The evolution of movie quality vs. music (Avatar)

[Monobasser]

Go Avatar! Go America!

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by tysonviolin

People don't pay $13 to hear a piece of music once, unless it is live. Music is still live and acting has moved on to movies which isn't. That is the difference. Also, Avatar is super mainstream. It is a very high budget film. Isn't this approach what killed the record industry? Avatar was a great experience, but I saw other films this year that I will see again before I watch Avatar on my TV at home.

I'm sorry, no one has commented on this statement so I have to.

What killed the record industry is 1) Executives making very poor decisions on what american teenagers should be listening to and not knowing when to change.

And 2) PRO TOOLS! When everyone and their mother can afford to buy pro level recording and mixing software, the small, middle of the road and giant recording studio is no longer bringing in the clients then need to compete with overhead. I have personally witnessed at least 30 of Los Angeles' top facilities go down the pooper because they have no clients. From Enterprise I & II, Larabee (pick a direction), Cherokee and dozens others. Those whom are surviving are both lucky and smart, having been able to lure in the remnants of remaining clients boasting low prices or SUPERB client amenities. Everytime there is a new technological change to any big industry this type of cleansing happens. THAT is what happened to the recording industry.

[tapehiss]

i think the reason movie making is going up and music downhill, is just because of the medium..

music only involves the ears.... and is not necessarily an experience that people go out to see...... unless it is a live show......

movies involve both visual and auditory senses, which has the ability to draw more people in........

in my mind, its really that simple......

and the things is, movies will employ the music industry for sound reasons......

but music does not employ the huge film industry....

aside from the dying medium of music videos.

this is all just my opinion... and i thought avatar was groundbreaking!!!!!!!!!!!!! truly an awesome experience of a film!

[tapehiss]

Originally Posted by Big Andy

And 2) PRO TOOLS! When everyone and their mother can afford to buy pro level recording and mixing software, the small, middle of the road and giant recording studio is no longer bringing in the clients then need to compete with overhead. I have personally witnessed at least 30 of Los Angeles' top facilities go down the pooper because they have no clients.

the same could be said for "final cut"..... with $5k, someone could buy a nice camera, a mac, and the final cut software and go out and make a movie............

but these low budget movies are the same as low budget music productions....... they don't get seen or heard by many people! (aside from the rare artistic genius that can create a piece that transcends the medium)

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by peacenik

I think the problem with most big film productions is that the producers think the music has to be a big orchestra to convey the sense of 'this is a big expensive important film' rather then what's appropriate to the story.

Yeah well...uh...it's a pretty big story

Wouldn't work with solo piano, flute and vibes...

TH

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by tapehiss

the same could be said for "final cut"..... with $5k, someone could buy a nice camera, a mac, and the final cut software and go out and make a movie............

but these low budget movies are the same as low budget music productions....... they don't get seen or heard by many people! (aside from the rare artistic genius that can create a piece that transcends the medium)

Exactly. A lot of people are doing things for themselves. They won't care if their drums were recorded at Cello or in their brothers garage. Just as a lot of film makers are just making $80 short films so they can live out a childhood dream of "being a film maker". It is for themselves that these things are made. However, you can't make a movie with a FC system alone. You can cut it, but that's it. But you can make a song using PTs or Cubase or whatever and you don't need much else.

The fact that you can make semi decent sounding music out of samples and a Korg is 90% of the reason Rap has remained so huge for the last 5 yrs when most believed it should fade a bit. You don't need a studio, you don't even need a good singer. It is cheap and (I know this will offend some) easy to make. So when you eliminate the middle man (studios) you are destroying a large part of the industry. HOWEVER, music is still there, it's just people are board with it. When instrumental music becomes a larger staple again, and I'm sure it will, the studio gigs will obviously pick up too. How many "real" bands were even spoke of at the Grammys. LOL.... that is the state of music.

Sorry this is a tangent from this thread.

[peacenik]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Yeah well...uh...it's a pretty big story
Wouldn't work with solo piano, flute and vibes...

TH

Yea... ONLY a big standard Hollywood formula orchestra can make a big quality sound that could represent action on an alien planet...

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by peacenik

Yea... ONLY a big standard Hollywood formula orchestra can make a big quality sound that could represent action on an alien planet...

What would you represent it with? "Matrix" rock "hip" score? That seems to be the alternative nowadays...traditional approach or the "Look how hip we are" approach.

