Help identify this song. [Archive]

Thomas Regin

11-05-2006, 08:49 AM

What is that famous, dark piece of classical music that has been emulated dozens of times that utilizes a chorus?

A short snippet can be found between 6:27 - 6:34 of the "Mona Lisa Overdrive" cue from Matrix Reloaded.
John Williams references it in "Duel of the Fates" for Episode I. :confused:

Any ideas?

I'm not sure, of course, but I have two possible suggestions:

1. It might be Gustav Holst - Mars (from "The Planets Suite")

2. Since you mention a choir I think it's more likely to be Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana".

I found a bad quality version of the latter: http://www.anos60.com/outros/carl_orff_carmina_burana.wma

The "famous part" begins at about 25 seconds into the song.

Thomas.

Ranietz

11-05-2006, 09:16 AM

Is it this part you're asking about? The choir kicks in at 10 sek.
WhatIsThis.mp3 (http://sforfa.home.online.no/WhatIsThis.mp3)

I'm curious about this myself. Anyone knows?

I'm not sure how legal it is to put up this file so if anyone has a problem with it I'll take it down...

-Ranietz-

Pietro

11-05-2006, 09:53 AM

I don't know what's the piece, but the choir sings "Kyrie Eleison", so I suppose it's an excerpt from a mass. And... i think Gustav Holst and Carl Orff just went home ;)

Thomas Regin

11-05-2006, 10:29 AM

I don't know what's the piece, but the choir sings "Kyrie Eleison", so I suppose it's an excerpt from a mass. And... i think Gustav Holst and Carl Orff just went home ;)

Obviously.. But without hearing the music first, I think they were pretty good suggestions! :p

/thomas.

Michael W

11-05-2006, 11:42 AM

I can be wrong but it sounds not like a classical mass or similar. And references between this piece and Duel of the Fates are by accident. I think it's composed for matrix without special references. "Kyrie Eleison" is a very often used phrase. It must not be from a mass.
If there is a reference anyway, i don't know :)

biggestmuff

11-06-2006, 02:56 PM

I'm not sure, of course, but I have two possible suggestions:

1. It might be Gustav Holst - Mars (from "The Planets Suite")

2. Since you mention a choir I think it's more likely to be Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana".

I found a bad quality version of the latter: http://www.anos60.com/outros/carl_orff_carmina_burana.wma

The "famous part" begins at about 25 seconds into the song.

Thomas.
Thanks for all the suggestions!

Thomas, you got it with Cal Orff's "Carmina Burana". Okay, I was WAY off on my references. :o It was slightly different than what I remembered, but that's the song. http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I forgot to mention in my first post, but Danny Elfman lifts this for a cue in "Batman". It's almost dead on, too. Check out the cue "Descent into Mystery". ;)

biggestmuff

11-06-2006, 03:06 PM

I don't know what's the piece, but the choir sings "Kyrie Eleison", so I suppose it's an excerpt from a mass. And... i think Gustav Holst and Carl Orff just went home ;)

Alright, I'll be honest. I've heard this a few times, but never realized the meaning of what the choir is chanting. I jsut assumed it was a commonly used vocalization without meaning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrie

In Reloaded, the choir chants, "Kyrie, Kyrie eleison". That just adds more to the religious overtones of the films.

Thomas Regin

11-06-2006, 04:24 PM

Thanks for all the suggestions!

Thomas, you got it with Cal Orff's "Carmina Burana". Okay, I was WAY off on my references. :o It was slightly different than what I remembered, but that's the song. http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I forgot to mention in my first post, but Danny Elfman lifts this for a cue in "Batman". It's almost dead on, too. Check out the cue "Descent into Mystery". ;)

Hey there..

Glad I could help! :)

Thomas.

biggestmuff

11-06-2006, 11:11 PM

I picked up a 2-channel CD version of Carmina Burana this evening. The recording is decent. It's not the best, but not horrible. I'm amazed that there are only two tracks that really stand out; the first two. The rest of the album is very plain and uneventful. I thought there would be more substance to it since it is referenced in film soo much.

