"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
D'yer reckon the producer's just got himself a new boom camera? It's all rather swoopy to watch - very distracting.
Jeeze, what's the rush?
I agree skipweasel, that was horrible editing. Just as my eyes focused the frame would change. All that zooming and panning. Are they afraid we will get bored?
This compares with the original version like a summer squall compares with a lazy summer afternoon.
"Don't bore us, get to the chorus!"
Loved every minute of it. I fail to see the point in playing a piece of music the same way it has been played thousands of times before. Music should evolve and change to suit the artist. Sure, he plays it fast. He plays it at the exact tempo at which that piece means the most to him. If you want the original tempo and arrangement there are hundreds of recordings for you to choose from."The beat, the tempo, must not be a controlling tyrant nor a mechanical driving hammer. It should be to a piece of music what the pulse beat is to the life of a man" - Ludwig Van Beethoven
@Neil:- Oh, I'm quite with you about the music - there's lots of fun to be had playing old tunes in new ways. I find much music played far too fast; it often benefits from a slower treatment. Take Moyet's version of the (originally brisk) Windmills of your Mind.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iP0q1xIkB4which lasts not far off twice as long as the original and is so splendidly slithery and silky and slow.No - it was the video editing that drove me to quit after a few moments - as it happens I had the speakers turned off when I first clicked play. To give it a fair crack, I did go back and try again, I could listen to it OK (though I don't particularly like the treatment) but I just couldn't watch.