It's tough on a big picture with big emotions and big scope to reach too much...alternative approaches work best in films that don't have 120dbs of sound efx working against the score.

Offbeat electronic scores as in the original "Andromeda Strain" are refreshingly unexpected, but the expectations of the films are totally different.

I'm not a fan of the score to "Avatar" but not because live orchestra is used, with it's inevitable weight, it's just not a memorable score IMHO, and could have been.

TH

[DynaForte]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

Music today is over saturated with "clarity". Avatar is a good example of media these days. Everyone who talks about the movie talks about the visual effects and clarity. Nobody mentions the storyline, acting, depth, or anything else.

What storyline?
What acting?
What depth?
What else was there?

[the_man361]

a comment earlier about how nobody (much) listens to surround sound music or mixes music specifically for surround (with exceptions of special editions and dvd releases) got me thinking about that area..

imo theres a fair bit of growth to be had in speaker setups with more than 2 speakers, but theres a problem that its difficult for average joe to set up and also its a bit of a hassle. many houses might not be very accommodating when it comes to setting up a 5.1 system in a room, and im thinking of setups further down the line than 5.1, like ones that make use of the vertical space etc..

with regards to music mixed in 5.1, would it be feasible that somebody will develop a binaural encoder? this would be a system that analyses a surround mix of audio and encodes it into a stereo mix, retaining the positional information.. i say this because ive heard recordings done with binaural mics that give excellent (scarily) positional information when listened to with headphones on.. you can pinpoint sounds infront, behind, above, below etc, all around the head.. it can be recorded, and thus it can be heard, so can it be encoded from a surround mix?

[Jfriah]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

Music today is over saturated with "clarity". Avatar is a good example of media these days. Everyone who talks about the movie talks about the visual effects and clarity. Nobody mentions the storyline, acting, depth, or anything else.

My own personal two cents:
don't even get me going on storyline, acting, depth... (what, 'depth of field' in terms of 3D? awesome! chuckle.....)

despite the fact it will likely win most things nominated for at the Academy Awards.
Jeff

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Originally Posted by Big Andy

I'm sorry, no one has commented on this statement so I have to.

What killed the record industry is 1) Executives making very poor decisions on what american teenagers should be listening to and not knowing when to change.

And 2) PRO TOOLS! When everyone and their mother can afford to buy pro level recording and mixing software, the small, middle of the road and giant recording studio is no longer bringing in the clients then need to compete with overhead. I have personally witnessed at least 30 of Los Angeles' top facilities go down the pooper because they have no clients. From Enterprise I & II, Larabee (pick a direction), Cherokee and dozens others. Those whom are surviving are both lucky and smart, having been able to lure in the remnants of remaining clients boasting low prices or SUPERB client amenities. Every time there is a new technological change to any big industry this type of cleansing happens. THAT is what happened to the recording industry.

All facets of music from playing, to recording, to mixing, to mastering are going down hill fast. Much of it is because of the rise of the "home" studio and much of it is from people not caring about really learning how to play their instrument(s) or learning how to really record and mix. They are saying to themselves "hey if it doesn't work I can always "Protool" it and make it sound anyway I want it to sound. Then when I mix it down I will add multiple plug ins on every channel and it will make me sound GREAT." Some musicians, having been told since they started banging on the piano at age two that they were GREAT, think that everything they play is great, everything they record is great, and everything the mix down is great. Many of them cannot do ANY self critiquing and since there is no collaboration anymore (one person does everything) they get a warped sense of how good they really are. Couple this with the internet where you can post anything no matter how good and you have a generation that thinks that because they are on YouTube they have arrived and they are now a "professional" musician.

There is also the problem of people not having as much disposable income and when they do spend it they want to get more bang for the buck and will purchase a DVD or Game before a new CD since they can download the music either legally or illegally off the WWW.

Besides doing post I also do mastering. I get a lot of clients who do wonderful music that is well written, well played, well recorded and mixed and I do my darnedest to make sure it sounds GREAT when it leaves here. I also get a lot of musicians that have created a "turd" and want that "turd" to sound "professional and polished. I have learned over the years how to polish a "turd" with the best of them but when I get done it is still a polished "turd" and their are still problems with it that should have been fixed early on. I try very carefully to suggest some things for the next time but some peoples egos are very fragile and don't take well to any suggestions that their music or their production is not 100%.

Sometimes I hear pure musical genius that is being masked by a poor production and I want to cry because if the client would only reach out to someone that really knew what they were doing in recording and mixing they would be the new hot performer. Their trying to do everything themselves is basically ruining their chances for success.

