “hear” it (and sometimes the character that “speaks” the score is the narrator). Maybe they don’t hear it but they’re aware of it as emotional truth - that the score is a metaphor for what they are expressing, and therefore they *are* aware of it on a truthful level even if not on a literal level. You mention Obi-Wan etc, and some Star Wars examples and wonder whether or not the characters can hear these things - you pose the question, but why must it be yes? Is it because the gesture and the music are so intertwined, that they appear “choreographed”? I think you need to be more precise with this. If that’s what you’re saying, then be sure to say it. 


Your conclusion puts this all together nicely, and it is quite convincing as a general prescription for a starting point when it comes to scoring film. I think all of these points are well-made, but in every case, more of a demonstration of the negative to reinforce the positive would go a long way to help this to actually tie in with the question - which is what makes good film music *and* what makes bad film music. The lack of focus on the bad makes this feel less like a complete analysis, and more like a “general practice guide”. Overall, though, very strong work, very well-attested and well-evidenced arguments, a really good theoretical grounding and the overall structure of this works very well to build to a strong conclusion. Excellent work! 

Kind regards,


David Denyer's Summary:
Very strong, well-evidenced work. In most of these chapters, one half of the question is dealt with much more strongly than the other - the discussion of what makes bad music seems to only come up in passing, and no evidence is given for “bad music” - however, much evidence is given for “good music” and the theoretical journey from concept to concept, and finally to conclusion, is pretty sound. Some of these points are a little vague and could do with more focus.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Distant Crowd Murmuring

There are times when a man has to clear his tabs.

A reticle a day keeps the walrus away.

The Music Modernization Act by schoolmate Alex Mueller.

Douglas Black Heaton

Thanks for sending in your Elephant King submission. Your commentary is a little disjointed although I accept that some of this is because this is a continuation and perhaps because you've also responded to feedback on the formative. It still needs to be readable for summative reviewers. Good that you heeded Erik's advice to watch Planet Earth - even if it's not directly applicable it should still give a feeling for the use of music, how it's introduced, the mood movement and relationship to VO. 

I reviewed the first 08:40 to see how you implemented Erik's feedback. Overall I think it works well. I have some additional comments. Erik didn't touch upon it but the opening piece sounds very abrupt to me, almost like the very start of it was cut off - the atmospheric start is good however. You seem to have addressed the mood change at 00:34. I'm not sure if you've done anything about his note concerning the cue following the title - it still comes too early which reduces the effect of the title. 

08:42 Start of the new section.. I've no idea why you opted for a big drum hit here as it cuts to the starry sky but we still hear the playful whistle music. Sounds very incongruous. Could work nicely without the overly dramatic sting. 

Nice change of atmosphere for the night vision and giving frequency space for the rumbles. Obviously a discussion with the sound guy but this sounds nice. I wonder if the music is a touch too mysterious rather than wondrous but it does work. Sounds like this might have been looped - possibly could have done with a gap if repeated. The music disappears at 10:47 without any particular reason.. spacing out the mysterious music could work for that. 

11:05 the change to suspense comes too early. We're still just watching the elephants without knowing there's a predator out there - this should change at the caption earliest. The suspense mood is good though. 

12:10 again the change is slightly too early - we're still wondering if the tiger is going to to swipe the tail but the music takes a positive turn. Again it's a good choice for the next sequence starting when we cut at 12:19. It gives a sense of life without being too positive. 

12:44 The transition here is not great. You could have ended with that guitar flam. Now the guitar chord quickly fades into the piano with the start being somewhat blurred (especially moving from G# to C with the keys). 

The new sound feels good for the visual colours, new day etc. and it kind of works with the narrative but feels more of an ending that beginning. The change in tone at 13:21 is quite different without the narrative having given a reason for it. That could again be later for the "jostle" and then fade. 

14:16 percussion implies something more forceful is coming and yet we see Prince Charles and William being more playful. Later when we meet Tim this "something forceful" makes sense. IMO it starts a little ahead of the narrative again and then fades just after Tim arrives where I would consider extending it while they start to interact. 

15:33 This works well for Prince Charles being subtle and then the PTC from Caitlin. 

16:20 Again, too early with the mood change. You're giving the story away when the music gets aggressive with nothing happening on screen and before the VO tells us. Consider holding the mood change back to 16:30ish when there's an actual threat. Then the mood for the challenge works well. 

17:16 nice transition. 

17:27 Nice theme to use, another alternative would have been a call back to the theme you used earlier for herd movement at 01:47. 

18:21 Guitar. This works pretty well for the "baby boom Bruce" piece. 

It seems you've gone ahead and provided a music edit for the rest of the episode. The brief only calls for the summative to correct the changes up to and then continue until 

Tech hitch - your mp4 was 2.8gb! I expect this must have been an export issue as this is much, much bigger than the original. It's also way too large to be sending to a client as a music review MOV. I'm sure this was a one off but these kind of things need to be checked before sending.

Overall - You've implement most of the feedback for the first 8 minutes well. For the second half the music choices are mostly good (one strange use of a dramatic drum sting). For my taste the music was too often preempting the visuals. The mood was changing with before the narrative (either visual or VO) with the music then leading the viewer. The technical side of the edits was ok although there were some odd rougher moments e.g. a quick fade edit between two unrelated keys. Also, from a practical standpoint, always check the brief (here you've done way more work than required) and the materials you send to a client (a 2.8gb mov file!). 

