NitrateVille.com

Is Maria Newman's scores for silents really that bad? Did a search for her on the forum and pretty much every comment about her music is negative. Never heard her music before, would it be a mistake?

Not a mistake to listen to it, but her music does not accompany the film, it calls attention to itself. It turns the film into a music video, where the music is illustrated by the film, and the sometimes clash.

Some of us don't care for it, and some of us hate it. I'm one of the latter. I turn off the sound when watching a film with her accompaniment...I find silence greatly preferable.

I've heard her twice live score music for a few Mary Pickford films and while I'm not a big fan of her work on Heart O The Hills, I really like her interpretation on The Love Light, Ramona, and Daddy Long Legs.

SteppenBow59 wrote:Is Maria Newman's scores for silents really that bad?

Only when they're played with silent films!

Seriously, the music is perfectly fine, and often quite interesting, but it is modern late 20th-century chamber music that might fit some avant-garde independent picture but has almost no relation to the silent films it has been applied to in the mistaken belief that it is "accompanying" the movie. It is actually competing with the movie. Close your eyes and listen to the music, or turn off the music and watch the movie, and you'll be much more satisfied.

So to answer the actual title of the thread -- No, the music itself isn't bad at all. Sometimes it's very good (as music).
But to answer your first sentence about her "scores" for silents -- Yes, they are barely passable to mediocre to bad to terrible, depending upon which film they're inflicted upon!

I don't like Maria Newman's scores for any of the Pickford films, except for portions of DADDY LONG LEGS. Overall, that is not a bad score at all. The rest though are horrible. Oddly enough, her Main title theme for MR. WU is very good, but most of the rest of the score is abysmal!

SteppenBow59 wrote:Is Maria Newman's scores for silents really that bad? Did a search for her on the forum and pretty much every comment about her music is negative. Never heard her music before, would it be a mistake?

Why waste words, the answer is YES!


RICHARD M ROBERTS

The great wonder is, that when there are so many composers for whom praise is unanimous & unqualified, a producer could be so insensitive as to award the commission for a picture's score to Newman; that producer deserves the lion's share of scorn.

entredeuxguerres wrote:The great wonder is, that when there are so many composers for whom praise is unanimous & unqualified, a producer could be so insensitive as to award the commission for a picture's score to Newman; that producer deserves the lion's share of scorn.

Well, your premise is a little shaky -- I don't think there are any composers for whom the praise is truly "unanimous and unqualified." Someone's always going to complain about something, often vociferously, sometimes incoherently.

And there are people who are excited about Maria Newman's work. She's a well-regarded composer, and her father has a certain track record on film scoring, both of which brought attention to some films that might otherwise have disappeared quietly into the collections of people who are already fans and collectors. I also like her score for Daddy Long Legs -- well-written themes, and tracking closer to the film's arc than I ever do. Her score for Tom Sawyer, which was assembled from pre-written music, I find much less successful. She's a better composer than compiler, and (to be honest) seems to be more interested in concert music than silent film music, for which I can't blame her.

And there are other concerns than quality of reputation. Cost comes into it (without government support, you aren't going to see a lot of new Carl Davis scores for full orchestra), availability comes into it (Timothy Brock got a full-time job), sometimes politics or national pride comes into it, pop-cultural appeal comes into it, and (perhaps most importantly) the need to uncover new talent for the future of the genre as the current players exhaust their energy, start getting too predictable, or move on to other fields of musicianship. No one can be expected to make an excellent film score on their first try (heaven knows I didn't), so giving the same musician a few breaks is the only way to find out if they've got the knack.

As long as you're gonna mute the TV for the Newman scores, check out alternate piano scores by yours truly for the DVDs of LOVE LIGHT and HEART OF THE HILLS available for download and on CD here.

Ben

Rodney wrote: I don't think there are any composers for whom the praise is truly "unanimous and unqualified." Someone's always going to complain about something, often vociferously, sometimes incoherently.

Perhaps "so many" is overstatement, but Mont Alto, Israel, Davis, Carli...who'd complain about their work?

Judith Rosenberg was a name unfamiliar to me, until I heard her work on Her Sister From Paris--enchanting, I think.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Rodney wrote: I don't think there are any composers for whom the praise is truly "unanimous and unqualified." Someone's always going to complain about something, often vociferously, sometimes incoherently.

Perhaps "so many" is overstatement, but Mont Alto, Israel, Davis, Carli...who'd complain about their work?

Oh, there's always someone. I liked this line from a review of The Devil's Needle (for which both Ben Model and I created piano scores) at DVD Verdict:

The PCM 2.0 Stereo audio is basic musical score, none of which I liked, but I never do.

Then there's Reg Hart in Toronto whose review of Kino's The Birth of a Nation BluRay includes:

The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra miss the mark completely with their score to this film (as they continue to do with so many pictures).

All I'm saying, I guess, is that producers need to decide which critics to ignore if they're going to hire anyone. The criticism shows up more strongly when someone is replacing a beloved score from a past VHS or 16mm release, even if the old score doesn't fit a newer restoration, or even if you think a new artist would do well with a particular film. I think it's nice to get some variety with film scores, as it reminds us that these films are, in fact, silent; and therefore should never be permanently wedded to a particular sound track.

Reg Hartt is one of those cantankerous guys who crabs about everything and has very eccentric opinions (something like Robert Klepper), so I wouldn't worry about him disliking Rodney's work. Rodney, your stuff is aces by me! (Of course, I can't hear any of it, but you don't need to mention that when you're compiling your critical praise scrapbook...)

Jim

Rodney wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Rodney wrote: I don't think there are any composers for whom the praise is truly "unanimous and unqualified." Someone's always going to complain about something, often vociferously, sometimes incoherently.

Perhaps "so many" is overstatement, but Mont Alto, Israel, Davis, Carli...who'd complain about their work?

Oh, there's always someone. I liked this line from a review of The Devil's Needle (for which both Ben Model and I created piano scores) at DVD Verdict:

The PCM 2.0 Stereo audio is basic musical score, none of which I liked, but I never do.

Then there's Reg Hart in Toronto whose review of Kino's The Birth of a Nation BluRay includes:

The Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra miss the mark completely with their score to this film (as they continue to do with so many pictures).

All I'm saying, I guess, is that producers need to decide which critics to ignore if they're going to hire anyone. The criticism shows up more strongly when someone is replacing a beloved score from a past VHS or 16mm release, even if the old score doesn't fit a newer restoration, or even if you think a new artist would do well with a particular film. I think it's nice to get some variety with film scores, as it reminds us that these films are, in fact, silent; and therefore should never be permanently wedded to a particular sound track.

Rodney, this looks like a good place for me to jump in, not because you are the source of all I disagree with, but because most of the issues have been raised.

1: Maria Newman is a lousy composer for silent film. Her music is intrusive and irrelevant. My taste is for music that supports the image and is period-appropriate (the latter meaning that electronica, acid rock and rap are rarely sensible when dealing with a realistic setting during the silent era). I have never seen a silent picture with a score by Ms. Newman but made me think "What the f**k?!" At her best she produces a pompous, irrelevant drop-needle score. At worst, after a minute I stop the movie, mute the TV, turn on my computer to some vaguely appropriate composition (AIDA works adequately with the 1912 CLEOPATRA) and start from the beginning.
2: I am reasonably familiar with several current accompanists/composers. They each have clear areas of strength. Some have areas of weakness. I am pleased and surprised they would spend their time doing this work and it is clearly a labor of love for every one of them. No one is getting rich. Some new kid wants to give it a whirl, great. Ms. Newman's work speaks neither to silent movies as we know them or her own passions in the manner. I hate the Moroder score for METROPOLIS, but it is a score that the people worked upon thoughtfully, so I listened to it once all the way through and except for occasionally trying it for a few minutes to see if my tastes have changed (they haven't) I leave it alone.

3: Yes, there are some people who think that if it ain't Gaylord Carter at the organ, burn down the theater. There's no one here who's saying that. I've heard my favorite accompanists misfire. So what? The guy who says he never likes the score, well, at least he's given fair warning. Quite often music critics don't get it either -- whatever it may be. However, that's not whom we're talking about here. We have opinions but, with a few exceptions, we allow each other considerable elbow room.

