Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdaisy!datanguay
From: datanguay@watdaisy.UUCP (David Tanguay)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: Music in films set in history
Message-ID: <7274@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-May-85 12:53:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7274
Posted: Thu May 23 12:53:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 04:38:33 EDT
References: <759@mtgzz.UUCP> <465@wjvax.UUCP> <775@mtgzz.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21


  Rock (or pop) music is more jarring than orchestral. It draws attention
to itself and away from the movie. The movie's scene, then, must draw
more attention than the music, and to do so the scene must be visually
exciting (frantic, loud - I'm not sure of what word I want). In the
fight scenes of Flash Gordon the music (by Queen) did not overpower the
scenes and seemed (to me) appropriate. This type of scene would by very
rare, however, in a movie set in a (pseudo-)historical setting, and if
pop was used in an appropriate scene in one of these movies, it would
break up the aural continuity of the movie (assuming appropriate music
was used throughout the other, less wild scenes).
  All this closet philosophising (?) aside, I think the *real* reason it
doesn't sound right is because we've all spent 20+ years watching
historical films with an orchestral arrangement, and so we associate
a historical setting with that type of music. Orchestral music was
used initially because that was the type of music that the public would
associate with grandeur (i.e. same reason for all those movies being made
"with a cast of thousands").
  There's my two bits, anyhoooo ...

			Daiv Tanguay