Since I cancelled my cable because one, there's really nothing good on and two, I don't really watch a lot of TV and spend much more time surfing the net, I have to admit I haven't really watched a lot of music videos lately. In fact, the closest I've really ever came to thoroughly watch music videos is CMT and the last time I watched anything on that station was, well I can't really remember.
I thought that the few videos we watched the other day were fairly interesting. I still don't truly understand the thought process behind a video for techno music, but I have seen stranger things. I've seen the one with the guitar and red and white drum set before, I just can't remember where.
To be honest, I've never really got into music videos. I've always felt that music should be able to send a message to the listener and that message should be clear without needing any outside support. Which, quite frankly, most music videos fail to do anyway, they rarely as a whole are vital to, or strongly support the over all theme within a song. As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far to say that there are videos I've seen that I think ruined my experience of songs in the past, hence my less than stellar enthusiasm toward them. And I think it is mostly to do with the fact that when I hear a song, my mind paints this picture for me of what is generally happening in the piece and then when I watch a music video that has nothing to do with the lyrics I heard or doesn't fit the feel of the music at all. It just leaves me with a feeling like something vital is missing and it doesn't feel quite right. I don't know, maybe I expect to much from what I watch or maybe I just tend to look for different things when I watch TV in general.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Chemical Brothers
so pretty much all of the Chemical Brothers videos i've seen are very synched up with the music. but for all intensive purposes i will only be talking about one of them. this video is "Believe". if you haven't seen this film, first i suggest you look it up on youtube and second it is about a man in a car factory that starts noticing the welding machines noticing him. he later sees thes machines in the streets outside of his job. the machines work very well with the song because one of the elements of the song is a pnuematic wrench type sound that accompanies the movement of the machines very well. there is also a beat in the song which goes along with the steps of the machine and renders the machine with quite a large mass since it is a deep bass sound for when the main body of the machine hits the ground. there are also some great uses of the action on screen being punctuated by some aspect of the music. a couple of examples of this are when the cymbal crash comes into the song at different points throughtout the song. the first time this happens the machine crashes through the mans bathroom window. so the cymbal crash is made into a sound effect for the breaking glass. another time when the cymbal crash comes in is when the maching is chasing the man on a bus and its crashed into by another bus going the other way. this is what makes Chemical Brothers videos so entertianing to watch because quite a lot of time the music lines up with some visual element on screen and this makes things seem to work together in a way that makes the video not just some visual elements with a song in the background. it gives life to the video by giving it sound effects that dont have to be added becaus they are simply part of the song.
The Sound Design of Wall-E
LINK
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/9762/tcid/1
While idly browsing the internet I stumbled upon an article about the sound design of the movie Wall-E. (The site is linked above.) The most interesting part of the article by far is the four embedded videos in which sound designer Ben Burtt discusses his process in creating the sound of a film. Not only that but he gives a small live demonstration of how he created these unique sounds. These are great videos and I would definitely recommend watching them all the way through but I want to discuss two things he mentions that I did not realize before.
The first thing that Mr. Burtt discusses is the fact that Wall-E is a film with no production sound. That is to say that it is a film without any sound captured during a normal filming process. While this is rather obvious due to the nature of animated films, it really sunk in for me. Mr. Burtt, as the sound designer, had to create every sound of the screen. Every single sound whether primary, secondary, or EAS was added during post production. That is a pretty mindblowing task especially when you consider that Mr. Burtt created over 2500 unique sounds for the film.
The second, and last thing, I did not really think about when viewing the film is how Mr. Burtt created a distinct defining auditory line between new technology and old technology in the film. He discusses how used sounds to that we associate with something high tech or sounds that we might consider low tech. This is a great example of added value that was used throughout the entire movie.
Well, I don’t want to ramble on too long and I think the videos speak for themselves well enough so check them out in the link.
http://www.collider.com/entertainment/interviews/article.asp/aid/9762/tcid/1
While idly browsing the internet I stumbled upon an article about the sound design of the movie Wall-E. (The site is linked above.) The most interesting part of the article by far is the four embedded videos in which sound designer Ben Burtt discusses his process in creating the sound of a film. Not only that but he gives a small live demonstration of how he created these unique sounds. These are great videos and I would definitely recommend watching them all the way through but I want to discuss two things he mentions that I did not realize before.
The first thing that Mr. Burtt discusses is the fact that Wall-E is a film with no production sound. That is to say that it is a film without any sound captured during a normal filming process. While this is rather obvious due to the nature of animated films, it really sunk in for me. Mr. Burtt, as the sound designer, had to create every sound of the screen. Every single sound whether primary, secondary, or EAS was added during post production. That is a pretty mindblowing task especially when you consider that Mr. Burtt created over 2500 unique sounds for the film.
The second, and last thing, I did not really think about when viewing the film is how Mr. Burtt created a distinct defining auditory line between new technology and old technology in the film. He discusses how used sounds to that we associate with something high tech or sounds that we might consider low tech. This is a great example of added value that was used throughout the entire movie.
Well, I don’t want to ramble on too long and I think the videos speak for themselves well enough so check them out in the link.
Music Videos - The Visual Marketing of Sound
It is interesting that we are analyzing music videos based on their content. People often talk about their story telling qualities giving added value to the music or they talk about whether a music video “fits” its music. Like Dr Twombly stated, this is an interesting case in which the visual aspects of a piece of cinema give added value to the audio and not the other way around. Yet, this is not as shock as after all, music video as created for the music.