When it comes to Ms. Newman, however, I am going to crowd you. It is not necessary to tolerate the intolerable. Nor does the fact that some people dislike your work and you -- and I -- believe them wrong any reason to hold that the opinions offered here of Ms. Newman are wrong. Film critics don't deal much with music for silent film. Music critics don't deal much with silent film music. Nitratevillains deal with silent film music. We have wide and varying opinions. There is no need to champion Ms. Newman's scores out of a sense of solidarity. Support good music for silent films to bring in audiences and keep silent films alive. There are many more worthy causes than Ms. Newman. I urge you to champion them.

Bob

boblipton wrote:
Rodney, this looks like a good place for me to jump in, not because you are the source of all I disagree with, but because most of the issues have been raised.

1: Maria Newman is a lousy composer for silent film. Her music is intrusive and irrelevant. My taste is for music that supports the image and is period-appropriate (the latter meaning that electronica, acid rock and rap are rarely sensible when dealing with a realistic setting during the silent era). I have never seen a silent picture with a score by Ms. Newman but made me think "What the f**k?!" At her best she produces a pompous, irrelevant drop-needle score. At worst, after a minute I stop the movie, mute the TV, turn on my computer to some vaguely appropriate composition (AIDA works adequately with the 1912 CLEOPATRA) and start from the beginning.
2: I am reasonably familiar with several current accompanists/composers. They each have clear areas of strength. Some have areas of weakness. I am pleased and surprised they would spend their time doing this work and it is clearly a labor of love for every one of them. No one is getting rich. Some new kid wants to give it a whirl, great. Ms. Newman's work speaks neither to silent movies as we know them or her own passions in the manner. I hate the Moroder score for METROPOLIS, but it is a score that the people worked upon thoughtfully, so I listened to it once all the way through and except for occasionally trying it for a few minutes to see if my tastes have changed (they haven't) I leave it alone.

3: Yes, there are some people who think that if it ain't Gaylord Carter at the organ, burn down the theater. There's no one here who's saying that. I've heard my favorite accompanists misfire. So what? The guy who says he never likes the score, well, at least he's given fair warning. Quite often music critics don't get it either -- whatever it may be. However, that's not whom we're talking about here. We have opinions but, with a few exceptions, we allow each other considerable elbow room.

When it comes to Ms. Newman, however, I am going to crowd you. It is not necessary to tolerate the intolerable. Nor does the fact that some people dislike your work and you -- and I -- believe them wrong any reason to hold that the opinions offered here of Ms. Newman are wrong. Film critics don't deal much with music for silent film. Music critics don't deal much with silent film music. Nitratevillains deal with silent film music. We have wide and varying opinions. There is no need to champion Ms. Newman's scores out of a sense of solidarity. Support good music for silent films to bring in audiences and keep silent films alive. There are many more worthy causes than Ms. Newman. I urge you to champion them.

Bob

I'm assuming that had tones of sarcasm since reading that imagining a serious tone made me want to laugh.

I agree with Rodney that we should allow different interpretations for these films without stoning them because they aren't our five favorite composers.

Maybe I and a few others are in the only ones that do enjoy her music but there were some instances where I enjoyed her interpretation and other instances where I didn't care so much. The same can be said for any artist IMO.

I'm just happy there were silent movie scores period recorded for films that would have otherwise just sat there scoreless. I was lucky to be there when she gave a live performance of her score for Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, and I have to say that was a memorable wonderful experience. It could be a generational thing too since I don't know who was supposed to be better than Maria Newman scoring Rebecca. All I know is that when I first saw that film, it was on some low quality pixelated version on YOUTUBE where someone just added Mozart and you could barely make out the faces. Thankfully I was able to see a very clean restored blu-ray print of the film without any cuts with live music from Maria Newman. She was given a standing ovation actually at the end of the film...... so not everybody hates her music.

I'm assuming that had tones of sarcasm since reading that imagining a serious tone made me want to laugh.

I agree with Rodney that we should allow different interpretations for these films without stoning them because they aren't our five favorite composers.

Maybe I and a few others are in the only ones that do enjoy her music but there were some instances where I enjoyed her interpretation and other instances where I didn't care so much. The same can be said for any artist IMO.

I'm just happy there were silent movie scores period recorded for films that would have otherwise just sat there scoreless. I was lucky to be there when she gave a live performance of her score for Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, and I have to say that was a memorable wonderful experience. It could be a generational thing too since I don't know who was supposed to be better than Maria Newman scoring Rebecca. All I know is that when I first saw that film, it was on some low quality pixelated version on YOUTUBE where someone just added Mozart and you could barely make out the faces. Thankfully I was able to see a very clean restored blu-ray print of the film without any cuts with live music from Maria Newman. She was given a standing ovation actually at the end of the film...... so not everybody hates her music.

So did Maria Newman's Group do their regular schtick of placing themselves just below the screen so that the lights from their music stands obliterate the bottom third of the picture? In every live performance of theirs I've unfortunately had to sit through, it was obvious that Ms. Newman and her accomplices were doing everything they could to draw attention to themselves in performance against the film itself. That alone in my book is reason enough to never book them to perform for a silent film, apart from her lousy music, which is lousy even when not accompanying a silent film. Maria Newman is a fourth or fifth-rate artist (yes,I'm being charitable)trying to use other now dead artists established works to promote her own failed compositions. So her obvious attempts to call attention to herself in performance got her a standing ovation, I recall a long ago Cinecon performance of hers in which she got quite a number of very audible boos (I should know, I was one among the many).



RICHARD M ROBERTS

Maria Newman's accompaniment for the Pickford Biograph short, "What the Daisy Said," is evocative, and while not exactly period-correct for a film from 1910, I find it makes it an experience more satisfying than most music that accompanies these silent short dramas. When I think of that movie, I see Pickford and I hear the music. Now even though that might be treading perilously close to the realm of music video, it works wonderfully, I think. It doesn't clash with film, it enhances it, and it is memorable in itself.

There is no other silent film accompanist whose work is as widely despised by silent film fans as Maria Newman. That should tell you something. Even the oft-maligned Ken Winokur and his Alloy Orchestra don't take the beating that Newman gets on a regular basis. Her scores for HEART O' THE HILLS and MR. WU are two of the worst I've ever heard, right down there with Michael Polher's abominatory score for THE PENALTY.

However, I gotta say that the grand prize for the absolute single worst silent film accompaniment in history (not counting needle-drop scores) must go to French electronic music duo Air's mindbogglingly inappropriate sub-Pink Floyd noodling, which is sadly shackled to poor Georges Melies' hand-colored A TRIP TO THE MOON.

Jim Roots wrote:Reg Hartt is one of those cantankerous guys who crabs about everything and has very eccentric opinions (something like Robert Klepper), so I wouldn't worry about him disliking Rodney's work. Rodney, your stuff is aces by me! (Of course, I can't hear any of it, but you don't need to mention that when you're compiling your critical praise scrapbook...)

Jim

Rodney lacked the balls to score THE BIRTH OF A NATION right. Shame on him.

And shame on you Jim Roots. I take it from your post that you are deaf. That is unfortunate. However it automatically disqualifies you to talk about the effect of music and/or sound.

I do not crab about everything. I do do my homework. Case in point:

In 1980 I brought Bernard B. Brown to Toronto for a three day symposium on his career in motion pictures that began with him, at 16, playing first violin in the orchestra which accompanied THE BIRTH OF A NATION (as THE CLANSMAN) throughout its first run at Clune’s Auditorium in Los Angeles.

Mr. Brown’s later accomplishments, in addition to playing tennis with Charlie Chaplin and getting involved in real estate deals with Errol Flynn, included directing the sound recording on THE JAZZ SINGER (1927) scoring and creating animated cartoons for Leon Schlesinger’s LOONEY TUNES and MERRIE MELODIES, being head of sound at Warner Brothers and then at Universal, pioneering multi-track recording [ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL (1939)] receiving eleven Academy Award nominations and two Oscars for his work with film and film sound (which he taught at UCLA on retiring).

Many write, “One does not view THE BIRTH OF A NATION for entertainment.”

I began screening silent films in Toronto, Canada back in the late 1960’s. I realized at once that the general public does not give a fig about a film’s historic merits. They demand to be entertained by what they see.

