As part of today's feature article on making movies out of still photos, Michael W. and Debra Jean Dean whipped up this funny demonstration of good and bad background music. It contains five brief examples. See if you can figure out why each helps or hurts the presentation. Debra Jean reveals the answer after each segment.
I burst out laughing during a "bad" example and thought one of the "good" examples was weakened by a part that was too loud and repetitive, but it's a fun demo that will open your ears.
Categories
Audio
Comments (4)
Read More Entries by David Battino.
@Jochen:
the pitch-bent, slightly off-beat "I'm-so-stoned-you-won't-believe-it" guitar echo loop in the fourth example almost drove me up the wall.
That's exactly the part I was referring to when I said "too loud and repetitive." I didn't want to compromise the quiz by identifying it first, though. ;-)
Ben, I think you're spot-on about the mood aspect of background music.
In that sense, I don't think the two "good" examples are such great fits for the video, either. In fact, the pitch-bent, slightly off-beat "I'm-so-stoned-you-won't-believe-it" guitar echo loop in the fourth example almost drove me up the wall.
However, I do appreciate it that the speakers did not bark at me. Thanks for that. ;)
@Ben:
It's bad because of its harsh tone (competing with upper mid-range where a lot of sibilance lies in the vocals), and because its mood so poorly matches the program material (fluffy cats).
Very good point. The examples say nothing about the emotion, and the primary role of background music is to make you feel something. Please leave a link if you find some more good and bad examples.
For all the technical introduciton they do, I'm surprised at a fundamental error in analysis: In example #1, it is stated that the music is bad because it "has too much dynamics". Actually, it was almost devoid of dynamics; it was harsh and sustained at an almost constant level. It's bad because of its harsh tone (competing with upper mid-range where a lot of sibilance lies in the vocals), and because its mood so poorly matches the program material (fluffy cats).
Overall, it was amusing, but more tedious and self-indulgent than informative.
-ben