F. Murray Abraham, star of Amadeus....


He's in his 70's now but still looking good. What a great movie that was though. 

Agreed on the movie.

Hi,

During my days at UCSB, we had some members of the Royal Shakespeare Company in residence for a couple of weeks, and one of my all time favorites was there ... Ian Richardson ... Marat says ... "I AM THE REVOLUTION" ... and Sade says ... no, you are just a man that has delusions about his ideas!

We had a great talk about that play and some of those words! Two of the ladies that also were there ... were precious and totally far out ... and one of them is (now) a grand old dame, or ****, depending on which country you are!

Totally awesome group of folks ... the only person missing, for me, was ... Peter Brook! Or even Mr. Miller who had been a part of the Cambridge Comedian groups and with PC and DM ... now that would have been a fun talk!

One of my absolute movies ever!

Hi,

I love that movie ... there is so much in there that is with it ... and a total finger to musicianship, composers, the aristocracy ... just about everything.

Historically, it might not be perfect, but in reality, it probably has more accurate history than we're told in the versions of music history ... but I still think that film is one of the best at showing people how VISUAL things affect music, and help someone create it ... all of a sudden the music is not about the notes, but how to illustrate that image ... and that makes for very strong music that many people are afraid to try and work with.

In many ways, and the film shows it, it is like ... the new music is alive and has visuals and the old music didn't ... and I love the image of the "conductor" hitting the stick on the ground in time with the music ... the "metronome" in our terms ... or the bad drummer and band ... how rock'n'roll'ish that is!
 
A couple of other films that are also really good about music:
- All the Mornings of the World (Dupardieu in it)
 
- Un Coeur en Hiver (A Frozen Heart) ... awesome film about "feeling" the music.
 
- The Music Teacher ... older film about instructors and a competition that is over 200 years old.
 
- Mahler ... probably Ken Russell's only film that is about the music and not his ideas and craziness. "The Music Lovers" is about Tchaikovsky until it goes crazy in the end, btw. Later he did Lizst which is a piece of merde.
 
Have fun!

Moshkiae


Hi,

 ... all of a sudden the music is not about the notes, but how to illustrate that image ... 

OK, I gotta challenge you on this one. 


What in the heck do you think he used to "illustrate that image"? They're called notes Pedro. 


And you know what? He wrote them down. 


And you wanna know an even bigger secret? He wrote them down how they were to be played by each member of the orchestra. 


He did not say "play any note you you want any time you want". I believe they are called scores. 


And I could be mistaken on this finer point, but I believe each member of the orchestra has a copy of their parts they are supposed to play and when they are supposed to be played.

You're really pushing the limits on this one my friend.

Mozart out in public?  I thought he had a Salieri home gym...

Bapu
OK, I gotta challenge you on this one. What in the heck do you think he used to "illustrate that image"? They're called notes Pedro.

 
You are taking it personal and not catching the meat of the subject.
 
More than once Salieri is asking him which notes to write ... and he can not describe it and the film shows us ... with music ... what eventually became known as written for it.
 
That is a good example of a visual determining how/what you put together ... YES ... IT IS FLIPPING NOTES! ... THAT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION!
 
But instead of it being written, as if it were a film soundtrack composer, you follow the visual, not the concept of rock music, or jass music ... you illustrate the visual ... so you have Bernard Herrman, a Maurice Jarre, or a Beethoven, or Mozart. That's why they are known ... !!!!
 
And yes, there are many parts to make it complete, and this is where a lot of the simplistic rock music is not capable of doing, and then one day, the Beatles or someone else does it and every one is amazed. And Geoff Emmerick talks about all the crazy and fun things they did, and everyone thinks this guy has no idea what he is saying! It's not all ... happening because you thought up a riff ... the riff may have come from somewhere else ... that was not musically related!
 
I told you before ... Bapu sits down and says ... I want to do this and then writes it as he goes along. Pedro sits down and starts ... and it may have an idea or not in it ... and I won't know anything about it, until the end. Of course there are notes ... again ... the point is ... I'm illustrating something I see, and not necessarily thinking that this note follows that one nicely and that makes for a nice combination here or there ... I'm just following a feeling ... and that is the description of it ... but you do not accept this as a valid compositional method! And THAT is not to say that I don't know music or notes, and you don't know visuals ... could be both, or none of them ... but it is something that is much harder to illustrate when the only thing most folks know here is 4 lines of music, not 25! Or 30! or 50! 
 
Even in the film that is simplified for you and I.
  
 

Moshkiae
all of a sudden the music is not about the notes, but how to illustrate that image ... 

Pedro, they are your words not mine.

And I do NOT reject the compositional method that what we see and feel comes through in the music. Every word, chord structure or melody I have written comes from my heart, soul and craftsmanship I have developed over the years. 

In your example of you "seeing" something in what I (hypothetically) wrote and put in front you is based on the concept of interpretation, not composition. I as the composer would have the right to reject or accept your interpretation (assuming we were collaborating) but that does not become part of the compositional method, that is performance, IMHO.

Bottom line is you see the movie as being about "feeling" and you could (mostly?) not care about the notes (as I interpret your "review"). I see the movie as about the life of a composer and when he is composing I see it about the results/notes. maybe I just have a pea brain?

My challenge was based on your words that I highlighted. Maybe I am not as evolved as you and that's OK with me, but to me music is about the notes and I'm not ashamed to say it.

I do apologize if I misunderstood your meaning.

Bapu, totally agree with your points on this one!

Moshkiae, we will have to "agree to disagree".  It is first and foremost about the aural experience, not the visuals.  That is still the case in true "concert" music today, which is a different world from Pop/music videos/film scoring (admittedly, a world in decline).

What the film depicted very well, and what sets Mozart, and Beethoven, among a very handful of others apart from the majority of us (including me, of course), is that he (as could Beethoven) was able to write down perfectly on paper what he heard in his head - no intermediary musical instrument needed.  In the movie, he was struggling to explain it to Salieri at the end, simply because his mind was outracing Salieri's.

It is also suggested that Beethoven's writing actually got better after he went deaf, as he was less constrained by an instrument - piano in this case.  If he had lived longer, based on the harmony/chord structure of his last string quartets, it is possible that most of the Romantic period would not have happened, as he would have quite possibly bypassed it all, with where he was heading in terms of music theory.

Moshkiae, seriously, one of the things that has largely been lost is the ability to simply listen to music - if there is no visual, it doesn't much count.  The culture back then, and even into the 20th century had a much stronger auditory component than it does now.  With the rise of postmodernism - particularly in its popular form, truth is first and foremost now seen as being visual, so in a way, your comments certainly fall within the norm. 

Granted, performances back then were strictly always "live" so there certainly was a visual factor - moreso with Opera, of course.