I am very good in lots of things but when I need something done that I have no expertise in I turn to an another professional and let him or her do their magic. I know my limitations.

Music has, in many ways, lost the ability to communicate with the listener and only when that communications is re-established will there be an upsurge in music sales. I think the last album that really blew me away was Paul Simon's "Graceland". I know the first time I heard it I had to have it in my collection. It was brilliant and every song on it was GREAT. At the other end of the spectrum is "Californication" by the RHCPs and to my ears is more noise and distortion than music. I cannot listen to it for over a minute. IMHO that kind of production value is a big part of what is driving a lot of people away from music and into films and videos.

As to Avatar. One of the best films I have seen in recent memory. I saw it both in 2D and 3D and liked both of them for different reasons. My favorite was the 3D as I felt more immersed in it. It did what I think James Cameron wanted it to do and that was provide an escape from our lives to an alien world for a couple of hours and no matter how predictable the underlying story line was it was an engrossing movie. The visuals were as close to perfect as modern FX and CGI can get them and the music, although not fantastic, complimented the movie on many different levels. The sound was very well done and the whole experience was mind blowing. The one effect that completely blew me away was in the 3 D version when the "fire flies" and the seed pods were dancing about and I almost felt as if I could reach out and touch one - that was truly amazing.

Good topic! but there are no real answers. It is just a fork in the long road of music and film and this same subject is probably being discussed on 10 more forums at the same time and will be discussed ad nauseam for decades to come or until 2012.... <GRIN>

[joeq]

IMO, this thread should not have been moved to the Post Production forum.

the topic of the thread is comparing 'quality' of movie production vs stand-alone music, and should be of general interest to all who make music. The sound-for-picture aspect is mentioned almost incidentally .

[jimlongo]

Avatar aside . . . Music playback will only get to the level of 3D movie-making when people start paying $20 to go sit in a huge calibrated specially designed room that exists for the purposes of listening to recorded music.

If movies were only watched on TV we wouldn't have the level of technology we see in movies.

If music was only listened to on earbuds - oh wait that is the case - then we'd only get technology to suit the playback medium.

[postprosound]

I liked Avatar. I thought that although it both lacked a story line, and was predictable, it was entertaining. Sure, it lacked substance, but i had no misconceptions that it was going to have it. This movie was and is most assuredly, an amusement park ride, albeit with a 450 million budget, where you paid your money, stood in line, got on, had huge fun, ended back where you started, then went out for mexican food. It's just not fair to this movie, or movies with a serious plot to compare them, or to expect the same things out of them. It would be like driving an Enzo Ferrari, and complaining that it doesn't have trunk space or you can't take the kids to soccer practice; that's not the point of a movie like this. Take it for what it is, and move on. The obvious thing is to balance this type of over the top film with something that has decent acting, a story, or a plot. The trouble with many today is that this is the pinnacle of movie making, and look down on good story and the like. Oh well, at least this type of movie keeps those of in the business working... what are you going to do.

I do think that you do have to give Cameron and the other producers props for being able to put a film of this size and complexity (from a technical and logistical point of view) together, and making something that wasn't a complete train wreck. It was a feat, that's for sure.

I also don't think that dumbing down is not limited to just 'eye candy' type movies. It happens on the other side of the spectrum as well. For instance, why is it that if a film has average acting, editing, and writing, but has controversial subject matter, it is hugely lauded? Pleas understand that I'm not trying to make any political or moral judgements or statements for or against any certain issue. But ask yourself, are films of this nature that great, or are they riding high on the subject alone? Has that 'bright lights and fancy FX' of Avatar taken the form of the controversial subject in these movies? Are controversial movies the 'summer FX blockbusters' of the intellectuals or socially minded? I think we have all seen the movie that spoke of some semi-taboo subject, that was at best ok, but not great, that was eaten up emperor's-new-clothes-style with both fork and spoon. I could be wrong, but, makes you think....

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

Music today is over saturated with "clarity". Avatar is a good example of media these days. Everyone who talks about the movie talks about the visual effects and clarity. Nobody mentions the storyline, acting, depth, or anything else.

cause those things sucked

storyline= pocahontas

music=conventional filmscoring buried by sfx

acting= so so

anything else= nope, good vfx and partially, beowolf and final fantasy spirits within where almost as good 10 years ago, only thing different was that avatar did not cgi humans which was the bad part of the aformentioned flixs.

i just didnt like it that much. it was just ok for me.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Big Andy

I'm sorry, no one has commented on this statement so I have to.