I also find the discussion of music videos interesting because, in the end, academic analysis is being applied to a promotional or marketing tool. It brings up the questions of the value of analyzing such a thing. Is there even a value worth being analyzed in these music videos? Obviously, there is something to be gained by analyzing music videos. They allow us greater insight into a song’s meaning or intent when a musical work is given a visual element. They allow us to redefine the intent or meaning of a song if need be. Finally, they add a new tactile dimension by adding visual elements to a piece that was originally aural.
But where does one draw the line? If music videos are acceptable for academic analysis, are television commercials fair game? Is it possible to seriously analyze the value of a Rogaine commercial? I do not have the answers because I do not think there are any absolute answers to these questions.
I also find the discussion of music videos interesting because, in the end, academic analysis is being applied to a promotional or marketing tool. It brings up the questions of the value of analyzing such a thing. Is there even a value worth being analyzed in these music videos? Obviously, there is something to be gained by analyzing music videos. They allow us greater insight into a song’s meaning or intent when a musical work is given a visual element. They allow us to redefine the intent or meaning of a song if need be. Finally, they add a new tactile dimension by adding visual elements to a piece that was originally aural.
But where does one draw the line? If music videos are acceptable for academic analysis, are television commercials fair game? Is it possible to seriously analyze the value of a Rogaine commercial? I do not have the answers because I do not think there are any absolute answers to these questions.
...ahh to be a kid again!
so don't ask why but, over the weekend i went to the movie Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa with a friend and was amazed at how much adult material was actually in the film. now when i say adult material i don't mean nudity, swearing or violence like you would typically think but adult related humor that the general child audience would not get. i always knew that children movies contained adult jokes but i was amazed at how much material from this movie was directed to the adult audience that accompanies the small children.
first of all there were a number of stereotypical racial references throughout the movie. one of such was a presumably Jewish character that was on one of the safari's that everytime she was portrayed on screen was accompanied by traditional Jewish accordion type music. this same character also had the stereotypical New York Jewish accent.
another time in the film that this racial stereotypes comes up is when the zebra played by Chris Tucker is in Africa and is hanging out with the other zebras and one of the other main characters tells him that he can't tell the difference between him and all the rest of the zebras that also happen to look exactly like the Chris Tucker zebra and they also all have Chris Tuckers voice.
the other thing that surprised me about the film was the references to other films throughout the movie. one seen in particular where this happens is a scene in which the animals are in an airplane trying to fly back to new york and there are a bunch of penguins in the cockpit and all the jokes in this part are Airplane! related jokes that no one under the age of 15 would probably get.
it was interesting to go to a childrens movie and see what kids think is funny because it has been some time since i was a kid and i had kinda forgotten what was funny as a kid. i discovered that most of the small children in the theater weren't laughing at the jokes and the dialogue of the film but at the funny sound effects that would accompany the action of the characters on screen and the goofy behavior of the characters. alot of the younger children were also very susceptable to the empathetic music of the film. some of the children would get kind of upset when loud dramatic buiding music was being played.
overall it was a very interesting experience to go to a kids movie; since i havent seen one in quite a long time, to see how movie makers are aiming their humor at multiple audiences and not just the kids that are the primary target of their film.
first of all there were a number of stereotypical racial references throughout the movie. one of such was a presumably Jewish character that was on one of the safari's that everytime she was portrayed on screen was accompanied by traditional Jewish accordion type music. this same character also had the stereotypical New York Jewish accent.
another time in the film that this racial stereotypes comes up is when the zebra played by Chris Tucker is in Africa and is hanging out with the other zebras and one of the other main characters tells him that he can't tell the difference between him and all the rest of the zebras that also happen to look exactly like the Chris Tucker zebra and they also all have Chris Tuckers voice.
the other thing that surprised me about the film was the references to other films throughout the movie. one seen in particular where this happens is a scene in which the animals are in an airplane trying to fly back to new york and there are a bunch of penguins in the cockpit and all the jokes in this part are Airplane! related jokes that no one under the age of 15 would probably get.
it was interesting to go to a childrens movie and see what kids think is funny because it has been some time since i was a kid and i had kinda forgotten what was funny as a kid. i discovered that most of the small children in the theater weren't laughing at the jokes and the dialogue of the film but at the funny sound effects that would accompany the action of the characters on screen and the goofy behavior of the characters. alot of the younger children were also very susceptable to the empathetic music of the film. some of the children would get kind of upset when loud dramatic buiding music was being played.
overall it was a very interesting experience to go to a kids movie; since i havent seen one in quite a long time, to see how movie makers are aiming their humor at multiple audiences and not just the kids that are the primary target of their film.
Monday, November 17, 2008
2001
I thought this movie was fantastic. In fact, I have been itching to get a copy for myself so that I could watch it all the way through and without jumping around. I may sound like a gushing, over-hyped loser but this is the kind of film that is a cinematic masterpiece to me.
It seemed to me, this only being my first viewing of the film, that there almost seemed to be two things grabbing for your attention on the screen at once. I would argue as the viewer your attention is split between the audio and visual track. It would be easy to think the opposite is true. The argument could be made that because of the minimalism in the audio and visual track, it would be hard to focus your attention. But it is because of that minimalism, that the two tracks demand your attention.
You cannot help but feel a great amount of suspense in the minimalism. As a member of the audience, I feel that you are straining your attention in the hopes of not missing any sudden change in the audio or visual elements. In a sense, you feel like you are watching two movies at once, one audio movie and one visual. It is not often that I find myself so drawn into a movie that my mind does not wander but 2001 accomplished that and more. I think this will be the first time that I will purchase a DVD without seeing a movie in its entirety.
It seemed to me, this only being my first viewing of the film, that there almost seemed to be two things grabbing for your attention on the screen at once. I would argue as the viewer your attention is split between the audio and visual track. It would be easy to think the opposite is true. The argument could be made that because of the minimalism in the audio and visual track, it would be hard to focus your attention. But it is because of that minimalism, that the two tracks demand your attention.
You cannot help but feel a great amount of suspense in the minimalism. As a member of the audience, I feel that you are straining your attention in the hopes of not missing any sudden change in the audio or visual elements. In a sense, you feel like you are watching two movies at once, one audio movie and one visual. It is not often that I find myself so drawn into a movie that my mind does not wander but 2001 accomplished that and more. I think this will be the first time that I will purchase a DVD without seeing a movie in its entirety.
I don't want to set the world on fire. I just want to set a flame in your heart.
An interesting development in video games has been the creation of radio stations in games. As far to my knowledge, this phenomenon only occurs in sandbox video games like Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto IV, etc. These in game radio stations offer music, in game commentary and humor as a way to immerse the gamer into the environment of the video game. These radio stations have unique DJs and dialogue beyond unique music so that one feels that they really are in a world with different varying characters.
Now this development is different from being able to import your music in to a playlist that plays in game. The importing playlists occurs mainly in sports games and does not really add to the gaming environment. The music tends to play over menus and is rarely if ever used during actual game play.
Another interesting aspect to me of in game radio stations is that by giving the player a radio station, video game developers have in fact given the player another choice. It allows you to select something that fits your character or playing style yet is obviously onscreen music. In essence, it is something that your character is supposed to hear.
Finally, it is interesting to me that these in game radio stations exist at all. I mean it requires not only acquiring the rights to play the music but also the creation of more dialogue and more programming scripting to make the radio seem real. In game radio stations are, in fact, quite the creative undertaking. However, they serve to interest us as players and make our virtual realities seem that much closer to home.
PS – Have some free Tom Cruise dancing. Trust me, it’s funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO3BaKEn7TE
Now this development is different from being able to import your music in to a playlist that plays in game. The importing playlists occurs mainly in sports games and does not really add to the gaming environment. The music tends to play over menus and is rarely if ever used during actual game play.
Another interesting aspect to me of in game radio stations is that by giving the player a radio station, video game developers have in fact given the player another choice. It allows you to select something that fits your character or playing style yet is obviously onscreen music. In essence, it is something that your character is supposed to hear.
Finally, it is interesting to me that these in game radio stations exist at all. I mean it requires not only acquiring the rights to play the music but also the creation of more dialogue and more programming scripting to make the radio seem real. In game radio stations are, in fact, quite the creative undertaking. However, they serve to interest us as players and make our virtual realities seem that much closer to home.
PS – Have some free Tom Cruise dancing. Trust me, it’s funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO3BaKEn7TE
predator and sound distraction
so i was watching Predator the other day and there was a sound in the film which really distracted me. it was the sound they used for punching. i'm sure that you all have heard it before. THE BULL WHIP. but this ones was particularly distracting because it sounded nothing like a punch and made it seem really cheesy. not to mention arnold's incredibly horrible acting skills. this alone turned this film from an action adventure to a comedy in a number of seconds. i guess this is a great example of how something as small as a sound of a punch can ruin a film.
this may also be because since i've been this class i notice these things so much more. along with listening to the films semanticly i have started using reduced listening without even thinking about it. this has come as a gift and a curse. i now notice things that i wouldn't normally and this adds to the experience of a film or tv show but it has also made me notice things that distract me from the experience. either way my movie viewing experience will be forever changed.
this may also be because since i've been this class i notice these things so much more. along with listening to the films semanticly i have started using reduced listening without even thinking about it. this has come as a gift and a curse. i now notice things that i wouldn't normally and this adds to the experience of a film or tv show but it has also made me notice things that distract me from the experience. either way my movie viewing experience will be forever changed.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
2001: A sound odyssey
As far as sound goes 2001 presented the sounds of space very realistically. while a good percentage of the time that sound was little more than the sound of silence. i felt that this was more effective in giving the audience a real sense of what space is really like, instead of getting explosions and laser beams bewww bewwwing through the screen. they also used a lot of sounds that most movies would tend to cut out of their soundtrack. like the sound of breathing and the sound of the oxygen tanks in the space suits. while many mainstream movies try to be thrilling and entertaining, they tend to try to cut out any sounds that may annoy the audience and take their attention away from the plot of the film. 2001 on the other had goes completely the opposite way and made things real and believable, while also making an entertaining film. while at times in the film this lack of sound can become, well boring for lack of a better term. but this is the cold reality of space. its not all glits and glamour that hollywood makes it out to be. but why not make something to be as realistic as possible. i guess that america just doesnt have the patients that they used to.