This attitude is the right one.

I created scores for silent films that were based entirely on how movies I went to see were scored which is something few who score silent films seem to do (including people who have created scores for contemporary films).

As my program was and is self funded it s continued success depended and depends entirely not on meeting the audience’s expectations but on surpassing them.

In 1979 I brought Warner animation director Bob Clampett to Toronto for an extensive symposium on his career. Bob, discovering my interest in Griffith and THE BIRTH, told me about Mr. Brown.

My own feeling was that THE BIRTH OF A NATION, properly scored, would be as powerful today as it was when first seen.

After in-depth studies with Mr. Brown I produced a score for the film that achieved that purpose.

The first public performance of the work was for an audience of 500 high school students. They watched the film with an intensity that astonished their teachers. When the Klan rode to the rescue at the climax the audience (composed entirely of young Canadians) let out a mighty roar of excitement.

The next presentation of the work was for the Toronto Film Society’s Silent Film Series. This was in a 600 seat auditorium. These were hard core film buffs. I arrived to discover the tape recorder they gave me ran slower than my own while the projectors (at silent speed) ran faster. There was no way I could synchronize the tape score with the film.

I reflected that the sound proofed projection booth had monitor speakers. I decided to run parts of the film in silence while using the monitor speakers in the booth to cue up the score.

Literally, I sweat blood for the three hours of the presentation (no intermission).

When it ended the audience was on its feet stomping and cheering just as they had done in 1915.

The director of the TFS’s Silent Series stormed into the projection booth. He said, “Reg, that score was brilliant. I especially admired your inspired use of silence.”

I then began to redo all my scores for silent films with an eye towards using not only music and effects but also silence (something that, as far as I know, no one else at the moment does).

Nearly everyone who scores silent films uses what can best be described as the Delsarte technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran" target="_blankçois_Delsarte ). D. W. Griffith and Mary Pickford led the way in America away from this method as it looked ridiculous on screen (the exaggerated acting many associate with early silent film is actually Delsarte acting). This keeps the audience out of the film. I choose music that takes them into it.

When I work on creating a score for a silent film I first watch it in silence twice. The second time comes a month or more after the first viewing. During the second viewing of the film I hear music in my head. That is the score my psyche has created for the film. Then I look for recorded music that captures the spirit of what I have heard that second time. Sometimes I will be on the street and hear a bit of music that all at once pulls up images of the film I am working on.

With THE BIRTH, precisely because nearly all performances of the film are leaden, I jumped at the chance to meet with and learn from a man who not only had been there at the beginning (as well as instrumental in assisting D. W. Griffith, through not only his knowledge of music but also his long standing acquaintance with the owner of the sheet music store) but had also been present at several of the key moments of motion picture history.

He was a great teacher. I was an apt pupil.

The score created for the Kino Blu-ray edition of THE BIRTH, to put it bluntly, sucks the big one. That’s fine for academics and scholars who like to pretend themselves above the mundane herd but that herd is the audience I program for (and whose company I much prefer). It is, after all, the audience the movies are made for and always has been.

Now to come to the silliest part of what people write: “One also does not view it for history, or the way that it treats blacks, mostly herein played by white actors.”

Griffith, we are informed by Lillian Gish and others who worked with him (many of whose books I have) had a commanding vision of the movies as a literal light burning in the darkness with the power to illuminate the world.

“What we put up on that screen had better be the truth because the public is going to think it is and, if they find we have played false with them we will lose them,” Griffith said.

You are welcome to debate the historical merits of his films. You can not question them. Griffith is true to his sources (and his sources were excellent). As Woodrow Wilson put it, “THE BIRTH OF A NATION is history written with lightning!” Being a politician he later recanted that statement which is to his discredit not yo Griffith or the film’s.

Griffith establishes clearly at the beginning of the second half of the film that his depiction of events is not meant to reflect on any race or people of the present moment.

He also establishes that the puppeteers pulling the strings were not black but white men (and this much overlooked fact is to his credit). Anyone who takes the time to inform themselves will find fast enough that he was right in this. Their number, however, has always been and always will be few. As Harlan Ellison so wonderfully put it, “We do not have the right to an opinion. We have the right to an informed opinion.”