What killed the record industry is 1) Executives making very poor decisions on what american teenagers should be listening to and not knowing when to change.

And 2) PRO TOOLS! When everyone and their mother can afford to buy pro level recording and mixing software, the small, middle of the road and giant recording studio is no longer bringing in the clients then need to compete with overhead. I have personally witnessed at least 30 of Los Angeles' top facilities go down the pooper because they have no clients. From Enterprise I & II, Larabee (pick a direction), Cherokee and dozens others. Those whom are surviving are both lucky and smart, having been able to lure in the remnants of remaining clients boasting low prices or SUPERB client amenities. Everytime there is a new technological change to any big industry this type of cleansing happens. THAT is what happened to the recording industry.

nope,

thats not it

what killed record industry was/is the tech boom. kids used to spend their expendable income in music. (grown ups too!) now in what does everyone spend?
iphones, blackberrys, pdas, dvds, video game consoles, small video game consoles,
software, computers etc.

all of the above contain music, but the consumer wants the content for free.

you could argue that pirated music also is at fault and i believe its true but just a portion. most of it is consumer spending has shift.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by postprosound

I liked Avatar. I thought that although it both lacked a story line, and was predictable, it was entertaining. Sure, it lacked substance, but i had no misconceptions that it was going to have it. This movie was and is most assuredly, an amusement park ride, albeit with a 450 million budget, where you paid your money, stood in line, got on, had huge fun, ended back where you started, then went out for mexican food. It's just not fair to this movie, or movies with a serious plot to compare them, or to expect the same things out of them. It would be like driving an Enzo Ferrari, and complaining that it doesn't have trunk space or you can't take the kids to soccer practice; that's not the point of a movie like this. Take it for what it is, and move on. The obvious thing is to balance this type of over the top film with something that has decent acting, a story, or a plot. The trouble with many today is that this is the pinnacle of movie making, and look down on good story and the like. Oh well, at least this type of movie keeps those of in the business working... what are you going to do.

I do think that you do have to give Cameron and the other producers props for being able to put a film of this size and complexity (from a technical and logistical point of view) together, and making something that wasn't a complete train wreck. It was a feat, that's for sure.

I...

agree on this part, dunno about the rest.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Monobasser

Go Avatar! Go America!

im not 100% sure but almost all the vfx and most of the movie was done in new Zealand.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Am I the only one who thinks that while the faces of the CGI humanoids is better than previous CGI faces, that the body movement seems awkwardly marionette-like?

I'll admit, I haven't seen the full movie in the theatre in 3D, so I whatever immersive qualities it has that may induce suspension of disbelief were probably lost on me, but from the high rez trailers I've seen, while it's clearly some of the best CGI yet, and the backgrounds (of what I've seen) seemed truly quite spectacular, the body movement, arms, legs, torsos, head, it all seemed oddly stiff and puppet-like.

As I wrote a while back, if the movie has a poetic emotional sweep and artistic vision, then it can probably soar above whatever limitations I note... but from many if not most of the reports back from folks I've talked to who saw the movie in a 3D theatre, while they mostly felt it was properly spectacular, the story and characters seemed to leave viewers more divided on whether or not they matched up to the technical innovations.


And back to the question implicit in the OP, the economic returns on big selling movies dwarf those on most records -- and it's a little easier to make good predictions about what movies will hit big than which albums will.

Also, I think many of the same processes are at work...

The drive is to be able to make movies and records more cheaply as well as to 'control the quality' more tightly in order to minimize marketing uncertainty. Virtualization and new editing techniques have revolutionized both in different, but somewhat parallel ways.

its true! the body movement is wierd. but the good thing and very clever is that the cgi characters where only the aliens and not the humans, which was the problem with great movies like final fantasy and beowolf that the vfx where almost as good and was ten years ago! the issue with those movies was the cgi persons that was a huge turn off.

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

nope,

thats not it

what killed record industry was/is the tech boom. kids used to spend their expendable income in music. (grown ups too!) now in what does everyone spend?
iphones, blackberrys, pdas, dvds, video game consoles, small video game consoles,
software, computers etc.

all of the above contain music, but the consumer wants the content for free.

you could argue that pirated music also is at fault and i believe its true but just a portion. most of it is consumer spending has shift.

