MovieChat Forums > Touch the Sound: A Sound Journey with Evelyn Glennie (2004) Discussion > Music... o.k.

Music... o.k.

posted 18 years ago by candiag
11 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film yesterday and was greatly impressed by the concept of this avante-garde percussionist being followed around by a director/cinematographer and calling it more or less a documentary. And there are some fantastic moments of brilliance throughout this piece. But I was concerned with the fact that very little of the music made any real sense and seemed reflective of a modern art culture that really didn't have any home anymore. That in the hustle, bustle, and thunder of a globalized world, what you're getting is rootless art without any familiarity, cohesion, or relevance to any place, and yet every place at the same time.

You can't question Glennie's genuine and pure curiosity and drive, and her talent for making possible her remarkable experience for sound. And it's not a question of not being on the right track, because clearly she is, I just don't think being different and trying every medium possible is necessarily good enough.

It's the tension of wanting to be "open to everything" as she says, and yet at the same time finding a way to make it matter to anyone. What's her music about? What's she reflecting? And after seeing the film I'm still asking myself, what exactly is her music?

This is where the avante-garde seems to alienate the general public that ought to be, and should be generally interested and fascinated by these things. I'd like to consider myself "open" and "receptive" to the newest and most experimental things, but at the same time being new and experimental isn't good enough. I have to be able to relate to it. And beyond the fantastic idea of playing with as many different musicians as possible, and as many materials as possible, what's it all adding up to?

Good film, and I look forward to whatever she does in the future, I just wish maybe she'd settle down a little and do something anyone may actually recognize as at least hers.

The opening scenes in Grand Central Station moved me to tears, and her work on the vibraphones seemed pretty strong, but her material with Frith was mostly "out there," and her work with the musicians of the world, though interesting just seemed like happy fun time with her in-group musicians.

Worthy stuff for film like anything else, but I wanted to see more of her finished, solid material if she had any.

I think what I'm trying to say is that her work, along with others of her kind seem to push the practical limits of loose improvisation without any real preparation or boundaries. It's fun to say everything's wide open and free, but that can easily wander into aimlessness, irrelevance and general disorganization when it goes too far.

And to the film's credit, Riedelsheimer's visualization and his cinematography are a perfect match with Glennie's music, and maybe they'll give it a go again some day.

In the end I wouldn't change a thing. I just look forward to the next step.

[–] beatrixkidA 18 years ago

This literally is the best review I've ever read on IMDB. Thank you for putting my exact reaction into words. I wanted to feel her same connection to the music she was playing and I couldn't find such exposition or understanding. For a minute the music, that was being played after Roger's house caught on fire, seemed to channel parallel grief or devastation, but if set in real time it obviously wasn't performed after the accident. Anyways, you couldn't have said it better... I too look forward to the next step. bravo

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] f-main 17 years ago

"But as a musician, she is just average. "

You have to be kidding me. She is probably one of the top 5 percussionists in the world...especially her marimba playing, it's phenomenal. She may choose some experimental pieces that I dislike but that doesn't make her less talented as a musician. Youtube has some videos up, including the TED video which I really suggest everybody checks out. I saw her live back when I was around 13 with Michala Petri and she's just phenomenal.

[–] thepartydjz 15 years ago

She is a wonderful musician, however what we have here in this film is over editing to make up for a lack of content. Riedelsheimer used her music as a soundtrack to his less than meaningful cinematography. The end result is "flat", very nice, but lacking in overall theme, the viewer is left with little to nothing to take from this film.

[–] Ieatstopsigns 18 years ago

this and Searching for the wrong Eyed Jesus were my two favorite movies of 2005. I have to disagree with the top 3 posts, I thought the music was beautiful. Her music was "finished" and "solid". I was also improvised and explorational. I agree with you though that the cinematography was beautiful. "But as a musician, she is just average." ??? If you are judging by pure technique, you have to admit that she is a very accomplished musician. If you are judging by creativity and art, you have to admit that her performances are personal and emotional Watch the movie again and see how much emotion she puts in to her (terrific) performances.

[–] rs114-1 18 years ago

This would have been great as part of a movie on three or four people and the special role that music played in their lives. Instead, I found much of it pretentious and self-indulgent. There were moments of beauty that made the film worthwhile. If this material had been edited down to about a half hour, the intensity and focus would have been amazing. I can't imagine actually listening to the CD of the music that she and Fred Frith created in that old building; the process of creating the music was a lot more interesting than the music itself, which meandered in a way that was comprehensible to only the woman, Fred Frith, and maybe some stoned and/or confused college student. And I laughed out loud when she was walking around her family farm (before it burned), making musical sounds out of farm implements. It was like, wow, I'm in this movie, making music out of found objects, so I'd better play the part!

This was just another one of those critic's movies that seems a lot more interesting when you're reading the review than when you're actually watching it. When the critic sat down and wrote the review, they remembered only the good parts, and used their writing skills to describe the story much more coherently than did the filmmakers.

[–] hidoctornick 18 years ago

Actually, if you have experienced the "avant garde" musicians out there, you quickly realize that Evelyn Glennie's music is far more accessible than most.

We are talking about musicians that do nothing but play music, and for a lot of them, the "old" ways of making music are just that -- old. For some folks, playing the piano for 6 hours a day every day is satisfying, but for a lot of people, after a decade or two of that kind of effort, they start to experiment with other ways to stretch their musical boundaries. Glennie has spent the majority of her life playing music constantly, and many of her friends/collaborators have likely done the same thing.

The music they make for themselves is music that THEY find interesting -- and the parts of music that interest them are very different than what interests the casual, or even enthusiastic, music fan. That isn't their fault for alienating some part of their potential audience, nor is it our fault for not being "sophisticated" enough to understand their work. We are simply operating from very different life experiences. That is why Glennie is such a big deal, even if you can't understand it -- to a percussionist, or to another serious musician, she is making vital music.

dls

[–] EightFootManchild 18 years ago

"Actually, if you have experienced the "avant garde" musicians out there, you quickly realize that Evelyn Glennie's music is far more accessible than most."

Seriously. People who can't handle the "weirdness" of her music would probably have a heart-attack after listening to someone like John Zorn or Masami Akita.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vincent-27 18 years ago

I have to comment on the "just average" thing too. At first I thought this was going to be one of those pieces where her music is "pretty good for a deaf person", kind of like the special olympics or something. But then when I heard really play (namely on top of the roof) I was blown away, for anyone who thinks her playing is "average" is either not a musician or very jealous. She is a fantastic percussionist and very skilled marimba player. She played the latter more like a piano at points than the traditional way to play it.

I agree with the statement about her music being "out there", it is in fact very sweet music that is quite tonal for the most part. I think new art-music is moving back to more tonal music after realising the intelectual emptiness of atonal music.

One thing is that I would question somewhat her deafness, she talks about being "almost deaf", it seems she must be able to hear a little bit for her speech is very articulate. Of course, this might be due to her deafness developing at a later age. She is a very courageous and spiritual person however and an inspiration to anyone facing a challenge in their life.

--
"Surrender Dorothy!"

[–] MadPierrot 18 years ago

This movie gave me a headache.... Maybe because we have surround sound and my dad turned it up super freaking loud. Good movie but Im never watching it again because it gave me a massive headache.

They wouldn't put me on a pedestal, so I'm laying them on a slab!