Creative: GOOD
Technical: FAIR
Practical: FAIR


Wednesday, February 06, 2019


Inverse square law of light. I still don't understand how this applies to Fresnels. Well, I guess the bendy-ness of the lens effectively puts the "origin" of the light somewhere behind the lamp itself. I guess. Who knows? Stuff is weird.
Unfortunately this Victor Rousseau was a real antisemitic twit.

Journal reviewer.

List of predatory journals.

Music and the Moving Image journal.

Chicago format for prose extracts.

Monday, February 04, 2019

All For One

Franz is a multi-messenger client thingy.

Rambox also, too, similarly.

All-in-one messenger app works great. It's one app for Dischord, freaking WhatsApp, Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Tweet Deck, pretty much whatever you got. Built on Chrome so it's cross-platform.
What is weird though is that the only way to actually launch it is to go to the store and hit the launch app button.
That is, until you dig deep down in the comments and find that there is a separate app just to launch allinone from the Chrome toolbar.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Various sundries

Multi-messenger Chrome extension thingy-client which puts Whatsapp on your desktop. So yeah, I've got that, Dischord, and Slack running along with Hangouts. Because that's what we do now.
Desperately clinging to the NSFW status of this blog.

Oh no. Wait. I can put Dischord on this thingy. And Slack. Wait. This changes my life.

Monday, January 21, 2019

Fair Dinkum (module 03 formative 1)

I only got a "pass" on this assignment. I'm a bit bummed about it but I have to say the critique is totally fair. This was a formative (doesn't count toward my final grade) I did in order to do something outside of my wheelhouse. I sure learned a lot by doing it. The non-green text is my tutor's grading.

Stylistically the compositions don’t feel enough Mozart or Haydn. Historically, the classical period goes hand in hand with the Age of Enlightenment. The period is defined by scientific and philosophical discourse, which, according to Goethe, is also expressed in classical music: four independent but equal voices having a dialogue. Haydn’s string quartet in G minor (op. 73 no. 3) mentioned in your bibliography is an excellent example. So the best way to approach the composition is to start with very strict four-part harmony, then orchestrate. 
One weird thing about that example is that they play tutti at the top. And that doesn't count as parallel movement apparently. I got kinda thrown there.
Some melodic voices (e.g. Country House Theme, violin at 0:46) don’t feel thematic, but they also don’t blend very well with the rest and stand out instead. This means the feeling of four “equal” voices is missing. The material could be more thematic. In the Country House Theme, the woodwinds in the first few bar sort of establish a theme, but it’s not really melodic and doesn’t flow or have a specific direction. Thematic development is quite important for this style. Another important element are patterns that are usually sequenced rather strictly. For example, the arpeggio pattern at 0:35 is irregular. The chase arpeggio pattern works a lot better. 
The chase does work better.
Classical music uses functional harmony. This means you need to take extra care and check where the voices are going, especially the bass. The chase track starts with an inversion (the bass should be A instead of E). The second chord with the D in the bass is not clearly defined. Shortly later the note G is played (G# being the leading tone of A minor). A minor means A harmonic minor in this period, so as soon as G# turns into G, the music turns into C major. Etc. 
Yeah, I think I made a mistake with the chord form I took. It was an earlier chord progression but I don't think it was actually used much by Mozart or Haydn, but it was used later by Shubert. I should have nipped that in the bud. 
Inversions are important in any style and each inversion has a specific effect. A tonal piece always starts with the tonic chord in root position, unless the goal is to destabilise the tonal centre. That is acceptable in some styles, but usually in classical music the key of the piece is established very clearly with a cadence V-I.
There are similar problems with the mystery track. For example, at 0:04 D# and E are played at the same time.

The other issue is an aesthetic one. The piano sounds a lot like a modern grand piano with a softer attack, more dynamics and bigger size than the instruments from the 18th century. The woodwinds are a full section playing unisono, which is not the way they were orchestrated back then. If you don’t have fortepiano samples, use a harpsichord. Try to make the close mics of each instrument a bit louder to get a more intimate feeling. 
Yeah, the harpsichord was making it sound much too early. But the only pianos I had were too late. 'Twas a bummer.
The mockups are not realistic enough. The clarinets are generally a little too loud, while the non-vibrato strings sound artificial and seem to lack true vibrato (the sampled transitions between two notes). There is a lot of reverb, which takes away the chamber feeling. The panning is too extreme, especially the col legno notes. This happens because CSSS is technically not a string quartet, but the first chairs of each section, so it still sounds very orchestral.
That's a good point about CSSS. There are a few weird moments in the mockups:
- Chase theme 0:13 - an arpeggio note comes too late
- Mystery theme 0:25 - the cello note suddenly stops with a click
Oh dear. That is. Embarrassing. 
The audio files are not directly loopable. When the end of the track is reached, it should be possible to directly go into the first bars again, without any further editing or crossfading. 
Oops. I didn't realize we were doing that for this assignment. I know better now.

Research: 4/10
Creative: 5/10
Technical: 5/10
Practical: 5/10

Matteo Pagamici's Summary:
Overall, the defining stylistic elements are missing and the harmonies aren't exactly 18th century style. The mockup needs more work.

Fair Dinkum.