An informed opinion is a rare thing (and not one present on most web sites).

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people,” said Eleanor Roosevelt. She was right.

The present era of film discussion is one in which small minds dominate.

Griffith is usually dismissed by them as a racist. He was not. Even a casual look at the body of work he produced makes that clear.

He was and is the single most important director in the history of motion pictures.

Archivist Kevin Brownlow can say, “D.W. Griffith taught the cinema to walk. Abel Gance gave it wings.”

Griffith not only taught the cinema to walk he gave it wings. He did that long before Gance did it and he did it more powerfully than anyone has done it before him or after.

What I have written here will not go down well with many (nor is it meant to).

Some time back I got a post card from comic Emo Philips. On it he had written, “I honestly believe you are the greatest teacher I know…For confirmation of everything you have been saying all along read David Mamet’s new book, TRUE AND FALSE.”

I have Mamet’s TRUE AND FALSE as well as his BAMBI VS. GODZILLA.

In both he puts the lie to a lot of deeply held beliefs. His chapters on academics and scholars in both books are must reading. His essential statement, “INVENT NOTHING. DENY NOTHING. STAND UP. SPEAK UP. STAY OUT OF SCHOOL,” is one too few are willing to hear.

In THE BIRTH OF A NATION Griffith invented nothing, denied nothing, stood up, spoke up and created the motion picture that stand alone in the history of motion pictures. It remains the greatest film ever made and it is one of the very few honest ones. There had been nothing like it before in any medium. There has been very little like it since. It was more than mere entertainment.

Griffith did not have to stay out of school because, thankfully, before him there were no film schools.

Audiences of the day paid the top Broadway price of seeing a play to see THE BIRTH. Both the industry and the critics said the public would never do that. In first run, in The United States alone, THE BIRTH OF A NATION was seen by over four times the population of the country. We have no contemporary film makers whose pictures could do that. We have not had one since the end of the silent era.

In THE CINEMA YEAR BY YEAR (1894–2002) David Thomson wrote, “We like to think of the cinema as still a popular art: we marvel at the huge box-office figures for TITANIC, HARRY POTTER, SPIDERMAN and every new episode of STAR WARS. But in truth in 2002 something like 15 per cent of us regularly go to the movies; in the 1920s that figure was 65 per cent or more.”

When the movies learned to talk they lost their voice. Since then they have had nothing to say. As they say nothing we as a whole stopped wasting time on them.

http://reghartt.ca/cineforum/?p=8008" target="_blank

DIATRIBE

1 archaic: a prolonged discourse

2: a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing

3: ironic or satirical criticism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe" target="_blank" target="_blank

Arndt wrote:DIATRIBE

1 archaic: a prolonged discourse

2: a bitter and abusive speech or piece of writing

3: ironic or satirical criticism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Meaning #1 unquestionably applies, and to a degree, #3, but not at all, in my opinion, #2; had Mr. Webster vouchsafed a fourth, emphasizing "passionate intensity," that one, I believe, would be most apt.

did anybody ever consider that it may hurt Maria's feelings(if she reads this forum) to criticise her music negatively when it would seem we need all the people we can to get interested in silent film; be it music, aesthetic, appreciation etc. Especially the young people?

sepiatone wrote:did anybody ever consider that it may hurt Maria's feelings(if she reads this forum) to criticise her music negatively when it would seem we need all the people we can to get interested in silent film; be it music, aesthetic, appreciation etc. Especially the young people?

I'd say she might benefit from a bit of "telling it like it is"; not, with plenty of fans of her own, that she's likely to give a damn about opinions expressed here.

I have had many positive reviews of that score, by people whose opinion I respect, so no worries here. Anyone wishing to know more about my motivations on scoring The Birth of a Nation can read my essay on the subject.

I submit that Jim Roots, deaf though he may be, is at least as qualified to talk about silent film accompaniment as Reg Hartt (who once bragged to me that he had convinced a presenter, who had already hired a pianist to play for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, to fire the pianist and let Reg play records instead).

Silent film, like ballet, opera, and Broadway musicals, is a live-music medium. I don't care how good your records are, no one should go to a silent film in a theater and hear recordings when live musicians are available.