Use of Sound
I’ve always thought of a movie soundtrack containing sound that is usually diagetic in nature. I never really thought of a lack of sound acting in the same way, but in 2001: A Space Odyssey the lack of sound acts in exactly that way. There is no sound in space and so for most of the very long film there is no sound and so everything being correct this should complete the audio/visual contract. I’m not entirely sure it does. I find it disturbing to hear nothing but absolute silence.
Quite often I tell my family member’s that one of the reasons I love deer hunting so much is the hours of silence and tranquility that allow me to relax and think. But even in a dark tree stand at 5am there is always some sort of subtle noise present. So I guess that’s just one of the things about Stanley Kubrick’s sound design that bothers me, granted, I think that that unsettled felling is probably what he was going for, but it seemed a little out of place especially in scenes where the astronauts were all relaxing on the ship. At the very least I expected to hear more sounds that were related to the operation of the ship, but aside from the hibernation monitor beeping, be got nothing. It seemed to me like a very unique use of sound, but not nearly unique enough for me to torture myself with watching 3 hours of silent film, sorry, my attention span is much to short.
Quite often I tell my family member’s that one of the reasons I love deer hunting so much is the hours of silence and tranquility that allow me to relax and think. But even in a dark tree stand at 5am there is always some sort of subtle noise present. So I guess that’s just one of the things about Stanley Kubrick’s sound design that bothers me, granted, I think that that unsettled felling is probably what he was going for, but it seemed a little out of place especially in scenes where the astronauts were all relaxing on the ship. At the very least I expected to hear more sounds that were related to the operation of the ship, but aside from the hibernation monitor beeping, be got nothing. It seemed to me like a very unique use of sound, but not nearly unique enough for me to torture myself with watching 3 hours of silent film, sorry, my attention span is much to short.
http://www.windworld.com/
I found this website recently, its pretty awesome.
The site has a whole bunch of information about experimental musical instruments, pictures and sound clips. One of my favorite instruments is Richard Water's Waterphone which uses a thin layer of water at the metallic base of the large instrument to subtly modulate the tones of connected brass rods which are played with a bow. My absolute favorite, however, would have to be "The Tree" by Nazim Ozel. This instrument is an actual tree, with very many branches, which has been meticulously rigged with hundreds of strings in every direction. The 800 or so strings encompass fixed tonal scales, microtonal scales, primitive and naive scales. Nazim's aim is to create a instrument which has a massive variety of sounds which can be played with many different techniques, such as bowing, striking, and plucking. The Tree is meant for what he calls "Free tonal" music. The massive size of the instrument creates an excellent interactive sound environment that can actually surround the player physically and that's just fantastic. Not to mention, the instrument is a Tree and i love trees very much. Nazim Ozel picked an especially beautiful tree as well. I would like to purchase one of these "Trees" but sadly they are not for sale, understandably. I couldn't afford it anyway. There are a few instruments on there that you can buy though, there are also instrument parts and information on creating your own instruments. So check it out!
The site has a whole bunch of information about experimental musical instruments, pictures and sound clips. One of my favorite instruments is Richard Water's Waterphone which uses a thin layer of water at the metallic base of the large instrument to subtly modulate the tones of connected brass rods which are played with a bow. My absolute favorite, however, would have to be "The Tree" by Nazim Ozel. This instrument is an actual tree, with very many branches, which has been meticulously rigged with hundreds of strings in every direction. The 800 or so strings encompass fixed tonal scales, microtonal scales, primitive and naive scales. Nazim's aim is to create a instrument which has a massive variety of sounds which can be played with many different techniques, such as bowing, striking, and plucking. The Tree is meant for what he calls "Free tonal" music. The massive size of the instrument creates an excellent interactive sound environment that can actually surround the player physically and that's just fantastic. Not to mention, the instrument is a Tree and i love trees very much. Nazim Ozel picked an especially beautiful tree as well. I would like to purchase one of these "Trees" but sadly they are not for sale, understandably. I couldn't afford it anyway. There are a few instruments on there that you can buy though, there are also instrument parts and information on creating your own instruments. So check it out!
2001
I have seen very many "space movies", and not a single one can compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I can definitely understand why it's one of the most parodied and satirized movies of all time. I was just watching a Futurama dvd the other night, an episode in which they parodied the psychedelic "Star gate" sequence from 2001. At the time 2001 was created, the type of visual effect used to create the "Star gate" (trippy wormhole thing) had never been used in such a way before. A man named Douglas Trumbull created a revolutionary camera design which used "slit scan" photography. Modern films would likely use computers to achieve such an effect, but Trumbull used a a strictly mechanical technique. I am still not sure exactly how Trumbull used slit scan to do it. All I know is that it has something to do with simultaneously moving a camera and a slide with a slit cut in it to create the effect of infinitely moving planes of light. I was reading that Trumbull had suggested to Kubrick that he should kill all of the astronauts but one and then send him alone through the star gate with the monolith watching over him. Apparently Kubrick told Trumbull that he was "ridiculously stupid" and disregarded the idea. However, the movie ended just how Trumbull had suggested, more or less. I'm not sure if all this is true, but if it is, I'm sure Kubrick must have apologized. All of the special effects in 2001 were done without the benefits of computers and the effects achieved are very impressive, especially the slit scan star gate sequence which no movie goer had ever seen the likes of before. Minds were blown.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Preparation
I had been holding out on things to write for a few of my 'choice' blogs. And with little to no topics taking priority over my recital, I figure I would spout something about it.
