Tom said


Agreed. I wonder why why the amp sound zealots cry "Its all about the
Music"
when it's really about the "sound" no matter what the program when
evaluating
sound quality and realism of reproduction.

I said

Good lord why use this as an opportunity to take cheap shots at me. A
question
was asked and I answered it. Do you disagree with my answer? My view on amps
are irrelevant to the question asked and the answer given. By the way, for
some
of us it is all about the music. You cannot have music without sound. The
quality of sound affects our enjoyment of the music, at least for some of
us.

Tom said


Sure, but why is the only 'sound' that counts music? There are plenty of
other
sources that are enjoyable and useful. Many where 'realism' is the only goal.


If you want to listen to sounds other than music on your stereo more power to
you. My stereo was aquired for listening to music. You did see the part where I
said 'some of us' didn't you?

Tom said

That's also on eplace where the film guys have a leg up on us. They don't
even
try to capture live sound on-set. They produce the soundtrack not with the
idea
of taking you back to the space but only making you believe you've been
taken
back. It doesn't have to BE real; it only has to make you think it is. The
picture helps here as well.

I said


The sound guys on set do their best within the limitations of the situation
to
get the most accurate sound of the actor's voices as possible.

Tom said


No they don't. The actual 'voices' you hear in the film are mostly ADR.


Yes they do regardless of how much ADR is used. The more accurate the guide
track the better an actor can recreate their pefromance.The goal always being
to avoid ADR as much as possible.

I said

they have no
interest in getting ambient sound except for the sake of sonic continuity.
The
ambient sound is often completely wrong since the sound of a set on a
soundstage is nothing like the sound of the space the film makers are trying
to
fool you into believing is real.


Tom said


That's right the fans that make the wind would often drown out the dialog
completely. Those camera trolleys aren't silent either.

Dollies as we call the trolleys are pretty quite most of the time, fans are
terrible. Motion control rigs are very noisy. Crews are also pretty bad
sometimes. Footsteps are a huge problem much of the time.

I said


The sound guys on set have nothing to do
with
the final soundtrack except only to deliver the recording of the dialogue
and
enough of a guide track to allow the foley artists to create all the
incidental
sounds.

Tom said


That's mostly right except the dialogue is usually done later in ADR.


The amount of ADR varies from show to show.

I said


Movie soundtracks cannot be judged for realism anymore than the image
of the film can be judged for realism.


Tom said


Sure they can. Some of them do a great job of taking you to a different place
and making you suspend disbelief for a period.


Only within the context of a stulized format. A good book can do the same thing
with no soundtrack. No one confuses the movies with actual events, unless they
saw the first segment of one of the early demos of Showscan. that demo was
intended to fool the audience for the first 30 seconds or so.

Tom said


Image not realistic? Why do they have those Oscars for Cimematography?

For the artistry of the photography. definitely not for the degree of realism.

I said


Otherwise we would have people and
places constantly changing size and position as the editor chooses. What
does
a
person with a sixty foot head sound like when he or she talks? Movie goers
are
aware of the stylized format of film and live with it's lack of realism.

Tom said


Film is the single best medium for suspension of disbelief. It gives the most
"real" impression of being taken to somewhere else.

It is one of the best mediums for a narrative but no one is fooled by film.
There are some good motion control flight simulators that use large format film
that take the illusion much further but even those don't fool anyone I know of
at all.

Tom said

There are some concert
films/soundtracks that do this pretty well too but as you say often the
camera
work is too frenetic to seem real-enough.

The format of film as we are acustomed to it is not geared toward realism. It
is geared towards comunicating the narative. moving in for close ups while
cutting back and forth between actors will prevent any illusion of the film
being real but it will do a better job of telling the story. the common break
up of real time is another stylized convention of film that we accept without
question. It is another obvious que that we are not watching actual events in
the flesh.