And as for Jim's assessment of Reg as "one of those cantankerous guys who crabs about everything and has very eccentric opinions", I think Reg's post here speaks eloquently on that topic.

Rodney says:

no one should go to a silent film in a theater and hear recordings when live musicians are available.

How many dead musicians are ever available for anything? They seem to be quite consistent in their unavailability for going to the theater or any other venue or social function.

drednm wrote:Rodney says:

no one should go to a silent film in a theater and hear recordings when live musicians are available.

How many dead musicians are ever available for anything? They seem to be quite consistent in their unavailability for going to the theater or any other venue or social function.

Yeah, and when you DO find them, it doesn't matter what's on screen, they just go "B-R-A-A-A-I-N-S!!!"

(Actually, some of my favorite musicians are dead. I just don't go out to auditoriums to hear them.)

It's nonsensical discourse like this thread that keeps me from coming around here as often, but I just have to chime in...

To the original poster, instead of opening up Pandora's Box (which, whether you knew it or not, asking a loaded question like that is going to do), why don't you listen to some of her scores and judge for yourself.

Secondly, people "like what they like" and music is subjective, but there's also a vast amount of the public (both silent movie-watching and in general) that knows diddley-squat about music; certainly not enough to make any sort of serious musicological criticism. As in this thread, those who make a criticism about any artists are seldom verbose as to why they don't like the work. The best most can muster is, "their music doesn't fit the picture" rather than talking about how the music sounds, what scenes it doesn't accompany properly and why. It'd be nice to get something more in depth, and certainly something more direct than Mr. Hartt's deviation.

Jack Theakston wrote:Secondly, people "like what they like" and music is subjective, but there's also a vast amount of the public (both silent movie-watching and in general) that knows diddley-squat about music; certainly not enough to make any sort of serious musicological criticism.

But even among those who do know diddley-squat (and a good deal more beyond), divergence of opinion is often just as extreme & heated, as is so well demonstrated by opera criticism. Wasn't it Clara Schumann (among others) who abhorred Wagner?

Of course the original question was loaded--like a B-52 taking off for a "rolling thunder" mission. Yet, in this case, it's stimulating to hear a naive expression of the obvious truth.

Here is a link to google's alt.movies.silent index of postings mentioning Maria Newman.
There is more information available if the full threads are read.

Some of the posts go deeper into the poster's reasons for not liking certain scores:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgr ... a$20newman" target="_blank

As Richard Roberts said, the answer to THIS thread's topic is, "Yes."

Rick

Rodney wrote:I have had many positive reviews of that score, by people whose opinion I respect, so no worries here. Anyone wishing to know more about my motivations on scoring The Birth of a Nation can read my essay on the subject.

Well, I'm sure we're all glad Rodney's skins so thick, because a number of people whose opinions I respect thought his score for BIRTH OF A NATION was pretty lame, and after I heard it, I agreed with them.

I submit that Jim Roots, deaf though he may be, is at least as qualified to talk about silent film accompaniment as Reg Hartt (who once bragged to me that he had convinced a presenter, who had already hired a pianist to play for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, to fire the pianist and let Reg play records instead).

Silent film, like ballet, opera, and Broadway musicals, is a live-music medium. I don't care how good your records are, no one should go to a silent film in a theater and hear recordings when live musicians are available.

Well, I'd rather hear a recording of a brilliant accompianist like William Perry, Bob Vaughn or Gaylord Carter run with a film than have to listen to a bad live accompianist ruin a great film, because when I go to see a Silent film, it's the film that matters, not the ego of some musician.

And as for Jim's assessment of Reg as "one of those cantankerous guys who crabs about everything and has very eccentric opinions", I think Reg's post here speaks eloquently on that topic.

Anyone accusing anyone else around these parts of being cantankerous and eccentric or crabbing about everything is a very crusty pot calling a very black kettle. Reg Hartt has a right to his informed opinions as much or maybe a little more than most folk here, partially because he has done a hell of a lot more than many of the local crabbers here to get people to see silent films, and he believes in the fading concept of actually entertaining an audience.


Welcome Reg! Have Fun.


RICHARD M ROBERTS