November 19th, Wednesday - 6pm. Recital Hall. Be there.
So as I had no idea what to expect while trying to organize a composition/new media recital, my last month has been very trying. Also, you have to consider that half of the performances don't include players, so for the traditional comp students: I take my proverbial hat off to you.
Some of the biggest struggles are due to writing a piece the semester of a performance. I am not exactly the fastest composer, and would still probably not take any pride in saying that I composed a piece in a day (lie) but the piece I wrote for this semester was especially challenging. As of this day- I have no idea how it sounds except for what I think it should sound like in my head. This would be the first piece that I wrote out completely on paper before inputting it into a notation program. Even once it was there, there were some technical issues with notating vs. accurate playback. You can really only achieve one of them to satisfaction with only a small window of time with instruments such as percussion. Or at least from my experience. If you have a good idea on fixing this- feel free to let me know.
Another challenge is organizing performers. At this stage in the 'game' it is difficult to find student performers that have enough time, and also- that all of them have the same time open once they do have enough time. It hurts my brain to think about. But as the scenario pans out, things usually fall into place. And if not- we're musicians- We'll improvise.
So. Just needed to vent if anything. It should be a fun show. Full of varying things to listen to.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
FALLOUT 3
I have been playing the game Fallout 3... a lot
Fallout 3 is a role playing game based in a post nuclear apocalypse wasteland and its pretty much, awesome. So play it if you can.
The focus of this blog is the amazing sound experience this game offers. The game is filled with thousands of individual objects which each have their very own sounds. If you bump into a shopping cart, it makes the sound of a shopping cart, its great. What’s most interesting to me however, is the way in which the game allows you to interact with these sounds. You are able to use a video game controller to navigate a three dimensional (virtual) space filled with potential sound. Ill have to go back to the shopping cart for this because its one of the coolest sounds. If you see an object, like the shopping cart, you can choose to approach it and interact with. If you push it over, you can experience the shopping cart interacting with the virtual environment. If any part of the cart hits the ground, or a person etc, then the corresponding sound (shopping cart rattle) is heard. You can see what looks just like a shopping cart crash to the ground and in perfect synchresis, hear exactly what you would expect a shopping cart crashing to the ground would sound like. It seems very real. What’s even cooler though, is that you can also interact with specialization. If the cart falls to the right of you, you will hear it panned to the right speakers, it’s all very well done and very smooth.
While playing around with these sounds i discovered a very interesting effect. Imagine you are playing the game and there is another character standing in front of you, talking. The sound of them talking is panned to direct center. Now you walk towards them and the sound of their voice gets louder, you sneak around them to the right and you can now hear them at their loudest from the left speaker. Now you continue walking forward, their voice is getting softer and panning back to center. In this scenario the illusion can be created that the sound is now actually coming from behind you, even if you don't have surround sound and it is most definitely still coming from your tv. In fallout 3, you hear what your character should hear. When you see the visual source of the audio move behind your character and the audio is done properly, your brain may actually interpret the sound as coming from behind you, its very cool.
Also, the game accounts for different acoustic environments. For instance, if a sound is made within the hull of an old abandoned aircraft carrier, a very sweet reverb effect is added, but if the same sound is made outside, you will hear little or no reverb at all.
Fallout 3 is a role playing game based in a post nuclear apocalypse wasteland and its pretty much, awesome. So play it if you can.
The focus of this blog is the amazing sound experience this game offers. The game is filled with thousands of individual objects which each have their very own sounds. If you bump into a shopping cart, it makes the sound of a shopping cart, its great. What’s most interesting to me however, is the way in which the game allows you to interact with these sounds. You are able to use a video game controller to navigate a three dimensional (virtual) space filled with potential sound. Ill have to go back to the shopping cart for this because its one of the coolest sounds. If you see an object, like the shopping cart, you can choose to approach it and interact with. If you push it over, you can experience the shopping cart interacting with the virtual environment. If any part of the cart hits the ground, or a person etc, then the corresponding sound (shopping cart rattle) is heard. You can see what looks just like a shopping cart crash to the ground and in perfect synchresis, hear exactly what you would expect a shopping cart crashing to the ground would sound like. It seems very real. What’s even cooler though, is that you can also interact with specialization. If the cart falls to the right of you, you will hear it panned to the right speakers, it’s all very well done and very smooth.
While playing around with these sounds i discovered a very interesting effect. Imagine you are playing the game and there is another character standing in front of you, talking. The sound of them talking is panned to direct center. Now you walk towards them and the sound of their voice gets louder, you sneak around them to the right and you can now hear them at their loudest from the left speaker. Now you continue walking forward, their voice is getting softer and panning back to center. In this scenario the illusion can be created that the sound is now actually coming from behind you, even if you don't have surround sound and it is most definitely still coming from your tv. In fallout 3, you hear what your character should hear. When you see the visual source of the audio move behind your character and the audio is done properly, your brain may actually interpret the sound as coming from behind you, its very cool.
Also, the game accounts for different acoustic environments. For instance, if a sound is made within the hull of an old abandoned aircraft carrier, a very sweet reverb effect is added, but if the same sound is made outside, you will hear little or no reverb at all.