LoL, yeah, actually that is the largest reason. Pirated music played almost 0 roll in the decimation of music, and while I agree that teens started spending a portion of their money elsewhere.... that is also because good music was not being made. The first 12 yrs of the "Rap culture" where some of the most lucrative in the life of music. It was a new sound that people wanted to have. So what changed..... NOTHING, the "urban" styled music has been the main market for the Record industry for nearly 25 yrs. and it has changed very very little. People lost interest in it a while ago and stopped buying it. But, the studios died not because kids weren't spending money, but because the labels weren't. Why spend money on Music Production when clients can do that at home. That's why nearly every label is dead.

But we could argue this for hours, so lets just agree to disagree. I promise the industry will pick up for music people again someday, it may look different.... but it will.

I am not taking away from your point here. I do think the allocation of money has changed, but there are underlying reasons for that. And a Movie is still a movie... just as theater is still theater. People want the experience. There aren't many bands that give that experience anymore. Thrice made a great record 15months ago. Otherwise, CCR, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd even the Beetles told a story.

[gmarinov]

don't burn me but i actually liked avatar. the execution is great, and the story line is great for kids it sends a strong message to the growing generation, in a very accessible form, if a tad too late.

regarding music, i think music does advance, but the change is not as obvious (pardon the pun), actually music advanced a lot a while back, so now the pace of advancing is significantly slower than, say, film (or 3d, or software, or mobile experience). music has been with us for ever, while plays and storytelling have appeared later, and film itself is comparatively very young.

the difference in format is significant. a movie is essentially a recording, played in a theatre. the equivalent in music experience is more like watching at home. even at their largest, home screens won't match the sight and sound of the movie theatre. in music terms the closest to a big screen movie is a live performance, but they don't play that 4-5 times a day over an entire month.. simultaneously in thousands of theatres all over the world.

maybe as a whole the average quality of music these days is lower (and this remains purely subjective), but there is still a lot of great music out there and at least once a year there is a release that either breaks new ground, or just shines with great content and perfect production.

i think the problem is that we're exposed to too much pop nowadays. too much noise, less signal.

the other thing is, for most people music is generally linked to their youth. commercial productions seem to be aimed at young people, whose attention deficit comes in useful for the producers.

personally i'd love to find more surround systems in people's homes, but ask the people who thought having yet another format war (ac3 vs dts) was good. while at that, maybe question why surround sound codecs bear such licensing costs.

on the whole, i think after all this time music has managed to match our emotional system pretty well. i'm inclined to think that, in terms of content, to further develop the field would first require us to evolve our emotional spectrum.

[monads]

Originally Posted by Monobasser

Go Avatar! Go America!

LOL. I haven't seen the movie in theaters nor will I. Perhaps I'll miss that rollercoaster ride but when I researched the story before it's release I was disappointed. It was nothing new, seemed all special effects to dazzle the viewer. And then when I read some critic reviews placing Avatar as one of the greatest movies of all time in a category with Kubrick/Clarke's 2001??!! Well, that was the end of it for me.

[markblasco]

Well, if you look at it another way, music technology and creation has been advancing just as fast. You can play a guitar through a virtual amp, add on some sampled drums, and tune up a mediocre singer, and if done well, you wouldn't be able to tell that there wasn't a real amp, drum kit, or pro singer involved in the production. 5 years ago these things were easy to pick out because they didn't sound so good, and 10 years ago you didn't really see them at all.

The level of realism that is coming out of virtual instruments is getting scary, in the same way that the realism of computer generated imagery in the movies is getting better and better each year.

Now, as for the playback experience changing, that just isn't likely to happen, because while most people will gladly sit for 2 hours to watch a movie, it is rare to see someone sit down for 2 hours to listen to music. I know that some of us here will do it, but your average person wants the music to be in the background, not the foreground.

I think the fact that home theater is becoming so popular means that surround sound music will start to be seen a little more often, but that's never going to be a significant percentage of the music that is released.

Unfortunately, what is going on right now in the film world and being heralded as a great breakthrough is similar to what has happened over the last decade with music - the tools to create it get more advanced, fewer real people are required to get a story across, and once everyone is able to get a hold of the tools, everything starts to sound the same. The big difference is that in film, there are so many people and the cost is so huge, the production companies look a lot harder at the bottom line before putting their product out there. If 1 out of 10 albums does well, the record company is doing just fine. If 1 out of 10 films does well, the production company goes out of business. This gives the film companies an incentive to not just copy everything else that is out there.