Tom said


OTOH many movies take you there very effectively. I just got back from Banff
near the place where Legends of the Fall was fimed. That film in image takes
me
there very effectively. The camera angles that I could never get in real life
take me there in a way that could be described as better-than-real from a
visual perspective.

It may take you there but only because you are acustomed to the convention of
film as a narrative medium. If someone were to ask an audience to pay attention
to the realism of a film, that is to say how well does the film fool you into
thinking it is an actual event incarnate taking place before your eyes and ears
they probably wouldn't even undersatnd what you were asking. The format is that
far removed from a recreation of a real event. And so it should be. Movies tell
stories they don't try to recreate a real event. That is what the state of the
art motion control rides are trying to do. I think they have a ways to go.

I said


That
is the advantage filmmakers have over music recordists and music playback.
It
does seem that the combination of sight and sound does help suspend
disbelief
but I don't think film goers even ask the question "did that look or sound
like
real life?"

Tom said


Of course not. That's the idea to take "you" there in a way that could never
happen in real life. But, when it get the subject to suspend disbelief for
the
length of performance than its successful.


Yes, the same way a good book can take yo away.

Tom said


If a 'realistic' feel weren't necessary than we'd not need a large screen, a
darkened room and natural enveloping sound.

Large screens are great for impact but they don't make anything more realistic.
I sixty foot talking disembodied head is not more realistic than a thirty foot
talking disembodied head. It is more impressive sometimes.

I said


They may ask if a visual effect looked like something real caught
on film but I think that is as far as it goes.


Tom said


I don't think that's any different than a concert captured on tape and
transcribed to disc.

Depends on the concert. If it is live unamplified music I would want the best
recreation of the original sound. If it is amplified I want the best recreation
of the studio recording.

I said


The unrealistic intrinsic
stylization of film is simply accepted by the film goers.


Tom said


And by people who listen to music at home?

If it was live unamplified music most audiophiles want to get as close to the
illusion of the real event as possible I believe.

Tom said

IMO the art of either film or sound
recordings are are enhanced when they seem real; even if that 'reality' is
foley, ADR or any other kind of editing.


That is an interesting issue. Most foley sound is very far from the real sound
but is often more dramatic for impact. I think in certain elements of film
making the more realistic soemthing looks within the frame compared to
photography of something real does make for greater suspension of disbelief.

I said

This question was asked. "What I am trying to get you to acknowledge is
whether
sound is the only possible mechanism for the delivery of music. Is it or
isn't
it?" I answered it. If my answer was off topic than the question was off
topic.
Watching performers perform is a powerful mechanism for the delivery of
music
IMO. Whether it is live or playback. Seeing someone play music gives us
insight
into the music that can not be readily accessed via sound only.



Tom said


It can also be evaluated from a score.

I said


Nah. One can anticipate what it will sound like from reading the music and
one
can evaluate that anticipation, but without the music being played you don't
have music. Sheet music is as much music as a blueprint is a finished
building.

Tom said


I like your analogy but I've seen true music lovers break into tears reading
sheet music. But the idea that "music" as an artform can only be evaluated
through sound is simply not true IMO. But its not a point that needs
agrument.

They are very good at anticipating the music itself. yeah, experts can do an
amazing job of visualizing what a blue print will wrought. I didn't mean to
imply that some people can't do a great deal of worthwhile evaluation of what
the final product will be from the plans. But the evaluation that really
matters is of the final product.

I said

They both tell you what to do more or less and some skilled people can
speculate quite accurately on it's merits but there are no real merits when
all
is said and done if there is no performance of the music written on the
sheet
or a building incarnate. All of which is irrelevant to my point that seeing
performers play the music is another
mechanism for the delivery of music.


Tom said


IMO 'seeing' the performance is more likely to give you the sense of "being
at"
the perfomance and which is why I like music DVDs and laser discs. And why
film
is often more adroit at giving a "realistic" experience than sound-only
recodings.

I suppose this will depend on one's sensibilities and sensitivities. I do like
to see a musician perform the music. what I see them do says so much about the
music.