A Musing or May be a Rant
It is not often that a lack of synchresis bothers me. In fact, there are certain films that I might enjoy all the more because of it. At least for me, this increases my enjoyment of old western films and old kung fu movies. The lack of a solid audiovisual contract becomes a unique aspect onto the reality of the film. Dare I say that this lack of synchresis almost becomes natural in these films?
But this is a double edged sword, as I have learned. I find that, as a viewer or member of an audience, I hold complete disdain for this when it occurs outside those film genres. I have a hard time watching late 70s and early 80s action films. The lack of any synchronization in punches or gunshots or even dialogue sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
I even believe that at certain points or in certain films, it seems like this lack of synchronization is on purpose. As if the sound designer were trying to capture or create that unique aspect of reality in other films and splice it onto his own film. Personally, I think it is arrogant to try and foolish to believe it is a good idea.
May be I do not know what I am talking about. May be I am assuming a lot of sound designers who have limited funds, technology, and time. But still it’s hard to watch something like Magnum Force and believe sound designers were still struggling with the same woes that they had nearly a decade previous.
But this is a double edged sword, as I have learned. I find that, as a viewer or member of an audience, I hold complete disdain for this when it occurs outside those film genres. I have a hard time watching late 70s and early 80s action films. The lack of any synchronization in punches or gunshots or even dialogue sticks out like a sore thumb to me.
I even believe that at certain points or in certain films, it seems like this lack of synchronization is on purpose. As if the sound designer were trying to capture or create that unique aspect of reality in other films and splice it onto his own film. Personally, I think it is arrogant to try and foolish to believe it is a good idea.
May be I do not know what I am talking about. May be I am assuming a lot of sound designers who have limited funds, technology, and time. But still it’s hard to watch something like Magnum Force and believe sound designers were still struggling with the same woes that they had nearly a decade previous.
Some Sound Cliches.
I was looking the list of sound cliches over at filmsound.org. While it is an impressive list I would like to add a few things I’ve noticed on my own to it.
• Immigrants will inevitably speak with a stereotypical accent regardless of how long they have lived in the United States.(It’s true we all have an accent of some kind because of our regionally differences but, if you live somewhere else, you will pick up the local accent whether you want to or not.)
• Footsteps always echo in stairwells.
• Any machine that has an electrical power source will hum.
• Any machine that has a mechanical or old look will click.
• People always drive cars with big intakes so they roar when accelerating.
• Every person outside the United States only listens to local ethnic music.
• Any ship will have the sound of metal groaning regardless of how good in repair the ship is.
• Film projectors always hum and click on start up.
• Every beach has seagulls squawking.
• A gun shot will either be too loud or too quiet depending on what the plot requires.
• When closing a car door you will always hear the latching mechanism click in place.
• Any troops that are marching will be heard when watched through a looking glass.
• All broken bones are set with a loud cracking sound.
• All tissues that a character regrows or reattaches will have a squishy sound.
• Smart dogs always respond to something said.
• Cats always hiss at dogs. Dogs always bark at cats.
• Every arrow shot will whistle through the air.
• Every time a coin is dropped it makes the same sound regardless of size, shape, or metallurgy.
• Any satellite dish must rotate and make the sound of Morse Code.
• Faucets always drip.
• Morgan Freeman will narrate every movie he is in from The Shawshank Redemption until his last film.
• Immigrants will inevitably speak with a stereotypical accent regardless of how long they have lived in the United States.
• Footsteps always echo in stairwells.
• Any machine that has an electrical power source will hum.
• Any machine that has a mechanical or old look will click.
• People always drive cars with big intakes so they roar when accelerating.
• Every person outside the United States only listens to local ethnic music.
• Any ship will have the sound of metal groaning regardless of how good in repair the ship is.
• Film projectors always hum and click on start up.
• Every beach has seagulls squawking.
• A gun shot will either be too loud or too quiet depending on what the plot requires.
• When closing a car door you will always hear the latching mechanism click in place.
• Any troops that are marching will be heard when watched through a looking glass.
• All broken bones are set with a loud cracking sound.
• All tissues that a character regrows or reattaches will have a squishy sound.
• Smart dogs always respond to something said.
• Cats always hiss at dogs. Dogs always bark at cats.
• Every arrow shot will whistle through the air.
• Every time a coin is dropped it makes the same sound regardless of size, shape, or metallurgy.
• Any satellite dish must rotate and make the sound of Morse Code.
• Faucets always drip.
• Morgan Freeman will narrate every movie he is in from The Shawshank Redemption until his last film.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Subtitles
Something that I may never get used to on the first try is subtitles.
A little bit ago I watched Ringu at the Pioneer Place on 5th. The screen was a tidbit too far away for me to get a good quality 'look' at it, but the sound supported what needed to be heard:
Japanese.
So, to my joy, I had to get used to reading subtitles while watching for interesting phenomena during the show. If I had a choice to do it again with a little more preparation, I would have watched a different subtitled film beforehand to learn to listen to rather than read the screen. So it was after a few major moments in the film that I began to really home in on what was important.
I couldn't get past recollecting the American film 'The Ring' the entire time and was making comparisons as I went, but over all each film holds the plot up very well. I couldn't choose between the two if I was forced. I would probably side on Ringu's side if I knew a lick of Japanese, but alas, I don't. That will be next summer. Right...