Orff doesn't come off one of the great composers. To me, it seems like someone not into classical music would enjoy the songs, but a purist would deem the songs to be mediocre. I don't know anything about Orff, but is this a trend with the modern classical composers (to include Holst)? One great hit, then avereage works the rest of their lives?:confused:

nickysnd

11-07-2006, 06:25 AM

is this a trend with the modern classical composers (to include Holst)? One great hit, then avereage works the rest of their lives?:confused:
Not at all. There are many amazing composers in the 20th century: Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ligeti, etc. ...

Comparing with the mentioned composers, Orff is a pygmy :p . Carmina Burana is a mediocre work - its popularity is an exclusive creation of the audience, there is little musical value in that piece, if at all. It's a pop hit, it has nothing to do with the value of the composer. Orff is a one hit wonder, and pop hits are huge mysteries to me. I can understand the popularity of Ravel's Bolero, as it's an astonishing listening experience and the score reveals incredible wonders inside, but Carmina Burana??... It's just a little more than an average hip hop hit.

0.02 :)

audiochild

11-07-2006, 11:45 AM

Not at all. There are many amazing composers in the 20th century: Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, Sibelius, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ligeti, etc. ...

Comparing with the mentioned composers, Orff is a pygmy :p . Carmina Burana is a mediocre work - its popularity is an exclusive creation of the audience, there is little musical value in that piece, if at all. It's a pop hit, it has nothing to do with the value of the composer. Orff is a one hit wonder, and pop hits are huge mysteries to me. I can understand the popularity of Ravel's Bolero, as it's an astonishing listening experience and the score reveals incredible wonders inside, but Carmina Burana??... It's just a little more than an average hip hop hit.

0.02 :)

absolutely true. the main thing is the comedy effect. its a comedy.

Thomas Regin

11-07-2006, 04:32 PM

Carmina Burana is a mediocre work - its popularity is an exclusive creation of the audience

Nicky,

Not that I disagree with you, but isn't that particular phrasing true with any piece of music that gets popular? :P

Anyway.. Seen from a strictly "average consumer" point of view there were many "one-hit-wonder"-composers back then. To name a few:

1. Mendelsohn wrote 12 symphonies, a couple of piano concertos and who knows what else. And the ONLY piece the "average listener" knows is the wedding march. In my eyes (ears?) that makes him a one-hit-wonder.

2. Mussorgsky wrote a truckload of different pieces and the only one that ever really caught the public's attention was "Pictures at an exhibition".

3. Vittorio Monti had a "one-hit-wonder" with "Czardas".

4. Danish composer Jacob Gade wrote lots of stuff and ended up with one of the world's most played songs ever: "Tango Jalousie". A piece that everyone knows, but they've probably never heard about the composer. That's another one-hit-wonder. It's rumoured to be played somewhere in the world (hopefully not the same place) every 2 seconds 24/7/365.

5. Albinoni wrote about 50 operas and the only piece people recognize him by is his "Adagio in G minor".

6. Couperin was nearly as productive as Bach and yet only his "Les Barricades Mysterieuses" (which happens to be one of my all time favorite classical pieces) ended up being remembered by the general public.

Just to name a few! ;)

/thomas.

nickysnd

11-07-2006, 05:59 PM

Seen from a strictly "average consumer" point of view there were many "one-hit-wonder"-composers back then. To name a few: ...
Mendelssohn, Mussorgski, Albinoni, Couperin (can't speak for the other two), are great masters of composition. Especially Mendelssohn is a marvelous composer, among the greatest of all time. And I think he has many popular pieces, but I ain't have the statistics... ;) Mussorgski has written little in his short life, but what a heavy, brilliant and inovative stuff - and he was very influential in the development of European music.

By "one hit wonder" I meant a composer that didn't confirm in terms of musical accomplishment - a mediocrity that wrote mostly rubbish and one hit. Which doesn't apply to afore mentioned composers.

