not logged in
| re: Is Lietmotif The Same As A Reprise? | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 11:49 pm UTC 05/15/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Is Lietmotif The Same As A Reprise? - GTKarber 05:31 pm UTC 05/15/07 |
> I certainly agree with you, that many of Jim's songs > intentionally connect, but I think that it's foolish to > suggest that every melody that Jim reuses is evident of a > deeper meaning. I have to assume that you understand the creative process, and that you understand what it takes to be an artist where such a vision is maintained as Jim maintains, if you had such a vision. Jim could write jingles, I've heard one. There is no recycling in it. It is simple, it is a jingle. There is no deeper meaning but he did work in some phrase I recognized that nobody else would relate to. And, he also sang it. It was a nice accompaniment for me during long work-day rounds in my car with the car radio on. If you're lookin for a honda with prices so low that they hit rock bottom then there's one place to go that's (name of business)......and so forth. Very un-Steinman, but he didn't do it as Steinman. I knew nothing at the time of his being a larger known artist. Jingles, I thought, good, he's getting work and I could hear it. That was eight and nine years ago. I had been in steady (on and off) phone and face contact with him at that point for around six to seven years. I recognized his voice in that jingle because he approximated his speaking voice as closely as possible in the vocal, which does not in any way resemble the high quality vocals he otherwise has sang with, the intent, was not to be recognized by others. He abhored speaking with me about his projects, so we did not discuss it. It had nothing to do with me, but he felt that speaking of his projects did not add to the conversation and he discouraged it at every turn. Especially where he applied other monikers, he conducted them as though they were separate.....but we discussed them in other ways. I wrote to him, and he answered me in our phone conversations. Artists, and people who have complicated lives, do make their own ways of communication. We initiated this I write and he answer construct, after I had issues with perceiving a wiretap. But that is neither here nor there. If he was as simple as a paper cutter, he'd be a paper cutter. He is as complex as a highly sensitive artist, and that comes with its own kinds of unconventionalities. Does he conform to his life or does he make his life to conform to him, all of the above. One thing there is about the works he puts out for an audience, is that he conforms it to his vision, and his vision is deep. > > I agree much more with whomever (I am sorry, but I'm > already typing up the message and I don't want to read > back through the post to discover who it was) said that > Jim seems to reuse musical bits over and over until a song > that contains one becomes a hit. I know that an era did exist where Jim was interested in hits and he focused on the commerciality during 1983 particularly and to some degree, but nobody foresaw that interest in him before that, and there is no sustained view of that as a continuing influence. However, Jim like every artist wants to be seen/heard. That does not equate to the hit machine that is prevalent. It is easy for anyone to say that shallow statement, and also easy for anyone to agree with it, but in reference to Jim, I believe he would conform his style to a hit maker, before he would reuse bits and bits for that purpose. Jim understands commerciality very well, and he knows what "formulas" sell. He does not have to go on a hit and miss pattern such as that statement would require an assumption of. > > Jim does not, typically, reuse musical pieces which appear > in hit songs. (A few exceptions of this exist, including > Total Eclipse in Tanz, but the entire song also appears in > the musical, and thus othere references to it are > internal.) If your theory were true, Jim would be just as > likely to reuse music from hit songs, which, as I said, he > is not. Not every composer reuses every piece of his symphony to prove that pieces coalesce into other parts. Jim reuses what he feels fits in one or another place. In his blog he stated that he felt that Angels Arise got wasted in Tanz/DotV, but he meant not the song quality but something else. He could have written something else there, sure, but he has not run to alter the score with something less wasted....it fits there, but he hoped for something of it more than it received. That's all that I'll say of that. Hence, however, his finding a portion in Batman for it....and by the way, if he feels like it, he could repeat it until he feels that it has the portal of exposure or of story context he wanted it to have....which is not synonymous with commercialism. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Is Lietmotif The Same As A Reprise? - GTKarber 05:31 pm UTC 05/15/07 |
| Next: | re: Is Lietmotif The Same As A Reprise? - GTKarber 11:01 pm UTC 05/13/07 |
| Thread: | |