Moving on.
So what piqued my interest in this film? Aside from differences in the plot due to differences in direction and cultural differences (this wasn't quite a mainstream Hollywood type film) there were sonic differences that were popping up all over the place and throughout. The soundtrack was the most noticeable. During the driving scenes I kept wanting to hear the edgy strings being nervously bowed while the driver knew she was going to die if she didn't figure out the mystery. But instead, there was something else. The comparison is hard to avoid at the moment.
There were also a few points where the sound of 'the death' or 'the 'remembrance of death' (i.e. the closet scene) where the sound didn't react as I thought it would. Instead of being a quick shot of the deceased it was a somewhat drawn out moment where the sound was drawn out with the visuals in synch (and somewhat held after the fact). This was much more eerie if I could be subjective about it. Not only was there the initial shock, but also this sense of heaviness to the situation. It wasn't as gimmicky as "The Ring" since it wasn't just this gunshot to the chest of an unfortunate event. It was sitting there in front of you for a few seconds.
Frightening.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
ringu
After a long search for Ringu i finally found it at the library, since none of the stores in town seemed to have it. Along with the sound included in the film they also used a lot of silence throughout the film. I think their use of silence in the film was a very effective use of suspense, because you never knew when something loud and creepy would happen.
Although I'm not really effected by scary movies they had some audio that was fairly creepy. The use of violin sounds mixed with some very industrial sounds created an audio space that give you an uncomfortable feeling. One sound in particular sounded much like the sound of dragging a pipe along concrete in a long corridor. It amazes me that just that sound can put you in that place even when the visuals on screen don't have anything to do with that space. the musical part of the film was very basic with just a few notes of a violin and some drums for punctuation.
The end of the movie had some sounds that didn't seem to fit very well. One of these sounds was the sound of the woman getting hit it the back of the head and falling into the well. The sound was kind of the typical punch sound and seemed kind of hokey, kind of mickey moused. the other that i noticed that wasn't very effective was when they were pushing the large slab off of the well and while pushing it, it sounded very heavy with the concrete scraping sound but when it hit the ground it didn't make much of any sound at all. This was kind of confusing because of its lack of sound in rendering its weight upon impact.
Last of all is that presence of the phone ringing throughout the film that also gave it it's creepyness. it was only creepy through its link to what you knew what was on the other end. this is also where they used silence effectively. They never had audio for what was being said when the person answered the phone when they were notified they were goiong to die, but when it was just another person they had audio for what they were saying. The lack of use of audio gives mystery to the movie, and mystery brings curiosity, and curioisity brings imagination, and imagination brings the worst one can think of.
Although I'm not really effected by scary movies they had some audio that was fairly creepy. The use of violin sounds mixed with some very industrial sounds created an audio space that give you an uncomfortable feeling. One sound in particular sounded much like the sound of dragging a pipe along concrete in a long corridor. It amazes me that just that sound can put you in that place even when the visuals on screen don't have anything to do with that space. the musical part of the film was very basic with just a few notes of a violin and some drums for punctuation.
The end of the movie had some sounds that didn't seem to fit very well. One of these sounds was the sound of the woman getting hit it the back of the head and falling into the well. The sound was kind of the typical punch sound and seemed kind of hokey, kind of mickey moused. the other that i noticed that wasn't very effective was when they were pushing the large slab off of the well and while pushing it, it sounded very heavy with the concrete scraping sound but when it hit the ground it didn't make much of any sound at all. This was kind of confusing because of its lack of sound in rendering its weight upon impact.
Last of all is that presence of the phone ringing throughout the film that also gave it it's creepyness. it was only creepy through its link to what you knew what was on the other end. this is also where they used silence effectively. They never had audio for what was being said when the person answered the phone when they were notified they were goiong to die, but when it was just another person they had audio for what they were saying. The lack of use of audio gives mystery to the movie, and mystery brings curiosity, and curioisity brings imagination, and imagination brings the worst one can think of.
Why Rendering?
I find it amusing beyond belief how many different terms have been established to express the many different sound practices in film that are created using the exact same basic method. For example, first there was Punctuation, using a specific sound to make something in this film stand out and now we have Rendering, using a specific sound to give us outside knowledge about a character on screen. And ironically, both practices are inevitably achieved through the old and simple practice of added value.
My question is why does it have to be complicated when to the average listener it's as simple as, hey, this sound is here and it works in this way. Rather than the overly long and complicated version of this sound is strategically placed in this exact place in a way that punctuates, in this case imaginary action, and causes a rendered effect resulting in giving us the impression of the character having weight or another specific quality.
I mean I understand the specific differences; it just seems like a new term for something we all already know about since it's a direct result of added value. Not only that, but it’s not as if any of the things heard in this process are really all that entertaining. Creating voices and personalities for cartoons or animations is not exactly a new practice, they’ve been making cartoons since way before I was born and they’ve always used pretty much the same practices, although they do stick out more in Who Framed Roger Rabbit than in a simple Loony Tune’s cartoon because of the live and real props rather than cartoon background for most of it.
My question is why does it have to be complicated when to the average listener it's as simple as, hey, this sound is here and it works in this way. Rather than the overly long and complicated version of this sound is strategically placed in this exact place in a way that punctuates, in this case imaginary action, and causes a rendered effect resulting in giving us the impression of the character having weight or another specific quality.
