......................
-
You don't want the music to be busy when there is dialogue. It would be best if it's wishy-washy pedal point stuff most of the time. There can be an emphasis at the end of dialogue - an old technique which John Williams was brilliant at doing. Watch a lot of Speilberg films and you'll see what I mean. Audiences don't want to be aware of music playing when they're trying to listen to actors talking. Rather, the music should be a subliminal way of reaffirming the mood of a given scene.
-
Thanks for that dismissal Mathis. I do think of technical questions all the time and precisely this one often. What you do not think of is that artistic work can obliterate the significance of technicalities, and does so, on a regular basis. You can work all you want on your precious little technical problems and formants [*-)] but if you are dealing with a piece of crap artistically it doesn't matter. It is necessary not to have many things going on in the music that would distract from the dialogue, which is pretty obvious. I have heard scores by major composers that violated this. They are so concerned about their technicalities that they do not see the big picture which is that dialogue and music are already a two-part counterpoint. And so the music must be done with that in mind regardless of what register it is in. You could use a contrabassoon ensemble, or ten piccolos, and measure the frequencies, and their relative intensities blah-blah-blah Mr. Scientist and it still wouldn't matter because it all depends on what you do with the music artistically.
On Vertigo that is a good point, there is some use of underscoring. Though Hitchcock generally will pause the music for dialogue, I looked at Vertigo again with this question in mind, and notice two aspects of how the music is effectvely underscored, both of which are artistic, and not technical by the way -
1, the use of extremely simple chordal music, and 2, the continuation of a cue which has already been heard without dialogue, and continues underneath when dialogue starts. It is as if the audience hears it consciously at first, has "got it down" and so is not distracted as they are diverted into the dialogue.
-
It's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that I asked a different question. And my response wasn't solely directed to you, by the way.
I'm very interested in discussing this technical question and what else should this forum be for?
And I describe it as technical because I want to avoid all to subjective points. Of course all these are artistic decision. My god, since when do you think I'm so stupid?
@William said:
the continuation of a cue which has already been heard without dialogue, and continues underneath when dialogue starts. It is as if the audience hears it consciously at first, has "got it down" and so is not distracted as they are diverted into the dialogue.
Yes, this is really a very good observation which I'm just recently figuring out conciously by myself. Great reassurance, thanks.
-
"I think it really lies in the orchestration if the music is fighting against the dialog or actually leaving so much space that the dialog is easily comprehensable AND the music can be mixed louder."
Another applied technique is that the music has the same loudness but is reduced in level with ducking as soon the dialog is on, this via automation or with an the use of side chain compression.
.
-
Another applied technique is that the music has the same loudness but is reduced in level with ducking as soon the dialog is on, this via automation or with an the use of side chain compression.
Which is of course the worst solution of all possible...
-
And this is EXACTLY what I meant by an ARTISTIC as opposed to TECHNICAL solution.
This pisses me off. It is an idiotic solution. Is Angelo Clematide joking? A compressor? An instant suppression of level? that would sound great, yeah right Angelo. [:(]
For your information and education Angelo, watch the end of Vertigo. You know that one? The Hitchcock film? You tried to educate me, insultingly, in a previous thread about all the things I don't know, but perhaps you are not aware of that film. In fact I would assume you are not, as the stupidity of your suggestion suggests it. It contains a profound artistic solution for this problem so far beyond the moronic technical solution you suggest - which is suitable mainly for low-grade documentary film production or TV commercials - that basically they are not fit for comparison.
-
You know one director who never used music during dialogue? Hitchcock. He knew that music is expression, and dialogue is expression and having the two of them competing is bad.
I wasted 5 minutes to check if there is no music behind the dialog in Hitchcock's movies, and after the third time where music was behind the dialog in the movie Vertigo, I stopped looking any further.
The last movie I saw who has a similar approach as Hitchcock to associative loudness was "Under Suspicion" by Simon Moore.
-
Maybe so, but never the less the most applied technique today, and not only in tv production. You may watch from time to time a new release, not only the classics from the fifties. All of the ten international releases of the the last four weeks apply level reduction when dialog starts, not always, but very often.
But this EXACTLY why I come up with this question. That this mixing technique is spreading so wildly I consider a serious disease. It is a result of week spotting and composition but also a result of week orchestration.
I know from my mixing experience that there is music which flows around the dialog like a satin glove and music which fights against it. Of course it is first a matter of composition but also of orchestration. And I want to tackle the orchestration aspect since it is less obvious than the compositional one.
-
As you mention here, though, it really is first about the composition. If a cue is stomping on the dialog all the orchestration finesse in the world isn't going to fix it. No matter what the orchestrator does, it will be ducked at the dub session.@mathis said:
But this EXACTLY why I come up with this question. That this mixing technique is spreading so wildly I consider a serious disease. It is a result of week spotting and composition but also a result of week orchestration.
I know from my mixing experience that there is music which flows around the dialog like a satin glove and music which fights against it. Of course it is first a matter of composition but also of orchestration. And I want to tackle the orchestration aspect since it is less obvious than the compositional one.
-
I believe the issue is the composition AND the orchestration. To me, the two are inseperable when you are dealing with a soundtrack (dialogue, SFX, room tone). The logic is that sonically, you're dealing with a (more) crowded canvas as compared to just music by itself. For example, an outdoor scene in a thunderstorm will require slightly exaggerated orchestration as well as a more simplified overall sound (composition) to allow for the elements to be mixed together with maximum volume and clarity.
I have had great success using these two guidelines:
1. Treat the dialogue as "melody." Not melody in a literal sense, but from a textural/arranging standpoint. Counterpoint can work behind vox but slower is better. Watch range when orchestrating as to not crowd the vocal register.
2. Finding the holes for thematic or high contour material (mentioned somewhere above) a la J.W. musically validates the lower profile underscore.
The result is a natural dynamic that eliminates the need for aggressive ducking, etc.
Clark
-
"As I mentioned this a question which assumes that the composition is right. This question starts after that." - Mathis
If the composition is right then YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
Again, check out Vertigo. Last scene.
All technicalities pale in comparison to that kind of composition. Art can absolutely destroy all of the techniques that anyone can create.
-
@William said:
"As I mentioned this a question which assumes that the composition is right. This question starts after that." - Mathis
That is ridiculous.
If the composition is right then YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE.
Again, check out Vertigo. Last scene.
All of your technicalities pale in comparison to THAT kind of composition. Art can absolutely DESTROY all of the techniques that little burrowing worms like Angelo Clematide ever create.
No further comment.
.
-
Besides, I don't think you are a little burrowing worm at all, Angelo.
I think you're a big fat one.
Just a joke! Don't your fingers ever get carried away on a keyboard??? Besides, being a trained surrealist it is my duty to allow subconscious mentation equal representation with that of the conscious mind. It is a duty, in fact, that I take very seriously. And since you inspire extreme subconsciousness in me, it is inevitable that disturbing mental contents will find their way into conversation. So really, it has nothing to do with me or you at all. It is the Id. Fortunately there is no Krell brain boost or force field operating or everyone would be in big trouble.
-
I´ve become interested in this theory about soft and hard profiles when composing background music. Take a look at this site:
http://www.soundofmusic.se/products/educationsamples.htm
And here is a narrated audio drama I´m producing (swedish text, sorry!) that you are welcome to comment:
http://hem.bredband.net/b807883/jstromgren_audiodramaclip.mp3
English translation of the narrator here:
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7654
/Johnny