It's not the popularity of one piece that makes the value of a composer. Fortunately! :) As I said, the audiences pick up their hits in a very misterious way that puzzles me almost every time. Even Ravel's Bolero - Ravel wasn't very proud of it, and indeed his other pieces are many classes above. (although the Bolero itself is light years above Carmina Burana :p )

Peterkjones

11-07-2006, 09:05 PM

Yes, totally agree about the dreadfully popular Carmina Burana. Also, though I know I shouldn't bring extra-musical considerations to bear, I can't get past the fact that it was one of Hitler's favourite works. So busy condemning Mendelssohn and Mahler as degenerate (because Jewish) he fell for what is no more than fascistic rabble-rousing. 'nuff said. And what about poor old Max Bruch - that heart-stopping violin concerto, and perhaps the double piano concerto but what of the rest of his prodigious out-put? Sic Iransit Gloria Mundi (what's that in Votox?)

Counterpoint

11-14-2006, 12:20 PM

Carmina Burana is a mediocre work - its popularity is an exclusive creation of the audience, there is little musical value in that piece, if at all.

I don't find anything "unmusical" about Carmina Burana, how do you arrive at this conclusion? Actually, I quite like this work.

I can't get past the fact that it was one of Hitler's favourite works.

So Hitler's opinion is the be-all-end-all deciding factor for you? Hey, the guy was supposedly a vegetarian too... maybe you should never eat vegetables again either.

---

I can completely understand when someone expresses their opinion. Saying "I don't like Orff because his music does nothing for me" is fine, but making blanket statements and dragging Hitler into it is ridiculous. Either that or I'm missing the joke here...

- Matt

nikolas

11-14-2006, 01:00 PM

Nicky,

I fear that you are trying to pass your opinion as a fact, which is not really right to do, now, is it?

I understand perfectly what you mean with one-hit wonder and I do agree with you, but well... Carmina Burana is a work that I do quite enjoy :-/ I do feel though that it does work as a pop hit! It definately does.

And of course, if you sit ad think about it, how many composers do we know that have many works known to the wide public?

Ok Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are ok. Vivaldi? 4 Seasons and nothing else! Brahms? Nothing really :S (although Iquite like No. 2 and 4 symphonies, the deutsche requiem, sonata for violin and piano, the concerto for violin), still every work is realtively unknown, compaired to the 5th by Beethvoen or Carmina Burana. Mendelson? He IS unknown to the wide public apart fom the wedding march. Grieg? He's a 2 hit wonder really! Piano concerto and peer gynt suite!

I would never think of Orff as a great composer I'm afraid. Or Holst for that matter :S (SOrry... sorry ... sorry...)

Other than that don't care if Hitler fancied the work and really the known part of Carmina Burana (which either way is not a composition of Orff really), is quite nice. Epic and all! YAY!

nickysnd

11-14-2006, 03:24 PM

the known part of Carmina Burana (which either way is not a composition of Orff really)
What do you mean exactly?

nikolas

11-14-2006, 03:30 PM

Can I hide from somewhere please?

Is there a place to hide my shame?

Never mind maybe?

Please?

Nicky, my friend? Will you forget my stupidity?

I was alwasy under the impression that the poems that Orff used, where also meldoised i nthe past, and that he stole the medieval melodies of the songs... :S

As I said, never mind?

nickysnd

11-14-2006, 05:36 PM

Maybe you are very close to the truth - it's not impssible that Orff have used some medieval melodies, just to make it sound more authentic... In fact the cell of that famous barbaric/satanistic/fascist/hitleristical :D section is a three neighbour notes motiv repeated ad nauseam. :p

audiochild

11-14-2006, 06:04 PM

I think the main reason that so many people like it is that thematically its a kind of opera thing -love, sex, flirt, get drunk, well the things that appeal to many people easily.
and some "funny" parts. if you could understand this "old" german they sing you would crack up because it sounds so silly.
I also think its very poor musically but well, everybody remembers the first two pages.
I think many people who are not into classical music at all take their families and go listening to this thinking they get some "culture".
I still think orffs intention was not to write a masterpiece but a kind of comedy maybe even a little satirical. theres a lot of irony inside pointing at the "seriousity" of previous works.

btw if you reduce mendelssohn to the wedding march you can also reduce brahms to the lullaby, mozart to the magic flute and maybe don giovanni or the figaro (again, love, sex, get drunk... drama...) or even bach to the well tempered piano or the art of the fugue though you'll hardly find lots of people who could actually be able to sing or play a single theme out of them.

compared to all this orff isnt really much.

Peterkjones

11-15-2006, 09:53 AM

Well, Counterpoint, I did preface my remarks by saying I probably shouldn’t let extra-musical considerations cloud my judgment, thereby acknowledging the fault, but I’m not sure it’s completely silly. Vegetarianism and a toothbrush moustache are life-style choices – being a National Socialist isn’t, really. I’m not sure we can divorce any work of art entirely from the social, political, religious and philosophical circumstances under which it was created (I’m not making a sweeping generalisation – I’m just not sure). Leni Reifenstahl was undoubtedly one of the greatest cinematographers of the pre-war period – does that make Triumph of the Will any more palatable? Albert Speer was clearly a great architect in the Roman Totalitarian style he so worshipped – would that have made the cities he would have inflicted on Europe and more acceptable? Debate still rages as to the quality of Shostakovich’s output as between Lady Macbeth of Mstensk and the 5th Symphony after his accommodation with Stalin. Some people can’t get past Wagner’s virulent anti-Semitism, and Richard Strauss went to his death haunted by his compromises. The Nazi taste in art was thoroughly debased, witness the artists rounded up and denounced as degenerate (whose works were secretly hoarded by the Party, thereby giving the lie) and the preposterous rubbish with which they filled their galleries and squares. I don’t think we have any trouble having an opinion of those. In feeling, as I do, that Carmina Burana is truly second-rate, it’s not just the rabble-rousing nature of the music, but the reactionary, cod-mediaeval, dog-latin, sub-Nietzschean, “Joy Through Strength” message of his words which stick in the throat even as one sings them. Compare it, if you will, to George Lloyd’s wonderfully exuberant cantata “The Vigil of Venus.” Orff’s whole piece seems completely infected with a “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” sensibility. I humbly acknowledge that I’m being silly, but I do think it’s a debate worth having. What does anyone else think?

Counterpoint

11-15-2006, 11:54 AM

Hi Peterkjones,

Well, Counterpoint, I did preface my remarks by saying I probably shouldn’t let extra-musical considerations cloud my judgment, thereby acknowledging the fault, but I’m not sure it’s completely silly.

Now you've brought something interesting to the table.. I think what set me off about your first post is that you didn't really present any of these concepts with your statement. It just appeared that you were saying that you don't like the work because of someone else's opinion.

I agree that it's important to understand the situation in which the work was created. Don't you find it a bit interesting though that some of the critics at that time did want to ban Carmina Burana, branding it as "morally offensive"?

What I'm not sure of is where Orff fits in with the "Nazi mindset" regarding art. I mean, he didn't write the text, he just set it to music... so he can't be credited with the material itself, only the presentation of it. I havn't found any mention yet of whether or not Orff himself ever branded the arts of others as "degenerate". After the war, he claimed to be part of an anti-Nazi resistence (but all we have is his word). There is no absolute proof for what really happened. As we move farther away in time, the facts become speculation... and even if Orff himself had said something, who knows if he really meant it? People say all kinds of things depending on the situation and the sort of person they are.

I'm not sure that I understand your "rabble-rousing" comment with regard to Carmina Burana. I havn't found any references to the music actually inciting people to do anything. Certainly not like Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" that actually caused a riot during its first performance.

This all brings up many questions in my mind (many of which have been discussed elsewhere):

What exactly constitutes a "second-rate composer"? Is there a technical justification for this? Is it "badly written" because millions of people embraced it and made it into a "pop icon"? Did Orff knowingly follow some "magic formula" to churn this out and become an overnight hit? If he's truly not worth mentioning, then why is there a chapter on him in my music history book?

- Matt

nickysnd

11-15-2006, 10:29 PM

the reactionary, cod-mediaeval, dog-latin, sub-Nietzschean, “Joy Through Strength”
I agree with the other points (some great points that I wouldn't have considered), but please - leave Nietzsche alone. He was misinterpreted enough. He was used by the nazis but he really was an anti-anti-Semite (after he got very ill, he was even used by his wicked sister who was the real anti-Semite). Quoted out of their context, some of Nietzsche's strong statements may sound weird and look like having the opposite meaning that was intended. I agree that he has his exaggerations, on women, on Germans (almost an anti-German, and quite consistently. Now why isn't that a crime? :) )

Like everybody else, I used to "know" Fred Nietzsche :p from surgical extracted quotes and from common opinion. I was totally wrong about him. During the last couple of years I have read four of his books, and my opinion has changed completely. "The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music" is a foundational book. Brilliant. But what I have especially enjoyed was "The Gay Science" - it did break all my misconceptions on the "nietzsche-an" concepts of power, nihilism, Ubermensch (hmm..., overman), virtue, herd, etc.

His spiritual love/hate relation with Wagner is also very interesting (Nietzsche was a fairly good composer, quite romantic, albeit a bit naive - I heard some of his pieces). And "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is a magnificent book, poetry of the best kind. I wish I could also grasp the philosophy of it, but it works great at the poetry level.

Edit - Couldn't resist, just two quotes:

"Morality is herd instinct in the individual." (The Gay Science)
Now - what mother would teach her son this? :p But within the book context it does make a lot of sense, that's exactly what morality is.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." (The Dawn)
That's my favorite one. I presume the nazis have cut this out (and many others like this :) )

Peterkjones

11-16-2006, 03:19 AM

Well. Some good things to take on board. I don’t think Orff is not worth mentioning – he’s sparked off some mentions here! – but I do think he’s second rate [rank?] and by rabble-rousing I mean that dangerous power that some polemic/music has to rouse a mass of people to a level of unthinking approval which can lead who-knows-where. Rouget de Lisle knew all about that with La Marsellaise. And I don’t think an artist can necessarily be able to rise above that. I think of what one would have said to poor old Edward Elgar, that most complicated of Englishmen at once ebullient and insecure, sensitive and abrupt, melancholic and depressive. For those who don’t know him, he wrote a series of grand symphonic marches at the turn of the 19thC called “Pomp and Circumstance”. The title is taken from that other great English melancholic William Shakespeare. It comes from a piercingly affecting speech which muses on the vanity and evanescence of all temporal power, and the inevitable destruction of all forms of ceremony and pomp and circumstance. Thus Elgar used those great sad tunes in the Trio section of the marches to give a valedictory salute to the end of Empire. Having reluctantly agreed to allow Benson to set one of them to the words Land of Hope and Glory, imagine how galling it must have been for that most passionate of war-haters and German-lovers, to see the work expropriated to become a second National (ist?) Anthem, destined to bring a tear to the eye of every war-monger and British National Party member. Thankfully he didn’t live to see it culminate in that tub-thumping, yes – rabble-rousing, flag-waving, jingoistic embarrassment that lies at the centre of the last night of the Proms, nor to hear the shaven-headed hordes at The Den bawling “We all follow the Milwall, over land and sea (and Leicester)… “ Of course Elgar can’t be blamed for what happened to his tune – he came to hate and despise it – nor for being so profoundly misunderstood. But neither can he be completely divorced from it, and some people (not me, with my musical roots in Worcester) still can’t get to him because of it, that’s all.

Counterpoint

11-16-2006, 09:17 AM

I suppose then that the price of being an artist is the strong likelihood that you will be misunderstood, misquoted, misrepresented and misinterpreted. :)

In the case of Orff though, supposing his music is (as you say) "Rabble rousing". Is this the fault of Orff or is it a case of the audience misinterpreting his music?

Looking at the translations for "O Fortuna" and "Fortunae plango vulnera" (the first two songs) the text describes how powerless we are against fate and luck. Power and poverty are meaningless to luck, which can reverse either of them without effort. A nation could rise to power and then fall to ruin because of rotten luck. Do you think this is a message that the nazis would really have wanted to convey if they'd truly understood the meaning? Perhaps this is one reason for some of them wanting to ban it along with the other "degenerate art"..?