I mean I understand the specific differences; it just seems like a new term for something we all already know about since it's a direct result of added value. Not only that, but it’s not as if any of the things heard in this process are really all that entertaining. Creating voices and personalities for cartoons or animations is not exactly a new practice, they’ve been making cartoons since way before I was born and they’ve always used pretty much the same practices, although they do stick out more in Who Framed Roger Rabbit than in a simple Loony Tune’s cartoon because of the live and real props rather than cartoon background for most of it.
The words of the profits are written in the studio wall.
One trend I have noticed in modern television is the use of rock or popular music to help set the tone of scene. In fact, I have noticed that, more often than not, popular music has usurped the more traditional symphonic or orchestrated scores that television shows used to have.
You can see what I am talking about if you compare the background music of say The Andy Griffith Show or Hogan’s Heroes to House or Scrubs. Hell, it seems at points that Scrubs can not end a show with a recap of the moral of the story overlaid with some pop or folk ballad.
The easy argument you could make is that popular music applies more to current viewers. People are interested in hearing music that they relate to rather than more subtle tone painting. However, am I the only person that thinks that by replacing an orchestrated score with popular music is actually kind of a bad idea?
Sure there are plenty of places where popular music is well placed or it even redefines a scene. Look at the use of Stealers Wheel’s Stuck in the Middle with You in Reservoir Dogs. It’s hard to image that scene without that song. But the use of popular music or, more specifically, current chart toppers really dates an episode or scene to me. I can watch a show and it is hard not to hear a song and think “Oh, this was made in 2003.”
With an orchestrated score, the music has a more timeless quality. It is hard to place a specific piece in a given timeframe unless you have intimate knowledge of the history of the piece. To use a show I mentioned previously, I cannot watch an episode of Hogan’s Heroes and pinpoint the exact year the episode was made from the musical score alone.
I guess my compliant of using popular music in television arises from the fact that the music used rarely has a timeless quality to it. Sure, that song is popular now but is it popular ten, twenty, or thirty years from now? Unless the track to be used is carefully selected and does have this quality of timeless I have been discussing then you are just dating your show as being old (not new?) faster.
You can see what I am talking about if you compare the background music of say The Andy Griffith Show or Hogan’s Heroes to House or Scrubs. Hell, it seems at points that Scrubs can not end a show with a recap of the moral of the story overlaid with some pop or folk ballad.
The easy argument you could make is that popular music applies more to current viewers. People are interested in hearing music that they relate to rather than more subtle tone painting. However, am I the only person that thinks that by replacing an orchestrated score with popular music is actually kind of a bad idea?
Sure there are plenty of places where popular music is well placed or it even redefines a scene. Look at the use of Stealers Wheel’s Stuck in the Middle with You in Reservoir Dogs. It’s hard to image that scene without that song. But the use of popular music or, more specifically, current chart toppers really dates an episode or scene to me. I can watch a show and it is hard not to hear a song and think “Oh, this was made in 2003.”
With an orchestrated score, the music has a more timeless quality. It is hard to place a specific piece in a given timeframe unless you have intimate knowledge of the history of the piece. To use a show I mentioned previously, I cannot watch an episode of Hogan’s Heroes and pinpoint the exact year the episode was made from the musical score alone.
I guess my compliant of using popular music in television arises from the fact that the music used rarely has a timeless quality to it. Sure, that song is popular now but is it popular ten, twenty, or thirty years from now? Unless the track to be used is carefully selected and does have this quality of timeless I have been discussing then you are just dating your show as being old (not new?) faster.
The Rendering Plant
Rendering is an interesting technique. It is an attempt to produce cinematic reality in the utter absence of world reality. The creation of aural characteristics to that which does not inherently have any must be the dream of any sound designer.
Think about it. You are given a completely blank slate and from that slate you are asked to define a character in a realm of sense. Varying on the genre of film being produced, you could be asked to create the sounds of a character in a comical way. Or if it is a dramatic scene or film, you may be asked to create the audio side of a character in a logical or more real way. Either way, the character’s realness or believability rests on the shoulders (ears?) of the sound designer.
Obviously such a monumentus act of cinematic creation can be a daunting task. Any failure to successfully produce a believable audio reality for a character would make the character flat, unreal, and, perhaps, unintentionally comical to the audience.
So the role that a sound designer must play is part psychic as well as part creator. You are left to guess what would be believable to the audience. The only true way to gauge what is believe to the audience is to ask what sounds truly believable to yourself.
Think about it. You are given a completely blank slate and from that slate you are asked to define a character in a realm of sense. Varying on the genre of film being produced, you could be asked to create the sounds of a character in a comical way. Or if it is a dramatic scene or film, you may be asked to create the audio side of a character in a logical or more real way. Either way, the character’s realness or believability rests on the shoulders (ears?) of the sound designer.
Obviously such a monumentus act of cinematic creation can be a daunting task. Any failure to successfully produce a believable audio reality for a character would make the character flat, unreal, and, perhaps, unintentionally comical to the audience.
So the role that a sound designer must play is part psychic as well as part creator. You are left to guess what would be believable to the audience. The only true way to gauge what is believe to the audience is to ask what sounds truly believable to yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)