Aubrey Longley-Cook, this animation is just fantastic, I love that it’s the reverse side of the embroideries that this is made from. The time it must have taken to make each individual piece is breath taking.
Clair de Lune, visualized.
(Directly linked instead of reblogging - see source link - so I can link the better version. Do have a look at musanim’s other visualizations as well.)
Interesting. I watched this as well as the Toccata and Fugue - I found this one much harder to follow, somehow. (I played Clair de Lune back in the day - it was my piano recital piece one year, I think - and although I even took organ lessons for a short while, I never attempted the Bach. I suspect it’s more advanced, as organ pieces go.) I think the difference may be that this one is somewhat more condensed time-wise - everything is more crowded together. It would be easier to “read” if it was more strung-out, as the Bach piece is. But I enjoyed watching them - the format gives some cues that a score wouldn’t, but is missing some other ones, if you’re used to reading scores. I imagine that for most people, who are (presumably) not used to reading scores, this is easier to follow.
This person’s performances are quite good, although I had some minor gripes about the tempo on the Debussy piece - of course it’s the one I know better, and thus have more opinions about. The Toccata and Fugue sounded pretty much like every other Toccata and Fugue I have heard, as far as I can recall!
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a film I’m always tempted to write about as an adjunct to my James Bond writing. The film is the unholy offspring of a lot of people who were noted for much better work in other places (Albert Broccoli, Roald Dahl, the Sherman Brothers) - a messy collision at best. That it was considered a success probably has a lot to do with the landscape for children’s films in 1968. It is certainly not because of any actual quality. It’s not so much the actively bad parts, which are few; it’s that most of the film is indifferent, tedious. The one thing a children’s film can never be is boring, and this film frequently is.
Here’s the only scene that I ever end up rewatching these days, probably because every new generation of ASFR fetishists rediscovers it and thinks no one else has ever seen it. That said, pretending to be a windup doll is definitely playing to Sally Howes’ strengths - it’s probably the most natural she is in the whole film.
And look - it’s Anna Quayle! It’s Gert Frobe! It’s … my god, is that Benny Hill? It’s always fascinating to see talented character actors get utterly lost in muck like this.
I don’t recall that it WAS considered a success at the time - I think it was correctly considered to be a big expensive (for the time) flop. We went to see it and loved it - bear in mind that I would have been eight - but as you say, there just wasn’t much competition.
I’m not at all sure what is going on here, but I don’t care.
I don’t know either, but it’s adorable. Plus bonus wacky rendition of a Beatles song in the background.
Well, The Rhumboogie is already aggregating. If I insert a picture of some art they have chosen to feature on their site, it seems to me like some useful information gets lost somewhere, doesn’t it? Better to have you follow the chain - first my comment, then Rhumboogie’s comment, then the original. The reverse of the order in which the history was accreted.
I realize not everybody agrees, so I’ll strive to do it the other way sometimes too.
Anyway. The Rhumboogie. Interesting findings. Check them out.
Despite the fact that I’ve had Tumblr longer than you have, I’m confused about how this works - I guess because I haven’t done much commenting up to now. The Rhumboogie? If you say so….
