Posts
Patrick:
Iron on concrete. Unison strings, open, sustaining. Air in them.
A pluck.
The scaffolding was already coming down.
The thing being built was always this.
One final pluck
saw a great short experimental film last night called Roulement, Rouerie, Aubage (1978, Rose Lowder) which examines light modulated through a waterwheel on a river in France. I love films like this and was held enrapt for the 15 minute duration, which felt like 4 minutes.
I shot this on my way up to the screening just before seeing that film. So many interesting coincidences between what I make and subsequently see at the festival. I feel that the festival is trying to communicate things to me. I don't buy into fate, destiny, or all that mystic crap.. I know that I'm simply very aware of my current work and am quick to connect it with what I see at the festival and I apply relevance as it suits my life right now. I composited the 8 second footage with repetitions and a little bit of time dilation.. you know my regular digital compositing things.. and combined it with audio that I'd captured with the Tascam field recorder earlier in the day. The workers were noisily disassembling an event in the big space outside under the beautiful cantilever roof, partly seen at night in this video.
I'm over the negative self-image stuff from yesterday and thinking a lot about how every maker of things has a different approach to, well, everything and as Pip Chodorov stated last night at the screening, they are all valuable.
Before that, I kept thinking, oh man, if he sees my stuff, he might not like it since it's not 8mm or 16mm film and not hand edited with a cutter and tape (or however the process has been for 100 years). His films and the ones he presents at the BISFF in his wonderful programs are all very painstakingly put together and I know that is a large part of what makes them beautiful works of art.
I could be completely wrong.. he might not have a problem with digital. I haven't discussed it with him and I doubt he even is aware of this project of mine. I only see him once or twice a year and we mostly talk about other peoples' works. He's a great guy and I shouldn't assume things. But I do. This is my floundering self-esteem talking.
I see why people look down on non-old-school ways of doing things. It makes sense to me, and I often stage this battle in my head when reflecting on my own work. It usually takes the form of when I use sample libraries of acoustic instruments to achieve an orchestral sound. Film composers call these "mockups", temporary sketches of what the final recorded-in-studio orchestra will sound like at the end. It saves time and money and provides the director (et al.) with a better idea of what it will sound like before committing tons of money to finishing the sound track. I suppose another reason for calling them "mockups" is to remain in a state of grace with the very talented musicians whose livelihoods depend on the work that they do. I'm quite aware (being a professional studio musician myself) of the fact that the digital sampling of musicians cuts off a lot of work for them. (AI cloning of voices is the more current analog to this problem)
These days, the sample-heavy digital mockups sound quite good (never as good as real musicians recorded expensively in a good studio, but good) and are very often mixed in with live recordings in the finished mix. And in the film music work that I've seen, there is zero budget for live recording of any sort, least of all a full orchestra. It's prohibitively expensive to all but very well funded productions. Sadly, much of what you think was recorded in a studio by live musicians is actually not.. well, the samples absolutely were recorded in fine studios by professional (and paid) musicians but we arrange them using the DAW to sound close to live. That's just the reality of the situation. (these orchestral sample libraries are not cheap, but far more cost/time effective for we composers living on a shoestring.
So the guilt is real. I'm not a monster. Having said that, I do harbor a small (ok large) amount of resentment for the doors closed to us plebian composers who have dreams of sweeping scores of lush strings, flourishing woodwinds and blazing brass chorales. I was the first kid in my town to get a 4-track cassette recorder for making songs in my bedroom in the 80s with my CZ-101 synthesizer and guitar, and didn't see the inside of a proper recording studio until I started getting hired after college as a trumpet player. I didn't move to LA to become a film composer as planned. Besides, I wanted to do things my way. I make do with what I can afford. It's either that, or simply never do orchestral music. Period. The last time I had access to a large live ensemble to record was in university and grad school. The moment I graduated, that door closed to me. And I love working with orchestral music too much to just give it up. So I "cheat".
For visuals, I work in digital formats and I carry a little shame in that. But I don't think I should. justification incoming: All of the experimental filmmakers that I'm watching at the festival were using techniques that were made possible by new/old modifications to film cameras and editing equipment. These were once new, such as the ability to select and view the frame number and rewind the film to make multiple exposures, etc. What I'm doing is essentially the same thing, only the digital tech. And I really enjoy it. So that must have some value.
I understand that digital compositing can be seen as cheating, but I see it as simply exploring the uses of existing technology that are available to me and my budget. I like that a lot of wacky shit can be done using open-source software.
For what it's worth, I am currently taking a course in Introductory Video Production with Matthew Koshmrl which I'm really enjoying and learning a lot from. Ever onward!
I don't plan to stop, so I'm silencing that voice in my head and people can (and should) think whatever they want about what is made. I'm just doing stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment