Silent films composers incorrect entries.

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • In Progress
  • (Edited)
I have noticed on several silent films composers incorrectly credited.

The General:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017925/
Carl Davis did not compose the music for this film. He composed music for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_(1980_TV_series)
Which featured the film 'The General'.

This entry is incorrect and should be deleted.

There are several anomalies on silent films. These entries should be more fully scrutinized before being allowed onto the database. There should be a linked re-release of the film attached to the composers work before being eligible to be included.
I am surprised these entries have been allowed on the database.
Photo of Simon Yaw

Simon Yaw

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 3 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Andy Gladbach

Andy Gladbach

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Carl Davis did compose for the Hollywood series, which did feature clips from The General, but he also wrote a score a few years later to the film itself. This entry is accurate.
Photo of Simon Yaw

Simon Yaw

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes he did compose for the Hollywood series that is what I said.
He also as far as I am aware wrote a score that was sold on CD.
However he did not compose a score for another alternate version of the film 'The General'. 
He should therefore be credited for 'The Hollywood Series' and not 'The General'.
If he did compose for an alternate version of 'The General' can you tell me where the film was shown and the time and date .
Photo of Andy Gladbach

Andy Gladbach

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
He did compose a score for a version of the film 'The General'. Carl Davis is a very well-known silent film composer and The General is one of his most well-known scores. It was written in 1987 (you can see in the first link that it premiered in London) and was released on VHS by HBO Video and later on DVD by Kino.

http://www.photoplay.co.uk/thames.html
http://www.worldcat.org/title/general/oclc/20653107
https://www.amazon.com/General-Ultimate-Two-Disc-Buster-Keaton/dp/B001E18222
Photo of Simon Yaw

Simon Yaw

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Incorrect credit on silent film.

This is not correct and should be deleted.

Scott Joplin did not compose any music for 'The General (1926)'
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017925/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast


I think it could be this short film but are unsure.
http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi989436953
Photo of Andy Gladbach

Andy Gladbach

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
It is true that Scott Joplin didn't compose music specifically for The General - he was dead - but I wouldn't be surprised if his music was used with some release of the film (which is why he's credited under "Music Department" and not "Music by"). Sorry to keep shooting you down, but at some point these credits were verified when they were submitted, so I don't know how you can say it's definitively incorrect.
Photo of Col Needham

Col Needham, Official Rep

  • 6834 Posts
  • 4826 Reply Likes
As with a recent similar case (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/re-scoring-a-movie-how-to-add-it-on-imdb), our policies and procedures are not as clear as they should be here so there's a policy ticket open at the moment. 
Photo of Simon Yaw

Simon Yaw

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Thank you Col Needham. Yes this is indeed very confusing with composers and sound editors being credited on Silent Films.
Surely if there is a new version of the 'silent film' film produced with sound there should be another title for it with the year. And not just have composers put their name on the original silent film.
After all 'Silent' means no sound.
(Edited)
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1640 Posts
  • 2098 Reply Likes
I don't agree with this. Maybe I misunderstood, but are you saying that there should be another entry for e.g. "The General" (in IMDB) basically just because it has been released with a new score at some point? Or some older score has been re-recorded with another composer?

I mean this happens all the time and films like "Metropolis" have been re-released many times - and sometimes with a new score. "Silent film" usually refers to spoken dialogue/words/sound effects/etc. Music has always been part of the "silent films" in one way or another. There have been live orchestras, one musician playing the piano in the movie theatre, etc etc. And yes, new scores - or re-recorded scores - for the movie.

I would say that of course IMDB should list also the new scores/re-recorded scores and the "new" composers behind them. At least if the new score is "officially" released in the movie theatres or in DVD/Blu-ray/etc. If the "new" score is officially released, it's one of the "official scores" of the movie. One time live events ("Metallica plays Metropolis" or something like that) are another matter.
Photo of Simon Yaw

Simon Yaw

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Silent films were shown at first with no music, then later accompanied by an organist in the cinema where it was playing. In other words the film was 'silent'.

Let's say the original  silent film is 1920, and the new film is re-released 1980  with a musical score then yes it is a new film and should have a new title and year.  It's not a 'silent film' any longer and is totally different film from the original.
It's not just remastered but is a different film.
Photo of Andy Gladbach

Andy Gladbach

  • 12 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Thanks Col, but I'm not sure what a "policy ticket" is - is that something that we can see and contribute our thoughts to?

I brought up this issue in another post here (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/silent-film-composers). I think the usual method of crediting silent film composers - by using the year as an attribution, as GMJ suggests here (https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/re-scoring-a-movie-how-to-add-it-on-imdb) has worked very well, so I see no reason to change it.

The only way it could potentially be made clearer is if there was a title page within the title page for new releases. That way, the original page would be the hub people go to find universal information for every release of the film, and additional credits for new releases could be organized by their year of release. But it's not that unclear the way it is now anyway.

I think splitting the information for new releases of the same film into multiple title pages would be inappropriate and make it difficult for users to find what they're looking for. The soundtrack might provide the audience with a different experience (though by 1920, silent films would never have been shown without an accompaniment - the only difference is that we can record and synchronize the music with the movie nowadays) but the footage and the cast and crew are the same. It's a new version of the same movie. Take a look at the credits for Star Wars (imdb.com/title/tt0076759/fullcredits). There are a hundred people credited for the re-release in 1997.

Which leads me to reiterate, once again, that IMDb does this all the time and there's no reason to change it or begin rejecting these credits.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1640 Posts
  • 2098 Reply Likes
Let's say the original  silent film is 1920, and the new film is re-released 1980  with a musical score then yes it is a new film and should have a new title and year.  
Sorry, but I'm 99% sure that this won't happen in IMDB. They won't create multiple entries for silent films just because they have new/re-recorded musical scores. And like I said, music has always been part of the silent films. Whether you like or not, or whether you agree with this fact or not.

That would also open a huge can of worms, since there are often different versions ("Director's Cut", "Unrated", "Extended version", "TV version", etc etc) of various films. There are e.g. 4-5 versions of Blade Runner alone, so no, IMDB can't make 5 different entries of Blade Runner to the database even if they're all a bit "different". And Andy already mentioned e.g. the original Star Wars trilogy. Common sense is often a good tool.

However, IMDB should set some guidelines when to add (new/re-recorded) musical scores to the IMDB and how to layout them. To me the current system (not sure if there's one officially, but anyway) where the year of the score is visible is actually pretty informative. Silent films have always been re-released with new/re-recorded scores and that won't change in any time soon.

Thanks Col, but I'm not sure what a "policy ticket" is - is that something that we can see and contribute our thoughts to?
As far as I know, it means that the "core" team of IMDB will set the "guidelines" for the issue and then (e.g.) data editors (which usually approve or disapprove the submitted credits/info) will follow those guidelines.
(Edited)