I would still disagree about the "second-rank composer" claim though. I would accept and respect that this is your own (and others') opinion, but please don't just brand him as such as if it were a universally accepted fact. Maybe a sequence of notes seems 'innane' to you, but for someone else they might be brilliant.

Doesn't it take some degree of skill or talent to create a musical work that is memorable and that can make such an impression on people? Yes, there are other composers who did this more consistently than Orff, and I would agree that Carmina Burana was Orff's "one hit" but being a one-hit composer is still an accomplishment, especially considering that most composers don't even have that...!

Take "O Fortuna" as an example again. What can be said about the music, given the subject matter of the text? It is ominous and powerful sounding. When I listen to it, I get the impression of helplessness against an overwhelming force (fate). Again, Orff can't be credited for the words and the subject matter since he didn't write those. In my opinion, he did a fantastic job of setting the mood and context for them. I would, however, concede that we certainly can blame him for his choice of source material.

If he is truly second rank then why is this work quoted, used and imitated by so many other composers who came after him? Wouldn't they be the second-rank composers?

Interesting example with Elgar, another favourite composer of mine. I wonder why it is that the people who are the "criticized subject matter" of the music are frequently the ones who end up adopting the music for their own purposes?

- Matt

Peterkjones

11-17-2006, 03:26 AM

Well, yes, exactly so, Matt. The problem is that whenever we create a piece of art (music) we also create a hostage to fortune (O Fortuna!) and that is why I feel we also have to be vigilant and, if necessary, self-selective and not shelter behind “Oh well, it’s only music,” or “but it’s art.” And, you know, I’m too much of a performer ever really to blame audiences. After all, you’re a punter, you pays yer money, you buys yer ticket, and yer waves yer flag. ‘s OK. There’s nearly always someone else with the responsibility and it might well be the artist, some of whose motives are decidedly not pure. Because it works the other way too. Just because the gay bruvvas at Queer Nation in London are dancing to the tracks of Buju Banton and Vybes Kartel (strictly ironically, of course) that doesn’t make their scabrous lyrics any more acceptable. The dance halls of Kingston, Jamaica may be jumping but there’s blood on the streets. I just feel that there has to be an ethical dimension to what we do. I absolutely accept that it’s a matter of opinion, you rate Orff, I don’t – fine. The problem for us is, who’s to tell? There can only be subjective judgements. We make something, we offer it to the public and then we must give them the right to say “it’s shite,” painful though that may be. Or for them to pick it up and abuse it. If not, then do something else. If the 7.15 train I’m driving to Birmingham is due to arrive at 8.47, I can tell if I’ve done a good job and got it right merely by looking at the clock at New Street Station (and arguably that’s a more useful thing to get right than making a piece of art). But we are notoriously at the mercy of taste, events, luck, other people’s obduracy and heaven knows what else, and these can often be the arbiters. When I was a young man nobody’d ever heard of Vivaldi – now every elevator in every world hotel, and every call centre stand-by is flooded with the Four Seasons, to the extent that I can’t listen to it any more. I used to hate Tchaikovsky, now I think he’s extraordinary. So where does making a work of art or having an opinion shade off into taking responsibility for it? As composers, do we have no obligations other than the music? I’m not sure. Nice talking to you.

nickysnd

11-17-2006, 05:23 AM

As composers, do we have no obligations other than the music?
Of course not. The lyricists may have, but composers' job is to do the best music they are able to, accordingly to a certain audience. That's all. Isn't that hard enough? Social predictions on what may happen? But what am I supposed to be, a wizzard with a crystal ball? :) Come what may, I won't worry about what's out of my control.

And no, I don't think Orff is guilty for Hitler liking his music. And I don't think that Wagner's stupid words on Jews justify banning his music in Israel, I think that's equally stupid at least. Especially instrumental music is a pure world, appart from human prejudices. Music should unite people, not divide.